FL Appeals Court Reverses Finding of No Standing in Case Disputing County’s Comportment with Its Required Review Process

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

This case arose from development agreements entered into by the defendant City of Dania Beach and defendant Dania Entertainment Center (“DEC”) to expand the Dania Jai Alai pari-mutuel facility. In 2006, the City entered into a development agreement with the facility’s then-owner Aragon Group, Inc. The development agreement included plans to renovate the original Jai Alai facility and to build a new gaming facility on the property. Appellants appealled a final judgment entered on their complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the procedures which the City of Dania Beach used to approve development agreements allowing appellee Dania Entertainment Center LLC to expand the Dania Jai Alai pari-mutuel facility. Appellants also sought declaratory judgment against Broward County disputing the county’s comportment with its required review process for the Dania Jai Alai expansion. The trial court concluded that appellants lacked standing to pursue their claims because they failed to show special damages.

On appeal plaintiffs argued that the City did not follow the process of their land use code or the Local Government Development Agreement Act. They further claimed that there was inadequate notice with respect to the approval of both the 2011 and 2014 development agreements. The court noted that allegations were not challenges to the substantive zoning decision, but were instead challenges to the procedure for approving the development agreements. Pursuant to Renard, any affected resident or property owner has standing to challenge an ordinance when attacking it for voidness. Thus, plaintiffs were required to show that they were “affected” by the ordinance, which is a lesser showing than requiring special damage. Here, Plaintiff Simpson showed that he lived relatively close to the development and had issues with the increased traffic causing him danger due to him being legally blind. Additionally, Plaintiff CFRD alleged that it had members impacted by the development, including residents of the City of Dania and one member who resides within 300 feet of the facility. Moreover, the non-profit is a public interest company interested in responsible development in the county.

The county argued that because it was not a party to the development agreements, the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered a redressable injury traceable to it because the county did not approve the development agreements. The court rejected this contention, finding the plaintiffs’ claim was that the county failed to conduct the review process required by county ordinances for development applications because it erroneously relied on section 550.155 to exempt review. As this was a process argument which the plaintiffs had standing to raise, the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue the claims made that the defendant governmental entities failed to follow their own procedures and ordinances and to follow statutory requirements for development review.

Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. v City of Dania Beach, 2022 WL 2709476 (FL App. 7/13/2022)