VANDERBILT SHORES CONDO. v. Collier County

District Court of Appeal of Florida
2004 WL 3025008, 891 So. 2d 583 (2004)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A party challenging a zoning decision or the issuance of a building permit is required to exhaust all available administrative remedies provided by local ordinances before seeking judicial review in the court system.

Facts:

Aquaport LLC and Conotel LLC proposed a construction project for a fifteen-unit condominium designed in the shape of an inverted 'T', featuring a lower tier roughly thirty feet high and a middle column roughly ninety-five feet high.
Collier County approved the site development plan and issued a building permit to the developers in November 2001.
The design included side yard setbacks extending approximately thirty feet from the exterior walls of the lower tier, meaning the upper tier was set back relative to the lower tier's roof.
The County's Land Development Code defined a 'yard' as open space unobstructed from the ground to the sky.
Neighboring condominium associations disputed the permit, arguing that the setbacks violated the code because the space next to the upper tier was occupied by the lower tier's structure and thus not open to the sky.
The County maintained an interpretation that setbacks were measured from the exterior wall of each specific tier.
The construction of the condominium project was fully completed.

Procedural Posture:

The Associations filed a lawsuit for declaratory relief and mandamus in the Circuit Court (trial court) challenging the building permit.
The Circuit Court dismissed the Associations' lawsuit, ruling they failed to exhaust administrative remedies and deferring to the County's code interpretation.
The Associations appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

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 the failure of condominium associations to utilize established administrative appeal procedures regarding a disputed building permit bar them from seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in court?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Northcutt

Yes, the associations are barred from judicial relief because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court acknowledged that the associations were likely correct on the substantive law: the County's interpretation of the setback rules was 'clearly erroneous' because a side yard must be open to the sky, and the lower tier's roof obstructed the upper tier's required yard. However, the court held that the correctness of the interpretation was secondary to the procedural failure. The local code provided a specific mechanism to appeal interpretation decisions to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Because the associations skipped this administrative step and went straight to court—and because the building was completed without them seeking a temporary injunction—their action was barred rather than merely dismissed as premature.

Analysis:

This case underscores the critical importance of the 'exhaustion of administrative remedies' doctrine in land use litigation. It demonstrates that a plaintiff can be substantively correct on the law (as the court strongly implied the County violated its own code regarding 'wedding cake' style buildings) yet still lose the case on procedural grounds. The decision emphasizes that courts defer to local administrative boards to correct errors and adjust zoning inequalities before the judiciary intervenes. Furthermore, the case highlights the danger of allowing a project to reach completion during a dispute; usually, failure to exhaust remedies results in a dismissal that allows the plaintiff to go back and fix the procedural error, but because the building was finished, the opportunity for relief was permanently lost.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: VANDERBILT SHORES CONDO. v. Collier County (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"