Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): begun a proceeding to amend the comprehensive plan, which would have given them a “point of entry” to oppose the project. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Town of Lake Park, 494 So.2d 1123 (Fla.1986), however, the supreme court held that sewer and roadway improvements within the rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of part two of chapter 163. See also Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County v. Department of Community Affairs, 560 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The appellants, therefore, have failed to show that the project violates the requirements of chapter 168, or that the comprehensive plan must be amended before the project can proceed. Accordingly, they have failed to show that they have standing. See City of Sarasota v. Windom, 736 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. PLEUS J, and ORFINGER, M., Senior 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (B) holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave (C) holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen (D) holding that citizen did not have standing where there was no showing of a procedural irregularity (E) holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern