www.ELULS.org - Section Reporter

Ashley v. Franklin County, et al., DOAH Case No. 05-2361GM, First DCA Case No. 1D07-0095
The Ashleys appealed a Final Order of the Administration Commission finding all but a few challenged provisions of Franklin County’s evaluation and appraisal report based amendments “in compliance.” The First DCA reversed the Administration Commission’s finding that two future land use categories are not mixed-use categories, as both categories contemplate a variety of uses in addition to residential. The Rural Village category also permits a restaurant, hotel services, an outfitters store, and recreational uses. As for the Conservation Residential category, although it prohibits “[f]ree standing non-residential or commercial uses intended to serve non-residents,” the First DCA found it may by negative implication allow free-standing, non-residential, commercial uses intended to serve residents. The case has been remanded to the Administration Commission to determine whether the two categories comply with the standards for mixed-use categories in Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C. A Motion for Rehearing or in the Alternative Motion for Clarification filed by the Ashleys is pending as of the writing of this update.

Runyan, et al. v. City of St. Petersburg, et al., DOAH Case No. 07-2239GM
Petitioners challenged the Department’s “in compliance” finding for an 18 acre Future Land Use Map amendment in the City of St. Petersburg. Focusing on six acres of the amendment going from Institutional to a category allowing a mix of residential, office, and commercial, Petitioners alleged no need existed for additional commercial uses and policies in the comprehensive plan restrict the addition of commercial uses. Although not necessarily disputing that no need exists for solely commercial uses, Respondents argued that the policies restricting the addition of commercial uses do not apply to mixed use categories. In support, Respondents pointed to plan policies that encourage mixed use developments and infill. The ALJ agreed, issuing a Recommended Order finding the amendment “in compliance.”

Grassy Key Beach Subdivision, Inc. v. City of Marathon, et al., 2007-CA-240-M (Fla. 16th Cir.)
In this case, Plaintiff seeks to establish that it has a vested right under Section 380.05(18), F.S., to develop property without regard to the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern regulations and the Rate of Growth Ordinance that limits the number of building permits that can be issued annually. Plaintiff relies on the recordation of a plat by Plaintiff’s predecessor in title in 1950 and subsequent expenditures for improvements to the property (roads, canals, potable water) by the three immediate past owners. In granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court found that a subsequent purchaser must demonstrate how it relied upon an official act of government and changed its position because of such act and cannot tack on to the reliance and change of position of a prior owner. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint which Defendants have moved to dismiss.

Judkins v. Walton County, Final Order No. DCA08-DC-003 (DOAH Case No. 08-0302GM)
This case involves a Section 163.3213, F.S. challenge to a Walton County land development regulation (LDR) as being inconsistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert the LDR is inconsistent because it allows borrow pits as a special exception from the land development code without consideration for the land use category limitations in the comprehensive plan. Although the LDR does not expressly restrict the land use categories in which borrow pits may be allowed as a special exception, the Department determined it is consistent with and implements the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan allows borrow pits by special exception only in the General Agriculture and Large Scale Agriculture land use categories. The issue is now before the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing is set for April. As of the writing of this update, the Judkins’ petition has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Uniform Rule 28-106.201, F.A.

Latest Section News:

April 2008

Copyright © 2012, The Environmental and Land Use Law Section of The Florida Bar