Laserfiche WebLink
conceptual site plan had not been approved by any governmental authorities, the trial court <br /> should have precluded its use at trial. <br /> The Third District Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in City Nat'l Bank of <br /> Florida v. Dade County, 715 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). There, the Third District held that <br /> the trial court properly granted a motion in limine excluding. a property owner's conceptual site <br /> plan where the owner never submitted the site plan to the county for approval. Id. at 352-53. <br /> The court noted that "the owner's development plans had never proceeded to the point that the <br /> owner was prepared to commit itself to any particular site plan," and therefore, it was proper to <br /> exclude such speculative testimony regarding. the owner's intentions to follow through with such <br /> development. Id. at 352. "Since the owner's purpose in offering the conceptual site plan into <br /> evidence was to support the owner's claim for severance damages, the order in limine was <br /> properly entered." Id. at 353; see also State Dep't of Transp. v. Target Corp., 937 So. 2d 703, <br /> 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (concluding that property owner could not introduce evidence of <br /> expansion and future building plans that were not included in the site plans initially approved by <br /> the city; explaining that "kin determining a reasonably probable loss as opposed to a speculative <br /> loss, the property owner must show affirmative steps undertaken to make future plans a reality"). <br /> Similarly, here, Respondent had never submitted the conceptual site plan to the City of <br /> Sunny Isles Beach for approval. Moreover, Mr. Tucker, during. the video-deposition that was <br /> played at trial, admitted that he had taken no affirmative steps to develop the property. Trial T. <br /> 480-82 (Mr. Tucker admitting that no site plans had been submitted to any governmental entity, <br /> and that no agreements or negotiations with Winston Tower Condominium property owners had <br /> been entered into), id. at 484 (Mr. Tucker admitting that no engineers had been hired for any <br /> work relating to the property). Thus, the conceptual site plan here should not have been <br /> 13 <br />