Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin County
73 So. 3d 856
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2007 Martin County amended the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan with two amendments: Land Protection Amendment and Secondary Urban Services District Amendment.
- The Department initially disapproved the Land Protection Amendment but found the Urban Services Amendment compliant; a settlement led Martin County to adopt compliance amendments for the Land Protection Amendment.
- Administrative litigation followed as Appellants challenged the amendments’ compliance despite the settlement.
- ALJ found both amendments complied with the statute and recommended affirmance; Appellants filed 25 exceptions but did not challenge water/sewer benefits.
- This court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate standing under section 120.68(1), triggering sanctions under section 57.105(1).
- The rehearing opinion denies the motions, imposes sanctions in favor of Appellees and intervenors, and declines to address constitutional access concerns raised by dissenters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants had appellate standing under §120.68(1). | Appellants contend standing exists due to adverse impacts on members. | Appellees argue no concrete adverse effects shown; standing is speculative. | Standing not established; sanctions proper. |
| Whether sanctions under §57.105(1) were properly imposed for a meritless appeal. | Appellants assert sanctions are unwarranted given close standing issues. | Court may sanction for lack of material facts or law supporting standing. | Sanctions affirmed; fees awarded to prevailing parties. |
| Whether the court properly applied §57.105 standards given the record. | Appellants argue standard misapplied and would chill advocacy. | Majority applied statutory standards to deter baseless appeals. | Statutory standards applied; sanctions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (standing requires adverse effect on substantial interests; broad APA standing is not automatic for appellate review)
- Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Clark, 668 So.2d 982 (Fla. Supreme Court 1996) ( LEAF must show adverse effect to challenge agency decision)
- Sierra Club v. Suwannee Am. Cement Co., Inc., 802 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (association members must show individual adverse effects)
- Reily Enterprises v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 990 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (supports no appellate standing without adverse impacts; cited for standing limitations)
- Westwood Baptist Church, 953 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (mandatory sanctions language and policy justifications under §57.105)