NANCY K. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
CEDAR KEY SPECIAL WATER AND SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Nancy Taylor appealed the Department of Environmental Regulation's approval of a permit for Cedar Key Special Water and Sewerage District to enlarge its sewage treatment facilities. The court affirmed the permit, holding that the Department properly rejected a condition requiring phased expansion of collection and transmission lines because permit decisions must be based solely on pollution control standards, not local land use plans.
The Department was neither required nor authorized to deny or modify the water pollution permit based on alleged noncompliance with local land use restrictions and comprehensive development plans. Permit issuance must be based only on applicable pollution control standards and rules under Florida law.
[1] A state environmental agency is not authorized to deny or modify a water pollution permit based on alleged noncompliance with local land use restrictions or long-range de…
[2] The issuance of a water pollution permit must be based solely on applicable pollution control standards and rules.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Department is neither required nor authorized to deny or modify water pollution permits based on alleged noncompliance with local land use restrictions and long-range development plans, because the issuance of the permit must be based only on the applicable pollution control standards and rules.”
Establishes the core legal principle that permit decisions are limited to pollution control standards and cannot enforce local land use compliance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCedar Key Special Water and Sewerage District sought a permit to enlarge its sewage treatment facilities. A hearing officer recommended a condition re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
After careful review of the record and applicable law, we find no reversible error and affirm the final order of the Department of Environmental Regulation granting a permit to the Cedar Key Special Water and Sewerage District authorizing enlargement of the sewage treatment facilities at Cedar Key. Condition number three,1 recommended by the hearing officer but rejected by the Department’s final order, is neither required by law nor appropriate to the issuance of the requested permit. This condition appears to be consistent with provisions in the Cedar Key Comprehensive Plan, but the Department is neither required nor authorized to deny or modify water pollution permits based on alleged noncompliance with local land use restrictions and long-range development plans, because the issuance of the permit must be based only on the applicable pollution control standards and rules. § 403.-087, Fla.Stat. (1989). See Council of Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Remedies apart from the permitting scheme are available should the District violate any mandatory requirements in that plan or other plans governing land use and development.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur. . The condition reads:
3. The District be required to expand the collection and transmission lines within the District as follows:
0-5 years: Extend service to those existing structures not hooked up within the District and city on the islands.
5-10 years: Extend service to new structures within the District on the islands.
10-15 years: Extend service to structures within the District off-island.
15-20 years: As required.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vill. OF KEY Biscayne v. The Dep't OF Env't Prot., 206 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…lso not within the zone of interest of this type of environmental permitting proceeding. See, e.g., Council of Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Taylor v. Cedar Key Special Water and Sewerage District, 590 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reflecting that the department is not authorized to deny environmental permits based on alleged noncompliance with local land use restrictions and comprehensive plans). Thus, the Petition’s reference to a comprehensive developme…
Authorities Cited
- Rooney v. Criterion Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Council OF the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)