Recent Decisions:

The Pinecrest Decision and its Ramifications, Foresight, Winter 2001 -- The first in this series of articles focuses on the landmark Pinecrest decision which upholds citizen enforcement of comprehensive plans. The second article calls for the establishment of a Land Use Board of Appeals for Florida. The third article focuses on some of the impacts of Pinecrest during the 2002 Legislative Session.

1000 Friends of Florida Brief Quoted by Florida Supreme Court, Foresight, Fall 2001 -- The Florida Supreme Court quoted from a brief written by 1000 Friends of Florida in a case that involved the issue of whether local governments should make written "findings of fact"when approving or denying land development permits. In Broward County v. GBV International Ltd., Justice Barbara Pariente specifically agreed with the position of 1000 Friends that the current legal process "seriously limits the involvement of the district courts of appeal" in the review of local land use decisions. The Court has asked a committee of The Florida Bar to report on the issue of whether local governments must include written findings of fact when making development decisions. 1000 Friends President C. Allen Watts serves on the Bar Committee reviewing this issue. 1000 Friends will prepare a report to the Bar.

Administrative Law

Victories for Planning and the Public, Foresight, Summer 2001 -- In a case arising out of Broward County, the Supreme Court of Florida agreed with 1000 Friends and the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association that a local government's denial of small scale plan amendments (those impacting fewer than 10 acres) is a legislative and not a quasi-judicial decision. As a result, local governments retain the discretion to refuse to amend the local comprehensive plan without undue concern that the courts will overturn their decision.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed a decision of the Florida Department of Transportation to replace the Ringling Causeway Bridge in Sarasota County with a fixed span, high-rise bridge. The Court concurred with the position of 1000 Friends that the FDOT's decisions could be challenged in administrative hearing. It also agreed that the City of Sarasota and the Bridge Too High Committee had standing to challenge the decision. This represents a victory for the public, confirming the public's right to contest FDOT road and bridge decisions.

Effective Advocacy Promotes Growth Management and the Environment, Foresight, Fall 1998 -- The First District Court of Appeals confirmed in July the right of the St. Johns River Water Management District to regulate to protect the environment. Because of the significant precedent-setting implications of this case, 1000 Friends filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the Water Management District. The St. Johns River Water Management District had adopted rules to regulate growth along the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. The rules created buffer zones and required more stormwater treatment, similar to what had already been established along the Econolockhatchee and Wekiva rivers. Landowners challenged the rules under the 1996 amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. An administative law judge agreed, interpreting the new law to require specific statutory authority for the Water Management District to adopt the rules. Every state agency has rule-making authority, and this finding could have affected more than 26,000 state rules now on the books dealing with every issue imaginable. The appeal court overturned the decision, and set forth a new test for administrative rules, namely that they must fall within the agency's range of power. This appellate decision, upholding the right of state agencies to regulate land development along the Tomoka River a adopt, implement and follow a comprehensive plan (Section 163.3161,et al., Fla. Stat. (1985)). The Florida Department of Community Affairs (Department) has been responsible for reviewing and approving these plans to ensure that they met minimum standards (Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5). It has been 10 years since the Growth Management Act was passed, and some 467 counties and municipalities have adopted plans determined to be in compliance with state law. While there will still be some plan amendments and plan updates (EARs) for the Department to review, it can be said that we have reached the end of the "era of plan adoption" in Florida.

A Decisive Victory, Foresight, Summer 1997 -- In a victory for comprehensive planning, the Supreme Court of Florida recently decided in favor of the county in Martin County v. Yusem. 1000 Friends of Florida filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the county's position in this case.

Earlier, the lower court had held that a local government decision to amend the local comprehensive plan to accommodate a 56-acre development was a quasi-judicial as opposed to a legislative decision. This meant several things. First and most important, the local government had to hold a "trial-like" hearing on the proposed amendment to build a record for appeal. Citizens who opposed the amendment had to go to the expense of hiring planners and lawyers to present their case at the local plan amendment hearing. If citizens did not attend this hearing, they could not be involved in the appeal. Additionally, because the elected officials were sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity as judges, citizens could not discuss their views on the plan amendment with their elected officials outside of the hearing room.

By reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court concluded that all plan amendments are legislative, not quasi-judicial, acts. Consequently, local governments do not have to hold a trial and build a record, and the burden of proof in court favors local government. Citizens who do not attend the local hearing may still be able to intervene in the case at the trial court. Finally, this decision allows any citizen to speak to their elected officials about the proposed plan amendment. This ruling makes it somewhat easier for local government to resist amending their comprehensive plan to accommodate an inconsistent development.

Secondary Impacts

1000 Friends of Florida is Fighting to Protect the Florida Keys, Foresight, Winter 1997 -- Roads equal growth. The more cars, the more people. It’s a simple equation. For the past few years, 1000 Friends of Florida has been involved in a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Transportation over the proposed widening of the "18-mile stretch"—the portion of US 1 from Florida City to Key Largo.

Because the number of building permits that can be issued in Monroe County is directly tied to road capacity, widening this portion of US 1 would enable the county to issue hundreds more permits. Greater road capacity would also encourage more "day trippers"—people from South Florida who travel to the Keys on the weekend, impacting the fragile resources of the Florida Keys by using the roads and already inadequate sewage system, not to mention running over the grass flats with their boats. In legal terms, the impacts of these new people—those building new homes, and those just coming to the Keys to visit—are called "secondary impacts," as opposed to the direct impact of the new road’s filling of some 150 acres of wetlands.

In its suit, 1000 Friends argued that DOT had to consider these offsite impacts in the permitting process, and either reduce the size of the project, or mitigate for the impacts it would cause at the end of the road. While the judge agreed with 1000 Friends that the project would cause growth in the Florida Keys, he concluded that current planning efforts were adequate to protect the environment.

1000 Friends is currently appealing this ruling. For the past six years, 1000 Friends of Florida has been trying to get the state and Monroe County to adopt and implement a comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys. In 1995, we obtained a major victory for growth management by convincing the governor and Cabinet to rule that the carrying capacity of the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys had been exceeded by the county’s failure to install adequate sewage and stormwater facilities for the existing development. The Cabinet ordered the county to develop, fund, and implement plans to install sewer and stormwater systems. 1000 Friends contends that, because this planning process has not yet shown results, the state should not be allowing more people to build in the Keys.

While challenging the 18-mile stretch widening, 1000 Friends also geared up to challenge DOT’s application for federal wetland’s permits, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Information we provided the Corps regarding the offsite, secondary impacts of the project convinced the Corps’ Colonel Terry Rice that DOT’s proposal would adversely impact the Florida Keys. When Rice indicated his intent to deny the federal permit, DOT withdrew its application.

1000 Friends of Florida has asked the Governor’s Office to ask DOT to come back to the drawing board to really discuss the secondary impacts issues raised originally by 1000 Friends and now corroborated by the Army Corps. We remain determined to ensure that the secondary impacts of the 18-mile stretch widening will be better managed when the project is undertaken.

Judge Rules on Development Limitations in Florida Keys -- On May 21, 1997, Administrative Law Judge Larry J. Sartin issued an order upholding a rule, adopted by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission, which imposes severe restrictions on development in the Florida Keys. The rule, which amends the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, requires the County to implement a five-year work program to improve sanitary sewer and stormwater treatment in the Keys. If the County fails to implement the work program, the rule authorizes the Governor and Cabinet to reduce by 20% the number of permits that can be approved each year. Under the rule, this number is currently limited to 255 permits per year to a total of 1,275 within the next five years.

1000 Friends of Florida strongly supports many of the growth management provisions of the rule. However, it challenged the rule as not being strict enough, claiming a moratorium on development should be adopted until the County actually had in place the infrastructure needed to clean up the pollution. 1000 Friends also maintained that enforcement provisions of the rule were vague. While the Judge rejected these arguments, he held that the County and State had five years to implement the improvements called for in the work plan. If this did not take place, he left the door open to bring another challenge.

