IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-879CA

JUDGE: BEN L. BRYAN, JR.

WITHAM AIRPORT ACTION MAJORITY, INC., a Florida not- for-profit corporation, CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION, INC., a Florida not- for-profit corporation, LYNNE GARRETT PINE, and JOHN A. ZIEGLER, JR., Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARTIN COUNTY, a political sub- division of the State of Florida, and the MARTIN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, Defendants.

____________________________________/

Plaintiffs, Witham Airport Action Majority, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation ("WAAM"), Concerned Citizens Coalition, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation ("CCC"), Ms. Lynne Garrett Pine ("Ms. Pine"), and Mr. John A. Ziegler ("Mr. Ziegler") (collectively WAAM, CCC, Ms. Pine, and Mr. Ziegler will be referred to as the "Airport Challengers"), sue MARTIN COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County"), and the MARTIN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (the "MPO"), and allege:

This lawsuit is brought by the Airport Challengers for two (2) reasons: (1) Martin County and the MPO have failed to comply with the legal process applicable to the planning of Witham Field in Martin County, Florida; and (2) Martin County’s adoption of its Airport Master Plan is inconsistent with the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and in contravention to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Martin County. In Count I of this Complaint, the Airport Challengers attack the improper and illegal process used by Martin County and the MPO to adopt the Airport Master Plan, which is the blueprint for Witham Field and its future. In Count II, the Airport Challengers attack the inconsistency between the Airport Master Plan and the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. By failing to comply with proper legal process in connection with the adoption of the Airport Master Plan, and by adopting the Airport Master Plan which is inconsistent with the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Martin County and the MPO are degrading the quality of life in Martin County. This lawsuit seeks to remedy this wrong.

2. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.

2.1 This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.

2.2 The County is a local unit of government located in Martin County, Florida.

2.3 Most of the actions which give rise to the causes of action in this Complaint occurred in Martin County, Florida.

2.4 The Airport Challengers request a jury trial on all appropriate issues.

3. THE ILLEGAL ADOPTION OF THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

3.1 The MPO was established in by Interlocal Agreement on April 26, 1993.

3.2 In June, 1994, the County took over responsibility for managing and controlling Witham Field, a general aviation airport in Martin County, Florida ("Witham Field").

3.3 In November, 1994, a County employee or agent came before the MPO to discuss and review Witham Field’s transportation improvement program with the MPO. The County employee or agent represented to the MPO that "Witham Field should be able to serve the demands for the planning period without any major expansion."

3.4 Since the County’s assumption of the responsibility for Witham Field, except for the November, 1994, MPO meeting described above, the County has not brought any airport planning or projects to the MPO for review or approval.

3.5 On July 24, 2001, the County approved an updated Airport Master Plan for Witham Field (the "AMP").

3.6 §339.175, Florida Statutes, provides for the establishment and responsibilities of metropolitan planning organizations, by which the MPO is bound. §339.175(5) provides:

(5) POWERS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES. -- The powers, privileges, and authority of an M.P.O. are those specified in this section or incorporated in an interlocal agreement authorized under § 163.01. The M.P.O. shall perform all acts required by federal or state laws or rules, now and subsequently applicable, which are necessary to qualify for federal aid. It is the intent of this section that each M.P.O. shall be involved in the planning and programing of transportation facilities, including, but not limited to, airports, intercity and high-speed rail lines, sea ports, and intermodal facilities, to the extent permitted by state or federal law. (Emphasis added.)

3.7 Pursuant to § 339.175, Florida Statues, and state and federal law, the MPO is required to be involved in the following with respect to Witham Field: (1) long range transportation planning; (2) annually updated transportation improvement programing; and (3) annual unified work programing.

3.8 MPO and the County have violated § 339.175. Florida Statutes, and state and federal law by refusing to include the MPO and its subcommittees in planning decisions at Witham Field.

3.9 § 339.175(7)(b), Florida Statutes, provides:

(b) Each M.P.O. annually shall prepare a list of project priorities and shall submit the list to the appropriate district of the department by October 1 of each year; however the department and the metropolitan planning organization may, in writing, agree to vary the submital date. The list of project priorities must be formally reviewed by technical and citizens’ advisory committees, and approved by the M.P.O., before it is transmitted to the district. The approved list of project priorities must be used by the district in developing the district work program and must be used by the M.P.O. in developing its transportation improvement program. The list of project priorities must be based upon project selection criteria that, at a minimum, consider the following:

1. The approved M.P.O. long-range transportation plan;

2. The results of the transportation management system; and

3. The M.P.O.’s public-involvement procedure.

3.10 § 339.175(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides:

(c) The transportation improvement program must, at a minimum:

1. Include projects and project phases to be funded with state or federal funds within the time period of the transportation improvement program and which are recommended for advancement during the next fiscal year for subsequent fiscal years. Such projects and project phases must be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government located within the jurisdiction of the M.P.O. For informational purposes, the transportation improvement program should also include a list of projects to be funded from local or private revenues.

