A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) on exactions.
More precisely, what is an "exaction."
In Murphy Auto Group, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Transportation, No. 2d19-1236 (Nov. 20, 2020), the court held that the requirements of Nollan/Dolan (nexus and rough proportionality) apply when the DOT demanded the owner spend money to improve government-owned land as a condition of granting a permit to develop the owner's own land.
Initially, the DOT demanded that the owner dedicate a strip of land as a condition of the DOT's grant of a drainage and driveway connection permits the owner needed to develop its commercially-zoned property (DOT controlled access to the adjacent highway). The owner declined to make the dedication, and in a counter-proposal, the DOT "required that Murphy, at its sole expense, reconstruct the drainage collection system as a condition for approval of the drainage connection permit. Murphy dedicated the drainage easement, expanded the pond, constructed the turn lanes, and reconstructed the drainage collection system. The reconstruction cost Murphy over $650,000." Slip op. at 3.
Inverse condemnation lawsuit followed, because "the drainage improvements exacted by FDOT constituted a taking because they were not roughly proportional to the project's drainage impacts." Slip op. at3 (footnote omitted). The trial court granted the DOT summary judgment, concluding that when it made the demand, the DOT was not acting in its "proprietary, as opposed to regulatory" capacity because the exaction did not require a donation of real property. Sovereign immunity thus barred the claim.
Applying Koontz, the court of appeal disagreed:
In this case, as in Koontz, the government first proposed that the landowner dedicate a portion of its property in order to obtain a permit. When the landowner refused, the government demanded that the landowner spend money to improve government-owned land as a condition of permit approval in the course of the owner's development of its own land. FDOT's demand that Murphy spend money to reconstruct FDOT's drainage collection system operated upon Murphy's interest in its commercial property "by directing the owner of a particular piece of property to make a monetary payment." Id. at 613. This is a land use exaction because it burdened Murphy’s right to develop its commercial property by providing access to and from the dealership.
FDOT argues that its exaction of improvements to its drainage collection system merely involved a proprietary determination of whether to provide access to its roadway facilities. We cannot agree. FDOT's position involved permitting decisions made in connection with its regulation of a landowner’s right of access to the State Highway System. See § 335.181, Fla. Stat. (2012). Thus, the trial court was required to apply the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to determine whether there was an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the monetary exactions and the effects of Murphy's development project.
Slip op. at 7-8 (footnote omitted).
Reversed, and remanded for a determination of whether the exaction was roughly proportional.
Murphy Auto Group, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Transportation, No. 2D19-1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2020)