The Judge reaffirmed the findings of fact in the Commission's landmark order issued in December 1995, which found that the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys had been exceeded by development, and specifically accepted the testimony of 1000 Friends' experts that the nearshore water quality of the Keys was polluted by existing development.

"1000 Friends has had a long history of working to protect the fragile environment of the Florida Keys through better planning," indicates Legal Director Terrell Arline. "While we are disappointed that the Judge did not find in our favor, we are very pleased that his decision clearly indicates that Monroe County must come into full compliance with the Governor and Cabinet's Rule within five years. Hopefully, the era of overdevelopment of the Keys is coming to an end before its unique natural environment is irreversibly damaged. Over the next five years, 1000 Friends of Florida will be monitoring progress made by the County to protect this important part of our state."

Standing

Victory for the Citizens of Florida!, Foresight, Summer 2000 -- In a landmark decision on May 12th, 2000, the 5th District Court of Appeals ruled that the Putnam County Environmental Council (PCEC) had standing to challenge a permit for a middle school next to Etoniah Creek State Forest. The PCEC felt this project was inconsistent with the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan, but a lower court found that they did not have standing to challenge the permit. 1000 Friends filed an amicus brief in cooperation with the PCEC. The Court of Appeals "liberally construed" the Growth Management Act, concluding that the group's interest in the conservation and protection of the natural resources of the forest were sufficient to give it standing. This is an important victory for nonprofits and citizens across the state, confirming their ability to challenge development projects.

Court Rules for Citizens, Foresight, Spring 2000 -- The First District Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of 1000 Friends of Florida, the Friends of the Matanzas, and the Hamilton family from Crescent Beach. The Court held that the citizens were entitled to seek a declaration from the Department of Community Affairs of whether the Florida Department of Transportation's extension of 6 miles of water and sewer lines to a rest stop on I-95 in southern St. Johns County required a plan amendment. In supporting broad citizen access to the agency, the Court said, "the public interest is served in encouraging agency responsiveness in the performance of their functions."

Urban Service Areas

Victory in the Section 28 Case, Foresight, Spring 2001 -- An eight-year legal challenge brought by a developer ended in December when the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a $4.75 million judgment against Martin County. The county had refused to amend its comprehensive plan to allow for higher density development beyond its urban service line, in an area known as Section 28. The court ruled that the county's decision to limit densities outside its Primary Urban Service Area was "based on rational and sound planning principles, designed to preserve agricultural lands, protect wetlands and environmental resources, ensure the efficient use of public resources, and discourage urban sprawl." 1000 Friends has been involved in this case from the beginning. Board member Nancy Stroud represented Martin County, President Emeritus Dr. John M. DeGrove testified as an expert witness, and Legal Director Terrell Arline wrote an amicus brief on appeal. This case is a great victory for local land use planning and will be cited around the country as supporting the use of growth boundaries.

Effective Advocacy Promotes Growth Management and the Environment, Foresight, Fall 1998-- In Palm Beach County, 1000 Friends of Florida weighed in against a proposed comprehensive plan amendment for an industrial park outside the county's Urban Service Line. Concerned that this might promote urban sprawl, 1000 Friends also felt the amendment should not be approved until the county has considered a Sector Plan, which would include the area proposed for the industrial park. With the assistance of local member Sylvia J. Cohen, 1000 Friends made a presentation to the County Commission, which voted not to adopt the amendment.

Also, in Palm Beach County, 1000 Friends advised a citizens' group opposed to the extension of Roebuck Road, west across the Florida Turnpike and through their neighborhood to the future right of way of State Road 7. From our standpoint, the road would promote premature western urbanization and cause impacts to wetlands and water resources. With guidance from 1000 Friends, CARE (Coalition Against Roebuck Road Extension), headed by Jim Green, convinced the County Commission to remove the road from the comprehensive plan, effectively stopping the project.

