1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, Final Order No. DCA-98-DEC-081A (Dept. of Comm. Aff. Oct. 17, 2001).

     Two public interest groups and several individuals petitioned DCA for a declaratory statement regarding 12-inch water and sewer lines constructed by the Department of Transportation to serve an I-95 rest area. The Petitioners contended that the water and sewer lines required a development order from St. Johns County, and were capital improvements that must be included in the capital improvements element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

     The First District Court of Appeal had previously determined that the Petitioners could seek a declaratory statement concerning the conduct of other parties (St. Johns County and DOT) if the Petitioners could establish that they were “substantially affected persons.” 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. v. DCA, 760 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). DCA’s Declaratory Statement concluded that the Petitioners were substantially affected by the issues raised in the Petition, and therefore had standing to seek a declaratory statement from the Department.

     The Declaratory Statement concluded that the water and sewer lines did not require a development order. Since the lines were constructed within the established right-of-way, the lines were not “development.” § 380.04(3)(b), Fla. Stat.

     The Declaratory Statement also concluded that the water and sewer lines were capital improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility. The facts provided by the Petitioners stated that the County had contracted with DOT to accept ownership of the lines after construction, and that the lines would be owned and operated by the County as part of the County’s water and sewer system. The Petitioner’s statement of facts further provided that the County had entered into a financing agreement with DOT, whereby the County would reimburse DOT as utility customers connect to the lines. Based on the facts stated in the Petition, the Declaratory Statement concluded that St. Johns County should amend its Comprehensive Plan to include the water and sewer lines in the schedule of capital improvements. The County has filed an appeal of the Declaratory Statement with the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Schember v. Bradenton and Department of Community Affairs, DOAH Case No. 00-2066GM, Final Order No. DCA01-GM-167 (Dept. Of Comm. Aff. Oct. 31, 2001).

     Eight citizens from Perico Island in the City of Bradenton challenged the Department's “in compliance'”determination on an EAR-based plan amendment which would allow high﷓rise development on a newly annexed area of N. Perico Island. Specifically, the challenge, although vague, involved school-siting, hurricane evacuation, a scrivener's error, transportation, compatibility, City/County plan consistency, intergovernmental coordination, wetlands protection and urban sprawl.

     After reviewing the joint petition and the City's Motion to Dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order in which the Petitioners' standing was disallowed. The Department subsequently issued an Order of Remand allowing the standing of one of the Petitioners who had commented at a public hearing on noticing practices used by the City. The Department interpreted the standing subsection of Section 163.3184(1)(a) to allow for standing when any comments related to the plan amendment are given at a public hearing and did not require the petition for an administrative hearing to “mirror” the comments made at the public hearing.

     On remand, the ALJ recommended that the amendment be found “in compliance” based on the following findings: 1) the City’s school siting policies were consistent with the Act and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.; 2) there would be no adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation times; 3) a scrivener’s error was a typographical error, and not a ploy by the City to administratively amend its plan; 3) the City’s transportation policies did not allow the degradation of certain roadways to a failing standard; 4) the City’s designation of Residential-3 for N. Perico is compatible with the Res-6 designation adjacent to it; 5) a city and county do not have to maintain identical plans for the plans to be consistent. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a county to utilize overlay districts while a city uses neighborhood policies; 6) the City engaged in adequate intergovernmental coordination with Manatee County, and did not violate its own comprehensive plan; 7) the City is not required to adopt wetland provisions that are more stringent than SWFWMD standards, even if Manatee County has more stringent standards; and 8) the City did not encourage urban sprawl by designating N. Perico residential, when it was so designated prior to annexation by the County, and especially when all other existing and future land uses are also residential. The Department final order adopted the ALJ’s recommended order in its entirety. The final order was not appealed.