SandBar 8:1, April, 2009

Florida Court Eases Standing Requirement for Development Challenges

Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus County, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Oct. 24, 2008).

Moses R. DeWitt, 2L, Florida State University School of Law

This article originally appeared in 28:4 of Water Log, the legal reporter for the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program.

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs who have particularized and legitimate interest in the use and preservation of a specific property have standing to challenge development projects on that property, even when their interest does not differ from that of the community as a whole.

Background
The Homosassa River is a pristine waterway and unique habitat to both fresh and saltwater marine life. It also serves as a rehabilitation center and refuge for endangered manatees.1 The Citrus County’s Board of County commissioners (Citrus County) granted permission to a Florida resort (Resort) along the Homosassa River to redevelop and significantly expand its facilities. Currently, the resort consists of two buildings containing fifteen residential condominium units. The proposed expansion approved by Citrus County includes the development of four new four-story buildings containing 87 condominium dwelling units, retail space, amenities, and parking.
   The Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc., a non-profit organization “committed to the preservation and conservation of environmentally sensitive lands and the wildlife in and around the Homosassa River and in Old Homosassa, Florida,” and three local property owners (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Citrus County.2 They alleged that approval of the proposed expansion is inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive land use plan, a statutorily mandated guide prepared by the local planning commission to control and direct the use and development of property. The Plaintiffs allege that the redevelopment plan exceeds the maximum density per twenty acres established by Citrus County’s adopted plan.

Trial Court Interprets Standing Requirements Narrowly
Prior to the enactment of Florida Section 163.3215 in 1985, “[A] party had to possess a legally recognized right that would be adversely affected by the decision or suffer special damages different in kind from that suffered by the community as a whole” to have standing to challenge development inconsistent with comprehensive plans.3
      The Florida Legislature enacted Section 163.3215 to ensure standing for any person “that will suffer an adverse effect to an interest [that is] protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan.4 Citrus County interpreted this statute to mean that the Plaintiffs directly must suffer an adverse effect from the redevelopment, or must demonstrate that the redevelopment will impact their interests to a greater degree than the community as a whole. Plaintiffs contended that Citrus County’s narrow interpretation was outside the express meaning of the statute.
      The trial court sided with Citrus County in holding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish standing under Florida Statute Section 163.3215. The court interpreted the statute to mean that the Plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that their interests are adversely affected by the project in a way not experienced by the general population of the community.

The Appellate Court’s Reversal
Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision by finding that Florida Statute Section 163.3215 speaks to “the quality of the interest of the person seeking standing” and does not require a unique harm not experienced by the general population.5  The court asserted that the statute is designed to expand the class of individuals who can achieve standing, and interpreting the statute in a manner that requires a plaintiff to show harm different from that of the general population is inconsistent with the statute’s purpose.6
      The court stated that a “unique harm” limitation “would make it impossible in most cases to establish standing and would leave counties free to ignore the [comprehensive] plan because each violation of the plan in isolation usually does not uniquely harm the individual plaintiff.”7
      In a 2-1 decision surely welcomed by a wide variety of environmental organizations, the majority concluded that Plaintiffs established a particularized and legitimate interest in the use and preservation of the Homosassa River, which is of the kind contemplated by the statute.8 The dissenting jurist suggested that such a broad view of the standing doctrine will allow citizen organizations to “vindicate their own value preferences through the judicial process,” instead of through the legislative process.9
      While the court held that these litigants have standing to pursue their lawsuit, Plaintiffs still face significant challenges on the merits, as regulatory decisions by elected county boards often need not be strictly consistent with plans recommended by planning commissions.

Endnotes
1. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Watershed Excursion of the Spring Coast, Homosassa River, http://www.­swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/­ springscoast/2.shtml (last visited Dec. 22, 2008).
2. Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus County, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Oct. 24, 2008).
3. Id. at *15 (citing Citizens Growth Mgmt. Coal., Inc. v. City of W. Palm Beach, 450 So. 2d 204, 206-08 (Fla. 1984); Putnam County Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 757 So. 2d 590, 592-93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2000)).
4. Fla. Stat. A7163.3215 (2008).
5. Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc., 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16449, at *18.
6. See id. at*16 (internal citations omitted).
7. Id. at *28.
8. Id.
9. Id. at *35-36 (Pleus, J., dissenting) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)).