Citizens Make the Difference: High School Siting Resolved! Foresight, Summer 1997-- After months of negotiation, the numerous parties involved in the northeast high school siting debate in Leon County have reached unanimous consensus. Citizen groups, including 1000 Friends and Tall Timbers Research, Inc., had opposed constructing the school outside the Urban Services Area because it would be a magnet for growth.

Notes 1000 Friends' Executive Director, Patricia McKay, "This was a long and often heated process. But thanks to the leadership of Leon County School Superintendent Bill Montford and Tall Timbers Director Lane Green, we have laid the foundation for better planning in Leon County. This is an excellent example of the importance of citizen involvement in local planning decisions." She continues, "Without the involvement of numerous neighborhood associations in the negotiations, the final agreement would not have represented the will of the people. I firmly believe that the final proposal was improved considerably because of the thoughtful and meaningful input of residents and citizen organizations from the area. I am pleased they had the opportunity to participate in the process."

Under the terms of the compromise, the Tallahassee Urban Services Area will be expanded by only the minimum amount needed to accommodate the school. About 17 acres will be zoned for mixed uses. To address concerns about urban sprawl, a new land use category -- agricultural/silvicultural conservation area--will be created with 35,000 acres of land north of the school to be placed in the category. Key to the compromise for 1000 Friends is that local government and the Leon County School Board have agreed to establish a formal process to integrate school siting in relation to the local planning process.

Property Rights

1000 Friends Challenges Property Rights Amendments, Foresight, Spring 1997-- An initiative to place on the ballot constitutional amendments requiring the government to compensate landowners for land use and environmental regulations went before the Supreme Court of Florida in January 1997. 1000 Friends filed a brief in opposition to the "Peoples Property Rights" amendment, and was represented by Thomas Pelham of Tallahassee. Common Cause, Florida Audubon, the League of Cities, Association of Counties, and the Department of Community Affairs joined in the case.

Two amendments are at issue. One would change Florida’s Constitution to create a new exception for property rights in the single subject rule, which the Court applies to gauge the validity of citizen initiatives. The other proposes to create a new right of landowners to be compensated for any reduction in value of property when regulated by state, regional, or local government. This would drastically reduce the ability of state and local governments to plan for and manage growth and to protect the environment and public health. Notes attorney Pelham, these amendments "put each individual’s property rights over the rights of the rest of us." If they pass muster at the Court and receive sufficient signatures, these amendments will be on the ballot in 1998.

Thomas Pelham’s Remarks Before the Florida Supreme Court:

"The People’s Property Rights Initiative permits constitutional amendment initiatives which radically alter the way in which our legal system determines the existence of private property rights and remedies for violation of those rights."

"The People’s Property Rights Initiative embraces the subject of land use regulation. It permits future initiative proposals imposing new limits on the power of any branch and any level of government to regulate the use of land. Under such a proposal, there would be no unencumbered power to regulate any use of land (other than common-law nuisances) which causes any reduction in the fair market value of land."

"The initiative permits creation of a new property right not presently recognized in this state: the right not to have the fair-market value of one’s private property reduced by any governmental use restriction unless the restriction prohibits a common-law nuisance. There is no such property right in this state today. A landowner only has the right not to have the value of its property reduced to such an extent that it constitutes a taking under the Just Compensation Clauses of the Federal and Florida Constitutions."

Victory for Community Planning in Florida Supreme Court-- In a move that helps maintain a community's ability to decide the appropriateness and location of development, on May 15, 1997, the Supreme Court of Florida invalidated two proposed constitutional amendments dealing with private property rights. One would have adopted a new "private property right," requiring compensation for some governmental actions which reduced the fair market value of land through zoning changes, environmental regulation enforcement, and community comprehensive plan revisions. The other would have amended the single subject clause of the Florida Constitution to create an exception for initiatives dealing with private property rights. 1000 Friends of Florida was joined by the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association, Common Cause, Florida Association of Counties, Florida Audubon, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida League of Cities, and National Audubon in challenging these amendments.

