Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
A federal court has once again rapped county officials’ knuckles over their handling of a developer’s plan to build a major housing subdivision in a wetlands-prone area in the Lamont area.
In keeping with an earlier issued ruling by the same court, Jefferson County officials last September approved the preliminary plat for a 650-acre subdivision off Ed Bishop and Big Woods roads by Econfina Timberlands LLC, contingent on the developer meeting certain conditions.
The problem was that in approving the plat, the Jefferson County Commission went beyond the conditions allowed by the court, based on the record showing that the conditions had been part of the development’s original application hearings.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Feb. 3, Judge Robert L. Hinkle, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, again sided with the developer, striking down the additional conditions imposed by the county as not being supported by the record.
The court reiterated its earlier finding that notwithstanding the county having had unlimited time and excellent attorney representation, it had still failed to cite any ordinance, rule, statute or other legal authority to justify the additional conditions.
Econfina, Hinkle wrote, had agreed to specific conditions before the original denial of its application. On remand, he noted, the board had imposed those conditions, “or substantially similar
conditions, and Econfina, to its credit, had not objected.”
The board, however, the judge wrote in his eight-page ruling, had then imposed three additional conditions not supported by the record.
One was that prior to the final plat, Econfina must bring Big Woods and Ed Bishop, both dirt roads, up to applicable county standards at the developer’s expense.
A second was that the developer must comply with all requirements of the county’s Land Development Code (LDC) in terms of the management of stormwater, relative to the property’s development and the upgrade of the two roads.
And third was that the county’s approval of the project was dependent on the applicant meeting any and all applicable conditions or requirements contained in the LDC, regardless whether such conditions or requirements were expressly set forth in the approval.
The judge amended the first of the three conditions and struck out the other two.
Econfina, Hinkle said in his ruling, was “understandably wary of a board that has so clearly departed from the governing law to this point.”
He further warned that the board should expect to pay attorney’s fees and possibly incur additional sanctions if Econfina was required to return to the court again to exact compliance with the governing law.
“The board,” Hinkle wrote, “would do well to follow law. It might start by heeding the advice of its own attorneys.”
The development dates from September 2021, when the board denied Econfina’s application after two hearings because of flooding concerns and the development’s potentially adverse effects on the area’s ecology and wildlife, among other reasons. The board’s rejection came despite the recommendations for approval from both the planning official and planning commission.
In consequence, the developer filed a lawsuit in federal court, appealing the county’s denial. In July 2022, Hinkle ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that the board had failed to justify its denial based on the LDC or Florida law.
Nor, according to the judge, had the county in the litigation phase presented any evidence to justify its denial of the application.
The judge then remanded the matter to county officials with instructions that they should approve the application. Their only choice in the matter, the judge said, was to impose conditions, provided that the conditions were supported by evidence found in the record from the 2021 hearings.
In accordance with the record, the commission imposed six conditions on the development. These included assigning wetlands delineations to certain lots, establishing benchmarks for others that were in the floodplain, and making the developer bring Ed Bishop and Big Wood roads up to county standard.
The commission, however, then tacked on three additional conditions, which the plaintiff’s attorney, Tom Reeves, at the time indicated would be appealed to the court. Reeves in fact represents developer Joseph Clayton, of Florida Land Sales, LLC, which is purchasing the property from Econfina Timberlands for development.