The Sierra Club, Inc. & Whitmer v. Department of Community Affairs & St. Johns County, DOAH Case No. 01-1851GM, DCA Final Order No. DCA02-GM-189.

The Department adopted the ALJ’s recommendation finding four amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan “in compliance.” These amendments were designed to accommodate a development of regional impact known as “Nocatee.” The main issues raised by the Petitioners were that the amendments exacerbated urban sprawl, resulted in an over-allocation of residential land use in the County, and failed to protect natural resources.

The challenged amendments: 1) create a new future land use category designated in the County Plan as “new town;” 2) re-designated over 11,000 acres on the St. Johns County future land use map as “new town” for purposes of allowing the Nocatee development; 3) designated more than 1,600 acres of land along the Tolomato River as “conservation” for purposes of establishing the Nocatee Preserve; and 4) addressed the manner in which the developer would address future transportation impacts (commonly known as “pipelining”).

In its ruling on the exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Department affirmed certain legal conclusions it had reached in earlier final orders: while data and analysis submitted in support of a DRI Application for Development Approval may also be relevant data and analysis in support of a plan amendment, the DRI development order is not subject to review in this type of proceeding; maximum densities authorized by a plan should be used as the basis for calculating the allocation ratio, which compares development potential with projected population, as a general rule; and data may be submitted and relied on at final hearing in support of a plan amendment even if the local government did not consider that evidence at the time of the amendment’s adoption.

The Final Order has been appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Briefs have not been filed.

O’Connell, et al. v. DCA and Martin County, DOAH Case No. 01-4826GM.

At issue in this case are two future land use map amendments (FLUM), and changes to the County’s Economic Development Element. The County proposed to alter the methodology used to determine its commercial lands need. The use of this proposal would result in a calculated deficit of commercially designated lands. Under the previous methodology, the County had a small surplus of commercial lands. Petitioners challenged the amendment alleging that the methodology was flawed, and therefore the two FLUM amendments, which proposed to change certain lands to a commercial designation, were not “in compliance.” The ALJ recommended that the amendments be found “in compliance.” Exceptions to the Recommended Order have been filed and the Final Order is pending.

Sutterfields and Koshers v. DCA, City of Rockledge, and Fountain Developers, Inc., DOAH Case No. 02-1630GM, DCA Final Order No. DCA02-GM-263.

The City changed the future land use designation of a parcel of land by incorporating it into a new planning district. This change resulted in higher density on the property. Petitioners alleged that there was no need in the City for increased density; there was insufficient data and analysis to support the amendment; and the property was not suitable for increased density. The ALJ rejected those arguments and recommended that the amendment be found “in compliance.” No exceptions were filed and the Department adopted the Recommended Order in toto per the agreement of all of the parties.

Palm Beach Polo Holdings Inc. v. Village of Wellington and DCA, DOAH Case No. 02-0173.

This case involves amendments to the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements of the Village’s comprehensive plan. The amendments would create and implement a new roadway classification applicable to the Equestrian Preserve Area (“EPA”), which is established in the plan’s unique optional Equestrian Preservation Element. In order to preserve and further the equestrian and rural lifestyle within the EPA, the amendments adopt a level of service of E for the new “Rural Arterial” road classification, provide for medians, and limit those roadways to no more than two lanes, except for turn lanes.

The Petitioner argued that the amendments were internally inconsistent with two plan objectives and one goal, and were not supported by adequate data and analysis. The ALJ rejected the argument that the amendments were inconsistent with one of the plan’s objectives, noted that objectives and their related policies must be read and considered together, and found that an implementing policy already required that all roads within the EPA be no wider than two lanes and subject to a level of service standard of E. The ALJ also rejected attacks on the sufficiency of a traffic study relied upon by the Village as supporting data and analysis. In upholding the study, the ALJ found that it was a professionally accepted practice to conduct traffic studies in the middle of the week and to use a future growth rate that was based on the historical growth rate of adjacent areas when the area did not have its own growth data.

Prior to entry of the Recommended Order, the Village requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The ALJ issued a Final Order denying that request as relates to Sections 120.569(2)(e) and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes. He also issued a Recommended Order rejecting that request under Section 120.595(1)(b) and (c), and recommending that the amendments be found “in compliance.” The Village filed exceptions to the findings in the Recommended Order regarding improper purpose. The deadline for the Department’s final order is January 27, 2003.