1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
Environmental groups and individuals appealed the dismissal of their action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent St. Johns County and the Florida Department of Transportation from constructing water and sewer lines through existing rights-of-way. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that appellants lacked standing because the project involved infrastructure improvements within existing rights-of-way and was not subject to comprehensive plan amendment requirements.
The appellants lack standing to bring the action. Water and sewer line improvements within rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of chapter 163 (Florida's growth management law) and do not require comprehensive plan amendments, so appellants cannot demonstrate a procedural irregularity or violation of law necessary for standing.
[1] A party lacks standing to challenge a development project if the project, such as the construction of water and sewer lines within existing rights-of-way, is excluded fro…
[2] Improvements to sewer and roadways within existing rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“sewer and roadway improvements within the rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of part two of chapter 163”
Establishes that infrastructure improvements on existing rights-of-way fall outside the regulatory requirements for public facilities under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. and Friends of the Matanzas, Inc., along with three individuals, opposed a county and DOT project to construct 12-inch w…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Development Order cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., Friends of the Matanzas, Inc., two non-profit organizations, and Patrick Hamilton, George Hamilton, and G. William Hamilton, appeal an order dismissing their action for injunctive and declaratory relief against St. John’s County and the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). We eon-elude that the appellants lack standing to bring this action.
The appellants are environmental groups and individuals opposed to the plan of the county and the DOT to run 12-inch water and sewer lines through rights-of-way. The lines would be run along U.S. Highway 1, south to the intersection of State Road 206, west along State Road 206 to Interstate 95, then south to serve two rest areas. According to the appellants, the project will foster growth which would have an adverse impact on the Crescent Beach area of Anastasia Island. The appellants unsuccessfully sought injunctive and declaratory relief below, contending that the project could not go forward because the county’s comprehensive - plan does not contemplate the project.
The appellants concede that they do not have standing under section 163.3215(1), Florida Statutes. Under this subsection, an adversely affected person may maintain an action for injunctive and other relief in connection with a development order, but appellants concede that construction of water and sewer lines on existing rights-of-way is excluded from the definition of development. See §§ 163.3215(1), 163.3164, 380.04(3)(b). The appellants contend instead that they have standing to contest the project because it is a “public facility” within the meaning of section 163.3164(24), and, under section 163.3177(6)(a), a “public facility” must be included in the comprehensive plan. The appellants contend that the county should have begun a proceeding to amend the comprehensive plan, which would have given them a “point of entry” to oppose the project.
In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Town of Lake Park, 494 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1986), however, the supreme court held that sewer and roadway improvements within the rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of part two of chapter 163. See also Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County v. Department of Community Affairs, 560 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The appellants, therefore, have failed to show that the project violates the requirements of chapter 168, or that the comprehensive plan must be amended before the project can proceed. Accordingly, they have failed to show that they have standing. See City of Sarasota v. Windom, 736 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that citizen did not have standing where there was no showing of a procedural irregularity).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS
J, and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Johns Cnty. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 836 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…lan to include certain water and sewer lines that the Department of Transportation (DOT) intended to construct and turn over to the County. Concluding that this case is controlled by our holding in 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., v. St. Johns County, 765 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“St. Johns ”), we quash the declaratory statement.1 DOT, in order to improve the water and sewer capabilities of two rest stops on Interstate 95 in St. - Johns County, entered into an agreement with the County to build certain…1 / 2
-
Swain v. State, 842 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…(Fla.1998). Finally, as to case numbers 97-11112 and 97-20542, the trial court erroneously included twelve points for community sanction violation when there was no community sanction violation applicable to that scoresheet. See Copeland v. State, 765 So. 2d 216, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to this opinion. Because the resentencing may result in much shorter sentences and Mr. Swain has served a significant portion of these sentences, the trial court sh…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Sarasota v. Windom, 736 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Rinker Materials Corp. v. Town OF Lake Park, 494 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1986)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Monroe Cnty. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 560 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)