Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel
795 So. 2d 191, 2001 WL 1130885 (2001)
Rule of Law:
A trial court has the authority to order the complete demolition and removal of buildings constructed in violation of a county's comprehensive land use plan, especially when the developer proceeded with construction despite pending litigation challenging the project's consistency. The statutory remedy of injunctive relief under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, is a mandatory means to enforce compliance with comprehensive plans and is not subject to traditional equitable balancing of harms.
Facts:
- Around twenty years ago, Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. (developer) purchased a 500-acre parcel in Martin County for phased development, governed by the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
- Phases One through Nine were developed as low-density single-family homes (e.g., 0.94 units per acre), and Karen Shidel owned a residence in adjoining Phase One since 1986.
- Phase Ten, a 21-acre parcel directly adjacent to Phase One, was designated "Medium Density Residential" by the Comprehensive Plan (max 8 units per acre).
- After initial proposals for different schemes, in 1995, the developer sought and received approval from the County Commission for a Development Order to construct 136 units in two-story apartment buildings in Phase Ten, despite objections from Shidel and other residents.
- While a civil action brought by Shidel and others challenging the Development Order's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was pending appeal, the developer commenced construction of Buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in Phase Ten.
- When construction was just beginning, Shidel sent written notice to the developer of her intent to seek demolition and removal of any construction if she prevailed in court.
- Despite the ongoing litigation and subsequent remand for a de novo trial, the developer continued building, with Buildings 11 and 12 receiving certificates of occupancy and residents moving in.
- At the time of the final trial court judgment, five eight-unit apartment buildings were constructed (Buildings 8-12), with two fully occupied, one completed and awaiting final inspection, and two partially completed.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Shidel, Charles Brooks, and Homeowners Associations for Phases One through Nine filed a verified complaint with the Martin County Commission, challenging the consistency of the Development Order for Phase Ten with the Comprehensive Plan and requesting its rescission.
- After a hearing, the Martin County Commission confirmed its previous decision to issue the Development Order.
- Shidel and Brooks filed a civil action in the Circuit Court (trial court) against Martin County, alleging the Development Order was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the developer intervened.
- The trial court, basing its decision solely on a review of the record created before the County Commission, found the Development Order consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and entered final judgment in favor of the developer.
- Shidel and Brooks (appellants) appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, which reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Section 163.3215 required de novo consideration of the consistency issue in the trial court (Poulos v. Martin County, 700 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).
- The case was remanded to the Circuit Court (trial court) for a de novo trial on the consistency issue and for any appropriate relief.
- On remand, the trial court first entered a partial judgment finding that the Development Order was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and then proceeded to a remedies phase.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have the authority to order the complete demolition and removal of multi-story buildings that were constructed in defiance of a pending legal challenge and subsequently found to be inconsistent with a county's comprehensive land use plan, without balancing the developer's financial loss against the plaintiff's damages?
Opinions:
Majority - FARMER, J.
Yes, a trial court has the authority to order the complete demolition and removal of multi-story buildings found to be inconsistent with a county's comprehensive land use plan, and the statutory remedy of injunctive relief under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, is not subject to traditional equitable balancing. The court rejected the developer's argument that the trial court should have deferred to the County Commission's interpretation of its own Comprehensive Plan. The court emphasized that Section 163.3215, enacted as part of the Growth Management Act of 1985, explicitly creates a cause of action for aggrieved parties to seek injunctive relief when a development order is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. This statute mandates "strict scrutiny" for judicial review of consistency, explicitly rejecting the "fairly debatable" standard typically applied to legislative zoning decisions, as established in Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder. The legislative history of growth management in Florida—from the ineffectual 1975 Act to the 1985 Act's intent to strengthen citizen standing and ensure mandatory compliance—supports a non-deferential judicial review. The trial court's findings that Phase Ten's multi-story, multi-family buildings with 6.5 UPA were not compatible or of comparable density with Phase One's single-family homes (0.94 UPA) and violated the Comprehensive Plan's "tiering policy" were supported by substantial competent evidence. Regarding the remedy of demolition, the court found that when the Legislature provides for an injunction as a remedy for a statutory violation, it has the power to define the scope of that remedy, overriding traditional equitable considerations. Section 163.3215 allows for "injunctive or other relief" to prevent inconsistent development and does not require a party to prove irreparable harm or lack of an adequate remedy at law, nor does it mandate balancing the equities. The court reasoned that requiring such balancing would effectively nullify the statute's purpose, as the financial loss from demolition would almost always outweigh individual property diminution. The developer proceeded with construction at its own peril, despite Shidel's notice and the pending appeal, making the claimed financial inequity self-created. The court emphasized that the true "countervailing equity" is respect for and compliance with the rule of law embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, benefiting the entire community, not just individual property owners. Citing Welton v. 40 Oak Street Building. Corp., the court affirmed that respect for law trumps any financial loss arising from illegal construction.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the enforceability of comprehensive land use plans in Florida by clarifying that courts apply "strict scrutiny" to consistency challenges under Section 163.3215, rather than deferring to local government interpretations. It establishes a powerful precedent for injunctive remedies, including demolition, in cases of non-compliance, particularly when developers proceed with construction despite pending legal challenges. The decision signals that self-created financial hardship will not excuse statutory violations, acting as a strong deterrent against speculative development that disregards adopted land use policies and empowering citizens to hold local governments and developers accountable.
