Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. & Friends of Matanzas, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs & St. Johns County, DOAH Case No. 03-2164GM, DCA Final Order No. DCA04-GM-112 (July 16, 2004)

     In 1999, St. Johns County directed its staff to initiate a study of wetlands and protection strategies. The County’s consultant concluded that a minimum 300-foot buffer was necessary to protect wetland water quality and habitat values. The County “received” this study, but did not accept its conclusions. Rather, the County adopted comprehensive plan policies that required much smaller buffers. The County also adopted a host of other planning strategies to protect wetlands. The Department published a notice of intent to find these wetland amendments “in compliance.”

     The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. and Friends of Matanzas, Inc. filed a petition for formal hearing challenging the Department’s notice. While many issues were raised, the core issues presented by the petition were whether the amendments were supported by and reacted to the best available data and analyses, and whether the County’s wetland planning framework afforded wetlands an appropriate level of protection.

     After a final hearing, Administrative Law Judge Donald Alexander entered a recommended order in favor of the Department and the County, and recommended that the amendments be found in compliance. Judge Alexander found that the consultant’s study was not professionally acceptable, and was not itself derived from the best available data. He found that the entire planning framework in the County plan protected wetlands.

     In this same recommended order, Judge Alexander also recommended that Petitioners be dismissed for lack of standing. Petitioners founded their standing on allegations that they “operated a business” in St. Johns County. Judge Alexander found that these allegations were insufficient because “neither corporation is pursuing some form of a trade, profession, vocation, or other similar endeavor.”

     The Department overturned this conclusion in its final order, and held that activities in furtherance of a declared corporate purpose could constitute the operation of a business, notwithstanding any observation that such salutory public interest activities might not be a “traditional business.” The Department adopted the Recommended Order in all other respects.

     Petitioners have appealed to the First District. Respondents did not cross-appeal the standing issue. For more information on this case, please contact Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel.


Manasota-88, Inc., Glenn Compton & Becky Ayech v. Sarasota County & Department of Community Affairs, DOAH Case No. 02-3894, DCA Final Order No. DCA04-GM-158 (August 13, 2004)

     Sarasota County has historically treated Interstate 75 as its de facto urban growth boundary. With few exceptions, the land east of I-75 has been designated low density, conservation, or agriculture. In response to increasing growth pressure for more dense and intense uses in this area and in an effort to avoid piecemeal land use changes, the County undertook a planning effort dubbed “RMA-1" or “Sarasota 2050.” The goal of this effort was to draft an overall land use plan for all land east of I-75, which would be realized over a very long-range planning horizon.

     The County hired a team of consultants to assist staff in this effort. The end product was a package of amendments that delineated different “Resource Management Areas” (RMAs) in east Sarasota County. The RMAs designated those areas that would be appropriate for future residential development, economic development, and agricultural preservation. The RMAs also established a large system of greenways. However, the uses in the RMAs are not all immediately eligible for development under Sarasota 2050. Instead, they are subject to a series of timing requirements that are intended to ensure orderly and financially feasible growth.

     The Department reviewed the plan amendments for Sarasota 2050, and issued a Notice of Intent to find them “in compliance.” Manasota-88, Inc. and several individuals petitioned for a formal hearing, contending that the amendments promoted sprawl, did not adequately protect natural resources, were not based on demonstrated need and, thus, were not “in compliance” for these and numerous other reasons.

     After a 23-day final hearing, Administrative Law Judge Donald Alexander entered a Recommended Order rejecting these arguments and recommending that the amendments be found “in compliance.” The Department adopted the Recommended Order en toto.

     No appeal was filed, and the time for so doing has expired. For more information on this case, please contact Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel.