Important Legal Cases in Palm Beach and Martin Counties

Citizen Enforcement of Comprehensive Plans Upheld, September 2001

The Pinecrest ruling upholds the right of citizens to require local governments to follow their comprehensive plans. This landmark decision has important statewide ramifications.

Victory in the Section 28 Case, 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.

Martin County v. Yusem, 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.

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.

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

1000 Friends appeared as an amicus before the Supreme Court of Florida in Palm Beach County v. Wright 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 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.

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

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.