## Facts

- Coy A. Koontz, Sr. owned mostly undeveloped Florida land that included regulated wetlands.
- To develop part of the property, Koontz sought permits from the St. Johns River Water Management District, which required mitigation to offset wetland impacts.
- Koontz offered mitigation by granting a conservation easement over nearly 75% of his parcel.
- The District rejected the offer and stated it would approve only if Koontz either reduced development and granted a larger easement, or paid for off-site wetland improvements on District-owned land.
- Koontz refused the proposed conditions, and the District denied the permit applications.
- Koontz sued under a Florida statute authorizing monetary relief for an unreasonable exercise of police power constituting a taking without just compensation.
- Florida courts ultimately held Nollan/Dolan inapplicable because the permit was denied and because the demand was monetary; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Nollan/Dolan “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements apply when a permit is denied because the applicant refuses the government’s proposed conditions.
2. Whether Nollan/Dolan apply to a permitting condition requiring payment of money or funding of off-site mitigation work, rather than dedication of an interest in real property.

## Decision

- The Court reversed and remanded.
- Nollan/Dolan apply when the government denies a permit because the applicant refuses to accept an alleged exaction.
- Nollan/Dolan can apply to monetary exactions in the permitting context when the demand is tied to a specific, identifiable property interest, not a generally applicable tax or fee.
- The Court relied on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine: the government may not condition a discretionary benefit on surrender of a constitutional right without the required nexus and proportionality.
- The Court rejected distinctions that would allow evasion of scrutiny by (a) denying permits instead of issuing them with conditions or (b) recasting exactions as monetary obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Government may not condition land-use permit approval on surrender of property rights unless there is an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the condition and the proposed development’s impacts.
- The constitutional concern is the government’s demand in the permitting process; heightened review is not avoided by denying the permit after the applicant refuses the condition.
- Site-specific, adjudicative monetary exactions connected to a particular parcel may trigger Nollan/Dolan scrutiny.
- Generally applicable taxes, user fees, and similar charges are not treated as takings exactions under this framework.

## Conclusion

The Court held that heightened takings scrutiny for land-use exactions extends to permit denials and to certain parcel-linked monetary conditions, preventing governments from coercing concessions through individualized permitting demands without the required nexus and proportionality.


Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013)