Title: CIT. GROWTH MGT. COALITION v. City of West Palm Beach, Inc.
Citation: 450 So. 2d 204
Docket Number: 63564
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 1984

450 So. 2d 204 (1984)
CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT COALITION OF WEST PALM BEACH, INC., Appellant.
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 63564.

Supreme Court of Florida.
March 8, 1984.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1984.
*205 Albert J. Hadeed, John K. McPherson and William P. Healy of Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, for appellant.
Carl V.M. Coffin, City Atty., West Palm Beach, for City of West Palm Beach.
L. Louis Mrachek and David M. Layman of Gunster, Yoakley, Criser &amp; Stewart, Palm Beach, for the Goodman Co.
James R. Wolf, General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Florida League of Cities.
Stephen W. Metz, Florida Home Builders Association, Tallahassee, and Robert M. Rhodes of Messer, Rhodes &amp; Vickers, Tallahassee, for Florida Home Builders Assn.
BOYD, Justice.
We have for review the judgment of the circuit court in Palm Beach County rejecting the challenge of a citizens' group (Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach) to a rezoning decision of the City of West Palm Beach. The citizens' group appealed and the district court of appeal certified that the issues presented by the appeal are such that the determination thereof will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state and that they require immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5), Florida Constitution. We find that the circuit *206 court's judgment was correct in all respects and we therefore affirm.
The appellant Citizens Growth Management Coalition is an incorporated association the membership of which includes residents, citizens, and taxpayers of West Palm Beach. The Coalition filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and a petition for statutory writ of certiorari challenging the validity of two ordinances, one a rezoning ordinance and the other a clarification of an existing zoning ordinance. The ordinances were enacted to allow the construction of a large-scale residential and commercial building complex in the downtown area of West Palm Beach. The gravamen of the Coalition's complaint was that the ordinances were not enacted in conformity with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, sections 163.3161-.3211, Florida Statutes (1981). The trial court entered judgment against the Coalition on the ground that it lacked standing to question the validity of the ordinances under Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972). Following the taking of an appeal and the district court's certification of the case as one requiring immediate resolution, we accepted jurisdiction and granted motions by the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Home Builders Association to file amicus curiae briefs.
In its brief the Coalition raises two issues. The first is whether it had standing to raise the question of whether the ordinances were passed in conformity with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The second is whether the city was required to use administrative procedures in determining whether the proposed development was consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Because we affirm the trial court's holding with respect to standing, we refrain from commenting upon the second issue.
The question of standing to challenge zoning decisions was comprehensively explained in Renard v. Dade County. In that case a district court of appeal certified as a question of great public interest:
261 So. 2d  at 834. This Court held that under the first category a plaintiff had to prove special damages different in kind from that suffered by the community as a whole, that under the second category a plaintiff needed to have a legally recognizable interest that was adversely affected, and that under the third category an affected resident, citizen, or property owner had standing.
Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082, 1087 (Fla. 1978).
Appellant argues that none of these three categories are applicable to actions seeking to enforce compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Appellant claims that although the legislature did not enact a separate statutory section on standing, it intended to grant standing to the fullest extent possible by using the phrase "justiciably raised" in section 163.3194(3)(a), which provides in part:
We do not find that the legislature, by adopting this section, intended to broaden the requirements for standing. Because the legislature did not specifically address the question of who has standing to enforce compliance with the Act, we find that it must not have intended to alter the standing requirements established in Renard v. Dade County.
In the alternative, appellant argues that the Act creates for citizens and residents legally recognizable interests which are adversely affected if a rezoning ordinance fails to comply with the Act's requirements. We disagree with this contention. The legislature specifically delineated the intent and purpose of this act in section 163.3161, which provides:
Thus the legislature has not indicated in this section that it intended to create additional legal rights in citizens who are only affected in common with the community as a whole. The expressed intent contained in subsection (5) that development *208 shall not be permitted unless it is in conformity with the comprehensive plan imposes a legal duty upon the governing body but does not create a right of judicial redress in the citizens and residents of the community. The legal duty imposed on local governmental bodies is akin to their general obligation to pass ordinances that are reasonable. See 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning § 3.05 (4th ed. 1979). We therefore hold that only those persons who already have a legally recognizable right which is adversely affected have standing to challenge a land use decision on the ground that it fails to conform with the comprehensive plan. Since the trial court found that the Coalition had failed to prove that it or any of its members had a legally recognizable interest which would be affected by the city's ordinances, we affirm its holding that appellant lacked standing to question the validity of the ordinances.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., dissents.