Angelo's Aggregate Materials, Ltd. v. Pasco County
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12643
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Angelo’s Aggregate applied for a conditional use permit to build a landfill under Pasco County’s then-applicable comprehensive plan and A-C zoning, which required only a conditional use permit for such a landfill.
- County staff later advised that a comprehensive plan future land use map amendment to P/SP would be required, and the Board unanimously adopted the change; the County put Angelo’s permit application on hold pending that land-use change.
- Angelo’s had expended time and resources pursuing county and state permits and sued in circuit court for declaratory relief, asserting vested rights/equitable estoppel and challenging portions of the Land Development Code (LDC) as unconstitutional.
- The circuit court dismissed Count One for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under a Pasco County ordinance and dismissed Count Two (constitutional challenge) for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Second District reversed, holding the complaint facially sufficient for declaratory relief and that the county ordinance’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to declaratory actions under chapter 86.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Angelo’s complaint stated a justiciable claim for declaratory relief | Angelo’s: there is a bona fide present controversy about vested rights and need for a declaration under chapter 86 | County: procedural defects and administrative remedies bars prosecution in court | Held: Complaint facially sufficient; declaratory relief appropriate to resolve vested-rights dispute |
| Whether the county LDC’s exhaustion requirement bars a circuit court declaratory action | Angelo’s: the ordinance cannot preclude chapter 86 declaratory actions in circuit court | County: ordinance requires exhaustion before suing, so court lacked jurisdiction | Held: Ordinance construed not to apply to declaratory relief; circuit court jurisdiction under chapter 86 controls |
| Whether the ordinance conflicts with general law by divesting circuit court jurisdiction over equity/declaratory actions | Angelo’s: ordinance conflicts with general law and article V jurisdiction; therefore unconstitutional as applied | County: ordinance is a valid administrative prerequisite and preserves local process | Held: To avoid conflict with general law and constitutional jurisdiction, ordinance cannot be read to bar declaratory relief; applying it to do so would be unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Bay Colony Prop. Owners Ass’n, 12 So.3d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (standard for dismissal of declaratory judgment complaint)
- Smith v. City of Fort Myers, 898 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (requirements for justiciable controversy under chapter 86)
- Bell v. Associated Indeps., Inc., 143 So.2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (elements of a declaratory judgment claim)
- Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 24 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1946) (broad remedial purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act)
- Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of N. Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1973) (ordinance/statute construction and plain-meaning rules)
- Rose v. Town of Hillsboro Beach, 216 So.2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (statutory/ordinance construction principles)
- Dep’t of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2005) (construe local enactments to avoid conflict with general law)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 97 So.3d 204 (Fla. 2012) (ordinances conflicting with general law/unconstitutionality)
- Dep’t of Revenue v. Univ. Square, Inc., 336 So.2d 371 (Fla.) (circuit court jurisdiction over declaratory actions challenging local assessments)