FL Appeals Court Holds Environmental “Watchdog” Group had Standing to Challenge PUD by Having Interests Beyond Those of the General Public 

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

These cases stemmed from a grant of a development order by Walton County to Ashwood. The order allowed Ashwood to build a new planned unit development (“PUD”) known as Cypress Lake. Cypress Lake was to consist of one hundred forty-one residential units, which would be divided into eighty-five single-family houses, forty duplex units, and sixteen condominium units. The PUD also included fifty-three thousand square feet of commercial space divided among four mixed-use buildings. The land to be developed abuts Walton County Highway 30-A on one side, and Topsail Hill Preserve State Park, a conservation zone, on at least one other. Appellants asserted that the development order approving the Cypress Lake PUD materially altered the designated land use, density, and intensity of use for the parcel where the PUD would be located. They claimed that this order was inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive development plan in a variety of ways. They sought to invalidate the development order and stop Cypress Lake from being constructed as proposed.

Here, there was no dispute here that Walton County’s approval of the Cypress Lake PUD was a “development order” that materially altered the use, density, and intensity of property. As such, the trial court should have considered all of the appellants’ claims of inconsistency, even those that did not strictly relate to density and intensity. Since it failed to do so, the court reversed the judgment as to the consistency of Walton County’s action on the Cypress Lake PUD order and remanded for the trial court to consider the inconsistency claims it previously determined to be “not relevant.”

The court next addressed SWCC’s appeal of the trial court’s determination that it lacked standing to sue under section 163.3215(2). The evidence reflected that SWCC was a non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Walton County, founded “to foster, protect, and enhance the character and welfare of the neighborhoods and communities in the area … known generally as South Walton County.” Nevertheless, the trial court concluded SWCC did not have standing because it “failed to establish that it possesses any interest in the Cypress Lake PUD project beyond that shared by all persons.” The court noted on appeal that SWCC operates as a “watchdog” group, engaged in activities to protect environmental interests now alleged to be adversely affected by a supposed violation of the comprehensive plan. Thus, by its activities, SWCC showed it is more animated or motivated by an affected interest protected by the plan than the average member of the public.

As a final matter, the court reversed the amended final judgment for costs, which was rendered in favor of Ashwood and is on appeal in Case Number 19-1530. Since the court reversed the final judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings, there no longer was a prevailing party for the purpose of taxing costs.

Imhof v Walton County, FL, 2021 WL 4189197 (FL App. 9/15/2021)