Duval FL Lawyers | Mark Howard Scruby -- eLawyers

10-000912GM ADJUTANT GENERAL AND DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS vs CLAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2010

The Camp Blanding Joint Training Center ("Camp Blanding" or the "Camp") is in Clay County (the "County"). As the local government with land use authority over lands adjacent to and in close proximity to Camp Blanding, the County is required to amend or update the future land use element of its adopted comprehensive plan "to include criteria to be used to achieve the compatibility of lands adjacent or closely proximate to" the Camp. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009).1/ The County adopted Clay County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 09-1MIL in Ordinance No. 2009-65 in order to fulfill the statutory requirement.2/ The issue in this case is whether the Amendment is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. To be in compliance the Amendment must be consistent with section 163.3177. Petitioners' specific contentions are that the Amendment is not consistent with subsections (6)(a) and (8)3/ of section 163.3177.4/It is "fairly debatable" that Clay County, over Camp Blandings objections, re-acted appropriately to data and analysis in adopting its military installation Amendment to Clay County Comp. Plan. Amendment is in compliance.

07-005755GM LESEMAN FAMILY LAND PARTNERSHIP; WALTER E. MURPHREE, JR.; AND DEBRA C. TREECE, vs CLAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2007

The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-53, is “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007).1Petitioners failed to prove that the designation of 47 acres as Rural Fringe was not "in incompliance."

03-001113VR ROBERT A. MASON vs CLAY COUNTY (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 27, 2003

The issue for determination in this matter is whether Petitioner, Robert A. Mason, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding that part of such development will not be in accordance with the Clay County Comprehensive Plan.Applicant entitled to Vested Rights Certificate where he acted in good faith and reasonably relied on acts of County in approving prior development activity.

99-002490VR LITTLE RAIN LAKE ESTATES PHASE TWO UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION vs CLAY COUNTY (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 01, 1999

Whether the Petitioner, Silver Sands Estates, Inc., has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?Petitioner proved Clay County was equitably estopped from preventing continued development of property without complying with the Comprehensive Plan.

94-005525VR ROBERT I. MOORE AND KATHRYN E. MOORE (MOORE'S SUBDIVISION) vs CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 1994

Whether the Petitioners have shown any vested rights pursuant to Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended under Clay County Ordinances 92-22, 92-29, and 93-26, for the issuance of a building permit for each of Petitioners' lots, as amended in Petitioners' application, depicted on surveyed plat recorded with the county clerk on December 31, 1991.Equit relief on development plan density requirements denied. Recommended variance to divide parcel on pre-plan roads with lot sizes close to plan requirements.

96-005529VR ELMWOOD (UNRECORDED) vs CLAY COUNTY (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 19, 1996

The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Geraldine Maguire, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner failed to prove equitable vesting.

95-002788VR JOHN BRADLEY AND JOSEPH TIPLETT (BRADLEY-TRIPLETT SUBDIVISION) vs CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 30, 1995

Whether the Petitioners have a vested right to receive a building permit for a portion of the lots owned by them in a unplatted subdivision known variously as Bradley-Triplett Subdivision or Governor's Creek Subdivision pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?Petitioners showed their expenditures in attempts to comply with county's requests in order to have roads maintained estopped county from denying development.

94-003343VR ST. WILLIAM LAND COMPANY, INC. vs CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 15, 1994

Whether Petitioner, St. William Land Company, Inc., demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to continue development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?Petitioner failed to prove entitlement to vested rights certificate.

93-007071VR VILLAGES OF FIRESIDE SUBDIVISION vs CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 10, 1993

Whether the Petitioner, The Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to continue development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?Petitioner proved county estopped from denying right to develop property.

93-005210VR STATION POND SUBDIVISION (OAK FOREST EXTENSION) vs CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 13, 1993

Whether the Petitioner, McDill Columbus Corporation, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?Applicants development entitled to vested rights certificate. County equit- ability estopped from requiring compliance with comprehensive plan.

Mark Howard Scruby