Court Opinion

ID: 9927219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 16:01:36.746366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:05.381885
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13958   Document: 38-1    Date Filed: 01/26/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13958
                         ____________________

       MIKE BORDELON,
       BREEZY SHORES, LLC,
                                                  Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
       versus
       BALDWIN COUNTY, AL,
       BALDWIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR,

                                               Defendants-Appellants,

       BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 4 PLANNING
       AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, et al.,

                                                          Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 22-13958        Document: 38-1         Date Filed: 01/26/2024        Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-13958

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Alabama
                        D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00057-C
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This case concerns a zoning dispute between Baldwin
       County’s zoning leadership and Mike Bordelon, a property owner
       within the county. Baldwin County’s Zoning Department prohib-
       ited Plaintiffs-Appellees Mike Bordelon and Breezy Shores, LLC
       (collectively, Plaintiffs) from constructing a three-story duplex as
       originally permitted. After the local Board of Adjustment denied
       Plaintiffs’ request for a variance, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
       the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, which was removed to the
       Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. Relevant to this
       appeal, Plaintiffs challenged the zoning decision pursuant to Ala-
       bama’s vested rights jurisprudence and the Fifth Amendment of
       the U.S. Constitution. The district court 1 granted Plaintiffs’ request
       for a variance and concluded that (1) Baldwin County temporarily
       took Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation, (2) Plaintiffs

       1 U.S. District Judge William H. Steele referred all proceedings to and ordered

       entry of judgment with U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady in accord-
       ance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 after all
       parties consented to Judge Cassady’s jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 22-13958      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 01/26/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       22-13958               Opinion of the Court                         3

       held a vested right to construct their duplex as originally permitted,
       and (3) as a result, Baldwin County is both enjoined from prohibit-
       ing the duplex’s originally-permitted construction and ordered to
       pay $746,289.00 in just compensation.
               On appeal, Baldwin County argues that Plaintiffs lack vested
       rights under Alabama law because, among other things, the district
       court’s interpretations of the zoning ordinance contravene its plain
       language and deference is due to the County’s interpretations. Sec-
       ond, the County maintains that its acts do not amount to a tempo-
       rary regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Company v.
       City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Third, and in the alternative,
       Baldwin County contends that the district court erred in its just
       compensation calculations which resulted in an unjust windfall.
               After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
       briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible
       error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the
       district court’s reasoned decision in favor of Plaintiffs.
              AFFIRMED.