Seven years later, major development lawsuit resolved in SW Marion County
Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect that the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.
A judge has ruled in Marion County government's favor in a long-running development lawsuit.
AZ Ocala Ranch LLC and Marion Mitigation LLC sued in 2017 after the Marion County Commission denied a zoning change and land-use designation change that would have cleared the way for Ocala Ranch, a large-scale development in southwest Marion, south and east of State Road 200 near the Withlacoochee River.
Last month, Circuit Judge Gary Sanders granted the county's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs on June 18 announced they will appeal the ruling.
Ocala Ranch would have featured 5,891 residential dwelling units. That's a combination of single-family homes, multifamily units, independent living and assisted living, according to a summary included in the judge's written order. The development also would have included two golf courses and a village center.
The county commission denied the developer's request to change the land-use designation from Rural Land to Rural Community and the zoning from Agriculture to Planned Urban Development. County staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval of these changes, but the county commission found that the development was not in the public interest and not compatible with surrounding land uses.
The developer sued, arguing that the rezoning application was consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and should have been granted. It also sought more than $20 million in damages, saying the land lost value as a result of the county's action.
AZ Ocala argued that an application actually wasn't even needed to switch the land-use designation from Rural Land to Rural Community. The judge disagreed.
He likewise disagreed with the developer's argument that the county commission's decision was arbitrary, capricious and not fairly debatable. Among other things, the judge cited residents' worries about the effect on the local water supply, wildlife and overall environment, and their concerns that the development would change the rural character of that part of Marion County.
"Elected officials determine policies for their communities, and citizen input is an important part of the process," Sanders wrote in his order.
County staff also provided relevant information, including the development profile of that part of the county (110,000 housing units already available) and the state's plans for SR 200.
The judge noted that he was not ruling on whether the county commission's decision was right or wrong. He found only that, in keeping with legal precedent, the decision can be supported "for any reason open to dispute or controversy that make sense or points to a logical deduction."
He later wrote: "There can be no genuine dispute the denial does not have some logical and rational connection to legitimate general welfare concerns over the environment, growth, fire and sheriff services, and costs to taxpayers."
The judge noted that the property's land-use designation at the time of the county commission's zoning decision was Rural Land. The commission's decision to reject the rezoning application thus was consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The developer, pursuant to the state's Bert Harris Act, said it is entitled to more than $20 million in damages because the land now cannot be developed to its full market potential.
But Marion County assigned the land-use and zoning designations for this land in April 1994, and the Harris Act only applies when a government's decision was made after May 1995. The judge denied the developer's claim.
In addition to the date issue, which resolved that part of the complaint, the judge also had this to say:
"The Harris Act provides relief when government passes a law which unfairly reduces the value of private property," Sanders wrote. "The failure to increase the value is not the same as reducing the value by a restrictive regulation. The denial left the property entitlements exactly as they were."
This article originally appeared on Ocala Star-Banner: Which party prevailed in long-running SW Marion development lawsuit?