If authorized to go on the ballot by the Court and approved by the voters, these amendments would have had an immense impact on Florida. Local governments throughout Florida would be forced to either weaken or ignore enforcement of existing land use and environmental regulations, or pay to prevent development in inappropriate locations. Communities could be forced to allow construction in sensitive wetland areas, permit commercial development along gridlocked roads, and authorize costly sprawling subdivisions in pristine rural areas.

Terrell Arline, Legal Director of 1000 Friends of Florida, notes: "This is an important decision for Florida. Instead of allowing a select few to decide where development is to occur, this Supreme Court decision maintains local government's ability to represent the interests of the community at large." In its decision, the Court recognized that these constitutional amendments violated the single subject clause of the Florida Constitution because they affected land use, which involves both the executive and legislative branches of government. It also found that the amendments would impact land use regulation at multiple levels of government. The Court clarified that a previous ruling allowing an exception to the single subject rule for issues dealing with taxation did not apply to initiatives which would affect multiple functions or branches of government.

1000 Friends of Florida: Making a Difference
An Overview of Some of 1000 Friends' Most Important Legal Cases
By Terrell K. Arline, Legal Director

Since 1986, 1000 Friends of Florida has worked diligently to refine the growth management process in this rapidly growing state. Through educating and negotiating, we strive to resolve fundamental planning and growth management issues facing Florida. 1000 Friends has always viewed litigation as a measure of last resort. In some cases, however, we find it necessary to enter this arena in order to help Floridians plan for the future.

1000 Friends of Florida picks its cases carefully, addressing only issues of statewide significance. As a result of over a decade of legal advocacy, 1000 Friends has brought about meaningful and positive change to Florida's growth management process. We can proudly cite numerous casesbefore trial courts, administrative law judges, and appellate courtswhere 1000 Friends of Florida has made a difference.
Over the years, our legal advocacy work has fallen into several categories. In the face of efforts to expand private property rights, 1000 Friends has worked to maintain the right of communities to develop and implement meaningful plans for the future. We have served as a "watchdog" over the state's comprehensive planning process, intervening when necessary to make sure that state and local government actions comply with the Growth Management Act. Finally, we have actively intervened to ensure that the local planning process is procedurally fair, and allows ample opportunity for citizen involvement. The following is an overview of some of 1000 Friends' more important success stories:

Private Property Rights
1000 Friends of Florida has been involved in some of the state's most important "takings" cases, upholding the right of citizens and government to prepare and enforce plans. In one of our early landmark cases, Glisson v. Alachua County (1990), 1000 Friends filed an amicus curia ("friend of the court") brief in support of the county. Through the planning process, Alachua County had limited development in the special planning area of Cross Creek, the beautiful countryside made famous by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. This case successfully established that, in order to implement its comprehensive plan, a local government could adopt land development regulations that place restrictions on land designated as having unique attributes or where development could endanger important environmental resources. The Court noted that as long as the property owner is left with some use of the land, it is not a taking to restrict private property rights to implement the comprehensive plan.

In another takings case, Reahard v. Lee County (1992), the county had designated a 40-acre parcel of mangroves as a Resource Protection Area, and limited its development in its comprehensive plan. The trial court found this to be a taking of the landowner's private property rights. 1000 Friends filed an amicus brief on behalf of the county. The 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that there had not necessarily been a taking just because the property's value had been substantially reduced by the designation. The Court set forth judicial guidelines, used today by many courts in Florida, to analyze whether a taking has occurred.

1000 Friends appeared as an amicus before the Supreme Court of Florida in Palm Beach County v. Wright (1994), to support the County's transportation planning efforts. A landowner with a portion of his property located within the Future Thoroughfare Map in the county's comprehensive plan had alleged that the map was an unconstitutional taking of private property. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the map served a legitimate governmental purpose and was a valid exercise of county planning authority.
In Department of Community Affairs v. Moorman (1995), 1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the position of the Department and Monroe County. The Florida Supreme Court upheld Monroe County's ban on fencing private property on Big Pine Key. The court found the ban constitutional, noting the restriction on fencing was a rational measure to protect the habitat of the endangered Key deer. This case underscored the notion that private property rights could be curtailed to further public environmental policy.

