Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, et al. vs. DCA and Sumter County, Fifth DCA Case No. 5D01-1851 (Opinion filed April 19, 2002).

     Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible development (“SCAID”) and several individuals appealed a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs (“Department”), wherein the Department found “in compliance,” a Sumter Co. (“County”) plan amendment which changed the Future Land Use Map designation of 4,677 acres of land from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). The disputed issues involved the following: whether Appellants had standing to challenge the plan amendment; whether the plan amendment was consistent with the County’s “90% Rule” (requiring that 90% of land in the County remain in uses such as agriculture, conservation, and open space); whether the parcel of land was properly converted from Agriculture to PUD, without first changing the designation to Residential with an expansion of the Urban Expansion Area; whether there was demonstrated need for additional residential units in the County; and, whether the plan amendment promoted urban sprawl. The Court affirmed the Department’s Final Order on all substantive issues, stating that there was competent, substantial evidence to support all findings of fact, and stating that the Department and the County should be given deference in the interpretation of the “90% Rule.” The Court did not address SCAID’s associational standing, finding that any error would be harmless.

Geracis vs. DCA and Pasco County, Second DCA Case No. 2D01-2636 (Opinion filed February 6, 2002.

     Appellants appealed a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs (“Department”), wherein the Final Order adopted a Division of Administrative Hearings’ (“DOAH”) Recommended Order of Dismissal, which dismissed Appellants’ Petition. The disputed issue at DOAH was whether Appellants were entitled to direct notice of Department action in the disposition of a case, when Appellants had voluntarily withdrawn from that case. The Final Order determined that Appellants were not entitled to direct notice, and could have received such notice as other citizens at large, either through the newspaper, or by contacting the Department directly. The Department’s Final Order was upheld per curiam affirmed.

Florida Wildlife Federation & Collier County Audubon Society v. Department of Community Affairs & Collier County, First DCA Case No. 1D01-1299 (Opinion filed May 28, 2002)

     In 1997, Collier County adopted numerous amendments pursuant to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The Department issued a Notice of Intent to find most of these EAR-based amendments not in compliance, and instituted administrative proceedings against the County. The proceedings concluded with a Final Order from the Governor and Cabinet (sitting as the Administration Commission) agreeing with the Department and finding all challenged amendments to be not in compliance. The Final Order directed the County to adopt a series of amendments to cure the identified compliance issues.

     Collier County proceeded to adopt these amendments, including those required to designate portions of the County as “Natural Resource Protection Areas” (NRPA). The Department issued its Notice of Intent to find these amendments in compliance. The Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society challenged the NRPA amendments, and contended they did not sufficiently protect natural resources and failed to include allegedly required “intensity” standards for agricultural activities. After administrative proceedings, a Recommended and Final Order were entered deeming the amendments to be in compliance.

     The Federation and Society appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. After hearing oral argument, the Court unanimously concluded that the NRPA boundary lines were appropriate. The Court split 2-1 in ruling that existing law does not require the land use “agriculture” to include intensity standards. Writing for the majority, Judge Ervin found this conclusion is consistent with applicable statutes as interpreted by the Department. Judge Van Nortwick dissented on this issue, concluding that the Department’s interpretation is at odds with its adopted rule.
(It should be noted that Chapter 2002-296, Laws of Florida, amended the statute upon which all three judges based their conclusions.)