Federal Judge rules against county

Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.

A federal judge last week ordered Jefferson County officials to revisit their denial of the application of a developer wanting to put a large-scale subdivision in the Lamont area.
On Thursday, July 28, Judge Robert L. Hinkle, in the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Florida, annulled the Jefferson County Commission’s decision to deny Econfina Timberland, LLC, a development permit and ordered the board to revisit the issue.
In his six-page ruling, the judge found that the commission had failed to ground its decision for denial in “applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority.”
“What the order does, is it sends the application back to the county commission and the commission can issue the permit or issue it with conditions,” said Attorney Tom Reeves, who represents Econfina.
“But they can’t deny it. And the conditions have to be based on what was done at the hearing.”
“They can’t just put whatever conditions they want,” Reeves added. “It would have to be something that was supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The record is locked and they can’t add to it. And so, if they want to add a condition, they would have to go back and find evidence in the record for that condition.”
Reeves explained that the lawsuit consisted of four counts, one of which the court granted, one that it dismissed and two that still are pending.
One count, he said, involved equal protection for damages, another was for due process, a third was for ex-parte communications and the fourth asked for a summary judgment.
“The court order resolves count 4,” Reeves said, speaking of the summary judgment. “But we’ll still be seeking damages in a trial that is set in December.”
Reeves declined commenting on the two pending counts, saying it was premature to do so at present.
“But I think it’s fair to say that we will be seeking substantial monetary damages against the county,” he said.
As to why his client had chosen to go the federal route instead of going through the circuit court, Reeves said it was because under federal law, damages could be sought for violations of civil rights.
“And we felt like this was a violation of our client’s civil rights,” he said.
According to Florida law, per the court order, two levels of judicial review are possible for county land-use decisions. These are a first-level review in a state circuit court and a second-level review in an appellate court.
“When a federal district court has jurisdiction over such a claim, it engages in first-level review,” the order states.
And the three questions that are pertinent in first-level reviews are whether procedural due process was accorded; whether the essential requirements of the law were observed; and whether competent substantial evidence supports the administrative findings and judgment.
The judge found that although the commission had afforded Econfina procedural due process, it had not complied with the essential requirements of law. The county, in other words, had not cited legal authority for its denial of the application, Hinkle wrote.
Equally compelling in the court’s ruling, according to the order, was the county’s failure to include competent substantial evidence to support the denial, even after ample time was provided after the lawsuit was filed.
The commission denied Econfina’s application last September, despite recommendations for approval from both the planning official and planning commission.
The proposed development involved the subdivision of 650 acres off Ed Bishop and Big Woods roads into 25 lots of 20 or more acres each, with the exception of two 10-acre lots. The large tract, which is zoned agriculture, contains a significant portion of wetlands and floodplain.
Which was the reason why the planning officials and planners recommended certain conditions, including that several lots have wetlands delineations done on them and that some have benchmarks established. Another of the proposed conditions was that one of two roads providing access to the subdivision be brought up to county standards at the developer’s expense.
The cited conditions notwithstanding, the county commission objected to placing a subdivision in a wetlands and floodplain, concerned about the impact that such a development would have on the area’s fragile ecosystem, wildlife habitat and archaeological and natural resources.
At the hearing, Reeves objected to the additional conditions that the board wanted to impose and that he said were not justified by the Jefferson Land Development Code.
The commission, he argued, had to abide by the code and the rules as written, not as some might want them to be. The commission, he said, couldn’t apply conditions or requirements willy-nilly. If it wanted additional safeguards in place, it had to amend the code, he said. For the time being, however, the board had to abide by the code as it existed, he said.
“We’re trying to play by the rules that this board made,” Reeves said. “But you’ve got to be fair and consistent. If you have a problem because we don’t comply with the rules, that is okay. But you can’t do it just because you don’t like it.”
When the board nonetheless voted 4-1 to deny the application, Reeves intimated that litigation would be forthcoming.