1000 Friends' lawyers have also appeared before the Supreme Court of Florida on every citizen initiative to amend the Constitution to create a new private property right. In cases several years apart, the Court supported 1000 Friends' arguments. In its Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Property Rights (1994), the Court invalidated initiatives which would have given landowners the right of full compensation for any reduction in property value resulting from governmental regulation of the land. Similarly, in another Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: People's Property Rights Amendments (1997), the Court invalidated a petition for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed citizen initiatives regarding private property rights to cover multiple subjects.

Comprehensive Plans
The bulk of our litigation has been over the adoption and amendment of comprehensive plans. As the Growth Management Act "watchdog," 1000 Friends of Florida reviewed the adoption of all of the original comprehensive plans. Where they failed to comply with the Act, 1000 Friends filed suit. While we have been involved in many cases, a few are particularly noteworthy.

In Department of Community Affairs v. Brevard County (1989), 1000 Friends challenged the first county to submit a comprehensive plan to the Department of Community Affairs. DCA had found the plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends raised additional noncompliance issues, including lack of protection for the Indian River Lagoon and urban sprawl. Through negotiation, the case was settled. Building on this early case, it can be said that 1000 Friends' intervention was instrumental in bringing about greater consideration for the environment in Florida's comprehensive planning process.

Another case we were involved in was Austin et. al v. City of Cocoa & Department of Community Affairs (1989). This represented the first challenge to a comprehensive plan that was found in compliance by DCA. 1000 Friends monitored this case, providing technical support to a local citizen's group challenging DCA's ruling. We appeared before the Florida Administration Commission (comprised of the Governor and Cabinet) in support of the citizens. The Commission agreed with our recommendations and, citing several issues raised by the citizen's group, found that the plan did not adequately protect wetlands, failed to protect the city's historic resources, and did not incorporate adequate public participation opportunities during the plan adoption process.

The Department of Community Affairs v. Lee County (1989) was the first of a series of cases involving Lee County's adoption of an adequate comprehensive plan. Here 1000 Friends intervened, raising issues regarding transportation concurrency, urban sprawl, and the lack of adequate protection for barrier islands. We suggested an alternative transportation grid system and a settlement was reached, highlighting the need for transportation concurrency in local comprehensive planning.

In Department of Community Affairs v. Martin County (1990), DCA found the Martin County comprehensive plan not to be in compliance. 1000 Friends intervened on behalf of DCA, raising issues about road construction, concurrency, urban sprawl, and other issues. A negotiated settlement was reached, including protection for the Loxahatchee River.

Some of our most important work has been undertaken in the Florida Keys. In Monroe County Chowder & Marching Society, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs & Monroe County (1997), 1000 Friends was involved in six years of litigation over Monroe County's comprehensive plan. Ultimately, the First District Court of Appeals affirmed our position that the plan did not sufficiently safeguard the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. The court upheld an Administrative Law Judge's order and one by the Florida Administration Commission that found that the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys had reached their carrying capacity. As a result of this case, Monroe County is engaged in a five-year work program to develop a wastewater and stormwater plan and to create land use regulations based upon the islands' natural carrying capacity.

Procedures for Review
1000 Friends has also been engaged in cases that involve the procedures for reviewing comprehensive plan amendments, land development regulations, and development orders. We filed a brief in the landmark case of Brevard County v. Snyder (1993), where the Florida Supreme Court considered the level of judicial review for rezoning decisions. Previously, the courts had often deferred to local governments in rezoning cases. With the advent of state comprehensive planning, the Court increased the level of scrutiny the courts would impose on the review of local development orders. The Court also held that a local government has discretion to rezone land, and a landowner is not entitled to the highest zoning use of land that is allowed under the comprehensive plan.

Several years later, we were involved in Martin County v. Yusem (1997), where the Court readdressed Snyder. The Court held that a local government's decision to approve or disapprove a request for a plan amendment is a legislative act, and therefore it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as a rezoning.

