St. Johns County v. DCA & 1000 Friends, 5^th DCA Case No. 5D01-3413, opinion filed Dec. 27, 2002; rehearing denied Feb. 3, 2003.   

     The Fifth District quashed a declaratory statement of the Department which stated that large water and sewer lines that are extensions of the County's water and sewer system, and for which the County has agreed to reimburse the developer for the costs of construction, are "public facilities" and "capital improvements" that are required to be shown in the capital improvements element of the local comprehensive plan.  The Fifth District held that all such water and sewer lines, as well as road improvements, constructed within existing rights of way are exempt from the Growth Management Act.  The Department has filed a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

O’Connell, et al. v. DCA and Martin County, DOAH Case No. 01-4826GM, DCA Final Order No. DCA02-GM-340.

     This case involves changes to the County’s optional Economic Development Element and to two Future Land Use Map designations that would allow additional commercial development.  The main issue centered around the methodology used by the County to determine its commercial lands need.  The revised methodology resulted in a calculated deficit of commercially designated lands, in contrast to the small surplus of such lands under the previous methodology.  The Final Order adopted the ALJ’s recommendation to approve the County’s commercial lands need methodology and find the amendments “in compliance.”  The Petitioners have appealed the final order in the Fourth District Court of Appeal,  4^th DCA No. 4D03-380.

Parker v. St. Johns County and Estuaries Property, DOAH Case No. 02-2658, DCA Final Order No. DCA03-GM-012.

     At issue in this small scale amendment case was a Future Land Use Map change for a 9.99 acre parcel located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).  The amendment would allow an increase in residential density from a range between .4 to 1 unit per acre to a range between 4 to 8 units per acre.  The ALJ’s recommended order and the Department’s final order found the amendment to be found “in compliance.”

     In concluding that the amendment qualified to use the small scale procedure, the ALJ rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the property’s pro rata share of off-site utilities should be added to the parcel’s size for purposes of determining whether the amendment “involves a use of 10 acres or fewer.”  The Department agreed with this ruling and added that the focus of the amendment should be limited to the property that is the subject of the FLUM change.    

     In evaluating the Petitioner’s claim that the amendment was internally inconsistent with a plan policy that prohibited increasing residential density with in the CHHA, the ALJ found that he was legally bound to accept a circuit judge’s approval of a settlement agreement that established vested rights for the property owner, which allowed more residential development than the FLUM previously allowed.  Exceptions to this legal conclusion were rejected by the Department as they involved a legal interpretation outside of the Department’s substantive jurisdiction.  Site specific data and analysis compiled for purposes of development approval was accepted by the ALJ and the Department as support data and analysis for the amendment.   The time to file an appeal has not expired.