A Miami federal jury found on Mar. 17 that the Village of Pinecrest violated a developer’s civil rights by requiring a land donation as a condition for issuing a building permit, awarding $409,000 in damages to Megladon.
The case highlights concerns about how local governments handle permitting processes and the potential impact on property owners and developers across Florida.
According to court records, Megladon purchased the property at 13100 Southwest 77th Avenue in 2016 with plans to demolish an existing home and build a new one. When Megladon applied for a permit, Pinecrest officials refused unless the developer agreed to dedicate a 7.5-foot strip of land for public use and sign an affidavit waiving any right to challenge the requirement in court. Tim McGinn, Megladon’s attorney from Gunster law firm, said, “This is a major victory for property owners across Florida. The jury found that Pinecrest had a systemic practice of requiring land dedications as a condition for issuing permits. That’s exactly what the Civil Rights Act is designed to prevent.”
Village Attorney Mitchell Bierman and other Pinecrest representatives did not respond to requests for comment. During trial proceedings, village officials admitted they would not issue permits without such affidavits from applicants. McGinn said, “The affidavit was the hammer the village used. They wanted developers to give up part of their land up front, and at the same time sign away their ability to sue. Without that signature, Pinecrest wouldn’t let our client even break ground.”
Jurors determined that this practice was more than just an isolated zoning dispute after reviewing evidence showing it was known and tolerated by village council members—making it official policy under federal law. Previous state court rulings allowed Megladon to pursue damages under the Civil Rights Act; before trial, a federal judge had already ruled that staff imposed an unconstitutional condition on Megladon’s permit.
McGinn said this verdict could lead other municipalities in Florida to reconsider similar practices: “This gives developers — especially small ones — a real tool to push back when cities overreach… If a municipality is holding up your project unless you give up land or some other unjust concession, you can now point to this case and demand accountability.” He also clarified that builders are still subject to legitimate requirements related to construction impacts but emphasized limits on unrelated concessions: “This was never about avoiding reasonable obligations… It’s about stopping local governments from turning routine permitting into a land grab.”