Early Important Growth Management Cases

I. Takings

Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1990)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the County's position. The 1st District Court of Appeals rejected a landowner's prima facie takings challenge to County's land use regulations limiting development in the special planning area of Cross Creek. This Case established the principle that local government could place development restrictions on land areas designated as having unique attributes or where development could be highly hazardous.

Reahard v. Lee County, 968 F.2d 1131 (11th Cir. 1992)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the County's position. The 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded federal magistrate's determination that there had been a taking of landowner's property by the County. The court found that there had not necessarily been a taking just because the property's value had been substantially reduced by the Lee County Comprehensive Plan's designation of the property as a Resource Protection Area. The court set forth judicial guidelines for conducting a more thorough analysis in determining whether a taking has occurred.

Palm Beach County v. Wright, 641 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1994)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the County's position. A landowner had a portion of his property located within the corridor of the thoroughfare map from Palm Beach County's comprehensive plan. The landowner alleged that the map was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that the map served a legitimate government purpose and was a valid exercise of County planning authority. In addition, the Court held that just having private property located within a thoroughfare map did not represent a per se taking. Whether a taking had occurred should be determined on a case-by-case basis only after the property owner had filed for a development permit.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Property Rights, 644 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1994)

1000 Friends was an interested party in opposition to the petition. The Florida Supreme Court invalidated an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment giving landowners the right of full compensation for diminished value of vested property resulting from the exercise of governmental police power.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: People's Property Rights Amendments Providing Compensation for Restricting Real Property Use May Cover Multiple Subjects and Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Property Rights, 699 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1997)

1000 Friends was an interested party in opposition to the petitions. The Florida Supreme Court invalidated two initiative petitions for constitutional amendments; one would have eliminated the single subject requirement for citizen initiatives regarding private property rights, and the other would have provided compensation to landowners for any reduction in property values due to governmental regulations.

II. Standard of Review

Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in this case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the County's denial of a landowner's "upzoning" request. This case raised the level of judicial review for most, but not all, rezoning decisions from the fairly debatable standard to strict scrutiny. Such quasi-judicial rezoning decisions were now required to more closely mirror relevant comprehensive plans. At the same time, the court affirmed that a local government has discretion to zone within the range of any land-use designation category, and that a landowner is not entitled to the highest zoning use of his or her land that is allowed by the comprehensive plan.

Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the County's position. The Florida Supreme Court found that an amendment to the County's comprehensive plan, even though limited in effect and site-specific, amounted to a legislative action. The court distinguished the previous Snyder decision by clarifying that all amendments to comprehensive plans are legislative actions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review, and that all zoning decisions are quasi-judicial actions subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. In addition, the court held that citizens might still be able to intervene in cases at trial even though they had not been present at local hearings.

III. Comprehensive Plans

Department of Community Affairs v. Brevard County, DOAH Case No. 88-5577GM (1989)

Brevard County was the first County to submit a comprehensive plan to DCA under the 1985 Growth Management Act. DCA found the plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends intervened and raised noncompliance issues not addressed by DCA such as lack of protection for the Indian River Lagoon and urban sprawl problems. Through negotiations the case was settled and 1000 Friend's intervention was instrumental in bringing about greater consideration for the environment.

Austin et al v. City of Cocoa & Department of Community Affairs, 89 ER FALR 128 (Admin. Comm'n 1989)

This case was the first challenge to a comprehensive plan that had been found in compliance by DCA under the 1985 Growth Management Act. 1000 Friends monitored this case and provided moral support to a local citizen's group challenging DCA's ruling that the City of Cocoa's comprehensive plan was in compliance. The Florida Administration Commission found that the City's plan was not in compliance. Citing several issues raised by the citizen's group, the Commission found that the plan did not adequately protect wetlands, failed to protect the city's historic resources, and that during the plan adoption process the city had not provided adequate public participation opportunities.

Department of Community Affairs v. Lee County, DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM (1989)

DCA found Lee County's comprehensive plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends intervened and raised noncompliance issues regarding transportation concurrency, urban sprawl, lack of adequate protection for barrier islands, and other issues. 1000 Friends suggested an alternative transportation grid system, and a settlement was reached. This case highlighted the need for transportation concurrency in local comprehensive planning.

