Florida Wildlife Federation v. Collier County
Florida District Court of Appeal
819 So. 2d 200 (2002)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Collier County (the county) (defendant) adopted interim amendments to its comprehensive plan. The Department of Community Affairs (the department) (defendant) issued a final order directing the county to include amendments designating certain areas as Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). According to the order, the county adopted amendments designating the specified areas as NRPAs. The interim amendments provided that only agricultural and directly related uses, and one single-family dwelling unit per parcel or lot, are permitted in NRPAs. The department reviewed the amendments and found them to comply with state law. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society (the environmental groups) challenged the department’s determination, arguing that the NRPAs should be expanded based on telemetry data gathered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) rejected the environmental groups’ argument, finding that the interim NRPAs were necessary before an assessment could be conducted pursuant to the final order. The ALJ also found that the agricultural usage of land contained within the NRPAs was not subject to an intensity-of-use standard. The environmental groups appealed, arguing that the interim amendment NRPAs did not comply with state law included in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act) and that an intensity-of-use standard must be applied to agricultural uses contained within the NRPAs. The Act included the requirement that a comprehensive plan must contain a future land-use plan element designating the extent of the uses of land and that land-use categories be defined in terms of types of uses and specific standards for the intensity of use. The environmental groups contended that because the Act required the extent of uses of agricultural land to be designated according to standards for the density or intensity of use, the interim NRPA amendments were invalid because they did not include a standard regulating the intensity of an agricultural use. The department argued that the term “intensity” was only applicable to the presence of buildings and structures, and because buildings and structures are incompatible with the agricultural use of land, there is no corresponding necessity of imposing an intensity standard on a land use designated as agricultural within the NRPAs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ervin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.