Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corp., Z-111
| Decision Date | 26 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. Z-111,Z-111 |
| Citation | 322 So.2d 655 |
| Parties | SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. BEKER PHOSPHATE CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, and Manatee County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Nelson, Nelson, Hesse, Cyril & Weber, Sarasota, for petitioner.
Roy C. Young, Brown, Smith, Young & Pelham, Tallahassee, John P. Harllee, III, Harrison, Harllee & Porges and Richard A. Hampton, Bradenton, for respondents.
By this petition for writ of certiorari to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, 1 Sarasota County challenges the order of the Adjudicatory Commission dismissing for lack of standing its appeal by which it sought review of a development order entered by respondent Manatee County approving the application for a development of regional impact by respondent Beker Phosphate Corporation. 2
Sarasota County urges three points in seeking to have the order of Manatee County reviewed by the Adjudicatory Commission, viz:
'I. The Adjudicatory Commission's order erroneously interprets Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, as preventing an appeal by Sarasota County of the development order issued by Manatee County.
'II. The Adjudicatory Commission's order erroneously interprets Section 3(2) of Chapter 74-310, 1974 Laws of Florida, as preventing the application of the provisions of said chapter to the appeal herein.
By enacting the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, 3 the legislature established land and water management policies to guide and coordinate local decisions relating to growth and development. The legislature expressly stated its intent:
'. . . that such state land and water management policies should, to the maximum possible extent, be implemented by local governments through existing processes for the guidance of growth and development; and that all the existing rights of private property be preserved in accord with the constitutions of this state and of the United States.' 4
The regulatory scheme enacted by the legislature is clearly expressed in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. If the proposed development is of regional impact, the developer must file an application with the local government having jurisdiction. 5 The appropriate local government shall give notice and hold a hearing in the same manner as for a rezoning under Florida Statute 176.051, or as provided under the appropriate special or local law. 6 The notice provision embedded in the statutory scheme is designed to protect the interests of the local citizens, the landowners, the regional inhabitants, and the general public throughout this state. 7 This is accomplished by directing that notice given by the local government state that a proposed development is of a regional impact and that the notice be published at least four weeks in advance of the hearing. Notice is additionally required by the statutory scheme to be given to the state land planning agency, the appropriate regional planning agency, and any other persons designated by the state land planning agency as entitled to receive such notice.
The interests of the citizens of the surrounding area are protected by the explicit requirements of Florida Statute 380.06(8) in that within 30 days of receiving notice, the regional planning agency must submit to the local government a report and recommendations on the proposed project. This statute enumerates numerous areas of regional impact to which the report must address itself. 8
In complete harmony with the above scheme is the provision of the chapter concerning who may appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission an order by a local government concerning a development or regional impact. 9 In appropriate part this statutory section provides:
'Within thirty days after the order is rendered, either the Owner, developer, an Appropriate regional planning agency, or the State land planning agency may appeal the order to the Florida land and water adjudicatory commission by filing a notice of appeal with the commission.' (emphasis supplied) 10
Without dispute Sarasota County is not one of those parties who is authorized by this statute to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.
The entire scheme of Chapter 380 carefully preserves the rights of local governments to the maximum extent possible in 'zoning' property within its boundaries; the rights of the regional area by requiring a regional impact study in appropriate cases; the rights of the state by authorizing its land planning agency or the regional planning agency to seek review of local governmental action; and the rights of the landowner, including a specific timetable compelling expeditious action in order to quickly resolve the question of governmental dictates as to the use of his land. 11 In seeking to accomplish this regulatory scheme, the legislature enumerated those parties that were charged with the responsibility of reviewing the local government's action and vested with the right to appeal an order entered by such local government. In the instant cause Manatee County's Development Regional Impact Order has not been appealed by one of those enumerated parties. Sarasota County, a stranger to the proceedings, is not and was not authorized to seek review of Manatee County's Development Regional Impact Order.
We next turn our attention to Sarasota County's allegation that the Adjudicatory Commission's order erroneously prevents application of the provisions of Chapter 74-310, 12 Laws of Florida. This contention is without merit for two reasons. First, as we hereinabove stated, the legislative scheme by the precise language of Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beker Phosphate Corp. v. Muirhead
...the petition and agreed that Defendants lacked standing to appeal to the Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1975). See also Sarasota County v. General Development Corp., 325 So.2d 45 (2d Plaintiffs then brought this suit in ......
-
Friends of Everglades, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Monroe County
...action in order to quickly resolve the question of governmental dictates as to the use of his land." Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). See also Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc., 399 So.2d 1374, 1377 (Fla.1981) (competing interests of s......
-
Compass Lake Hills Development Corp. v. State, Dept. of Community Affairs, Division of State Planning, NN-458
...resources, and facilitate orderly and well planned development. Section 380.021, Florida Statutes. In Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), this court "The entire scheme of Chapter 380 carefully preserves the rights of local governments to the ma......
-
Context Development Co. v. Dade County
...v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53 (Fla.1976); Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974); and Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corp., 322 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In this case, the Director of the DERM acted without adequate legislative justification for imposing the requ......