David McSherry, et al. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM (Final Order No. DCA04-GM-224)

     Alachua County adopted and submitted to the Department of Community Affairs substantial amendments to its comprehensive plan in 2002 (2002 Amendments). Following the Department’s issuance of a Notice of Intent to find the 2002 Amendments “in compliance,” numerous parties filed petitions for formal administrative hearing and petitions to intervene. Negotiations ensued and, at the conclusion of which, several parties entered into a compliance agreement. The County adopted certain remedial amendments in 2003 (2003 Amendments) to give effect to this agreement, which Amendments were found “in compliance” by the Department. Additional parties filed petitions regarding the 2003 Amendments, the “non-settling” parties were realigned, and the matter proceeded to final hearing.

     At the final hearing, the parties who had intervened in the original proceeding regarding the 2002 Amendments but had not entered into the compliance agreement alleged that the negotiation and mediation sessions were scheduled and conducted in such a manner that they were denied due process. While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that these parties certainly “felt a degree of betrayal in the County’s reaching a settlement,” but the ALJ found that the record did not support a conclusion that due process had not been afforded.

     Most petitioners attacked the 2003 Amendments on the ground that they were not meaningful and predictable, and did not do enough to discourage urban sprawl and protect environmentally sensitive lands. One group of petitioners alleged that the 2003 Amendments went too far and did too much to reign in development in the name of preventing urban sprawl and protecting the environment. The ALJ ultimately issued a recommended order which found that the 2003 Amendments are neither too stringent nor too lax, met the requirements of State law, and were “in compliance.”

     The Department rejected all of the exceptions filed by the parties and adopted the recommended order as its final order. Timely appeals have been filed by several of the petitioners. For more information on this proceeding, please contact David Jordan, Deputy General Counsel.



1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., et al., v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM (Final Order No. DCA05-GM-082)

     In 2003, Governor Jeb Bush along with several legislators and, in cooperation with Enterprise Florida and the Office of Trade, Tourism and Economic Development, began to actively court The Scripps Research Institute to establish a Florida location. The Florida Legislature subsequently met in special session and enacted Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, which created the Scripps Florida Funding Corporation to facilitate the establishment and operation of a biomedical research institution with Scripps as the anchor.

     Palm Beach County, specifically, a 1,919 acre site known as “Mecca Farms,” was selected as the location for this biomedical research institution and associated, related development. The County then adopted a series of amendments to amend the maps, text, and tables of its comprehensive plan to accommodate the proposed biomedical campus. The Department reviewed these amendments, and ultimately issued Notices of Intent to find them “in compliance.”

     Several environmental interest groups and one individual filed a Joint Petition with the Department seeking a formal administrative hearing. Because this project was certified for expedited treatment pursuant to Section 403.973, Florida Statutes, the matter was conducted as a summary proceeding under Section 120.574, Florida Statutes. No discovery was conducted, and the matter proceeded to final hearing within thirty days.

     Petitioners alleged that the amendments promoted urban sprawl, failed to protect environmental features, were not accompanied by adequate capital improvement commitments, would result in unacceptable transportation conditions, and locate incompatible development in this area of the County. Petitioners also argued that the County had not demonstrated that the proposed biomedical campus would result in a positive economic impact for the County. For all of these reasons, Petitioners also argued that the amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan.

     The Administrative Law Judge rejected all of these arguments, and entered a recommended order to the agency recommending that all of the amendments be found “in compliance.” The Department denied petitioners’ exceptions, granted two exceptions filed by the Department and County regarding scrivener’s errors, and adopted the recommended order as the agency’s final order.

     An appeal has been filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeals. For more information regarding this case, please contact Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel.