Whether the Department of Community Affairs (Department) should be precluded from prosecuting the instant challenge to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) of Metropolitan Dade County (Metro-Dade, Dade County or County), as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28, on the ground that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites to instituting such a challenge? Whether the Redland Citizens Association, Inc., the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Evelyn B. Sutton, Martin Motes, Frances L. Mitchell, Rod Jude, Bruce Rohde and Carol Rist (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Objectors") are "affected persons," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, entitled to intervene in this matter and pursue their challenge to the CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28? Whether Carol Rist's motion to amend her petition for leave to intervene in this matter should be granted? Whether the challenged amendments made to the CDMP through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28, specifically those resulting from the approval of Applications 39, 40 and 47, have rendered the CDMP not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes? Whether John H. Wellenhofer is entitled to an award of fees and costs against the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes?Comp. plan amendments that changed use designations of 375 acres and added 480 acres to urban area did not render plan not in compliance

Petitioner bid knowing it would be liable for taxes on final conveyance to Dade County by warranty deed. Petitionerdoesn't fall within any exemptions and must pay taxes.

Whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 20-05 on February 5, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1Petitioner did not prove that Respondent's Plan Amendment is not "in compliance."