Department of Community Affairs v. Martin County, DOAH Case No. 90-2327GM (1990)

DCA found the Martin County comprehensive plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends intervened and raised issues about road construction, concurrency, urban sprawl, and other issues. A negotiated settlement was reached. Included in the settlement were protections for the Loxahatchee River.

Department of Community Affairs v. Walton County, 92 ER FALR 208 (Admin. Comm'n 1992)

DCA found the Walton County comprehensive plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends intervened. The Florida Administration Commission issued a final order finding the plan not in compliance. 1000 Friends negotiated an agreement with Walton County for remedial amendments providing, among other things, greater protection of the County's natural coastal resources.

Note: This Administration Commission final order was later set aside because of a Standing issue involving 1000 Friends. See St. Joe Paper Co.

Monroe County Chowder & Marching Society, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs & Monroe County, 703 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)

1000 Friends was a party to this case which ended six years of litigation over the compliance of Monroe County's comprehensive plan. The 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed that Monroe County's comprehensive plan did not do enough to safeguard the environmental sustainability of the Florida Keys. The court upheld a Doah hearing officer's and the Florida Administration Commission's findings of fact that the Florida Keys' nearshore waters had reached their carrying capacity.

IV. Standing

Department of Community Affairs v. Monroe County, 11 FALR 4004 (Dep't of Community Affairs 1989)

DCA, citing violation of county and state law, issued Monroe County a stop work order on a road construction project in the Florida Keys, a state-designated area of critical environmental concern. Monroe County sought a formal hearing on the matter. 1000 Friends attempted to intervene. A DOAH hearing officer denied 1000 Friends an opportunity to intervene. The hearing officer filed a recommended order in favor of DCA. DCA issued a final order adopting the recommended order, but also ruling that 1000 Friends should have been able to intervene as an affected person. DCA held that in enforcement proceedings such as this, an organization such as 1000 Friends could not have initiated the proceedings; however, once initiated by DCA, the organization would have standing to intervene.

Note: The 3rd DCA later reversed this final order; but, the court did not address the issue of whether 1000 Friends had standing to intervene.

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Department of Community Affairs, 657 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)

The 1st District Court of Appeals set aside an earlier Administration Commission final order finding Walton County's comprehensive plan not in compliance. The court ruled that 1000 Friends should not have been allowed to intervene because the organization had not qualified as an affected person which had both participated in the local planning process and owned or operated a business within the boundaries of the local government area. In addition, the court held that 1000 Friends could not have intervened in the case as a representative of its members because 1000 Friends had failed to substantiate that some of its members lived within Walton County. This case shows that even though the standing requirements of the Growth Management Act may be broad, technical requirements still must be met.

V. Misc.

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Board of Professional Land Surveyors, 566 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of the Board of Trustees' position. The Board of Professional Land Surveyors had attempted, by rulemaking, to establish a fixed ordinary high water mark delineating the boundary between state and private property in the lakes and rivers of Florida. The Board of Trustees argued that the Florida legislature had only delegated the Board of Surveyors authority to set minimum technical standards for the practice of surveying in Florida, and that the Board of Surveyors lacked authority to determine the riparian rights of disputing parties. The 1st District Court of Appeals agreed with the Board of Trustees and invalidated the rules proposed by the Board of Surveyors. The court held that the determination of riparian boundaries should be judicially resolved under all applicable laws. This case ensured that the domain of state lands would not be arbitrarily limited.

Department of Community Affairs v. Moorman, 664 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1995)

1000 Friends filed an amicus curia brief in support of DCA's and Monroe County's position. The Florida Supreme Court upheld Monroe County's ban on fenced-in private property on Big Pine Key. The court found that the ban was constitutional because the restriction on fencing was a rational measure by the County to ensure the continued habitat of the endangered Key deer. This case underscored the notion that private property rights must be considered in light of public environmental policy.