2. For the site include projects within the metropolitan area which are proposed for funding under 23 U.S.C.S. 134 of the Federal Transit Act and which are consistent with the long-range transportation plan developed under sub-section (6).

3. Provide a financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented; indicates the resources, both public and private, that are reasonably expected to be available to accomplish the program; identifies any innovative financing techniques that may be used to fund needed projects and programs; and may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the approved transportation improvement program if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. Innovative financing techniques may include assessment of tolls, the use of value capture financing, or the use of value pricing. The transportation improvement program may include a project or project phase only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project or project phase within the time period contemplated for completion of the project or project phase....

6. Indicate whether any project or project phase is inconsistent with an approved comprehensive plan of the unit of local government located within the jurisdiction of the M.P.O. If a project is inconsistent with an effective comprehensive plan, the M.P.O. must provide justification for including the project in the transportation improvement program.

7. Indicate how the improvements are consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with affected seaport, airport, spaceport master plans and public transit development plans of the units of local government located within the jurisdiction of the M.P.O. If the project is located within the boundaries of more than one M.P.O., the M.P.O.s must coordinate plans regarding the project in the transportation improvement program.

4. THE APM’S INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

4.1 The AMP is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in at least the following ways:

A. The AMP is inconsistent with § 5-4.3.A.-B of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the basic needs at Witham Field based upon the Treasure Coast Regional Aviation Plan (1992-2010). The 2001 AMP expands development of the airport well beyond the scope of development set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.

B. The AMP is inconsistent with Section 2-2.B of the Comprehensive Plan in that it adversely affects quality of life standards acceptable to citizens by allowing for unreasonable expansion of the airport which is inconsistent with the community character and the surrounding property uses.

C. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 9-4.A.7.b.(5)(c) of the Comprehensive Plan in that it fails to provide for mitigation of potential drainage impacts to the maximum extent technically feasible.

D. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 4-5.A.2.b.(1) of the Comprehensive Plan, which requires new development to be compatible with existing residential development.

E. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 2-2.C of the Comprehensive Plan, in that it fails to provide for management of the airport site to minimize adverse environmental impacts, including noise pollution.

F. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 5-5.F.1.e-f of the Comprehensive Plan in that it fails to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan’s conservation and land use elements, including requirements for preserve areas, and fails to include concerned members of the public in coordination of airport development activities.

G. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 5-5.G of the Comprehensive Plan in that it fails to recognize the limitations imposed by existing surrounding residential areas.

H. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 5-5. J.1. of the Comprehensive Plan in that it fails to comply with the County’s development policies and fails to restrict all uses to those compatible with the airport and its environs, fails to identify methods for protection of natural resources, fails to meet the requirements of the County’s conservation and open space policies regarding the preservation of native or endangered species of fauna and flora.

I. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 5-5.J.2. of the Comprehensive Plan in that it fails to minimize noise impacts beyond the boundaries of the airport.

J. The AMP approval is inconsistent with Section 5-5.H in that it is not based upon the required studies and evaluations of airport expansion or re-location.

5.1 The Airport Challengers reside in, own property, or represent citizens who reside in or own property in Martin County, Florida, who are directly affected by the airport at Witham Field.

5.2 The Airport Challengers are aggrieved or adversely persons affected as defined by § 163.3215(2), Florida Statues, because they will suffer adverse effects to interests protected or furthered by the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") as a result of the County’s approval of the AMP.

5.3 The Airport Challengers’ adversely affected interests include, but are not limited to, interests related to health and safety, property values, intensity of development, derogation of environment and natural resources, maintenance of the character of the community, and capability of increased airport development and conflicts with surrounding land uses.

5.4 WAAM and CCC are Florida not-for-profit corporations formed for the purposes of: (i) promoting for the benefit of the general population of Martin County an environment reasonably free from aircraft exhaust fumes and noise; (ii) providing baseline information on air quality and noise related to Witham Field to ensure the effective implementation of management strategies using the best available scientific information; (iii) promoting communication and cooperation among citizens, public agencies, private organizations, and individuals in support of a quiet and clean Martin County; (iv) increasing the public knowledge about air and noise pollution from Witham Field and promoting clean air and noise reduction; (v) promoting quality of life in Martin County.

5.5 WAAM and CCC have as their members substantial numbers of Martin County residents who live in extremely close proximity to Witham Field. Certain populations of WAAM and CCC’s membership are geographically located as follows: Stuart Yacht and Country Club - 169 members; Rocky Point - 10 members; Mariner Cay - 11 members; City of Stuart - 138 members; Town of Sewall’s Point - 239 members; Vista Pines - 58 members; Cedar Point - 15 members; St. Lucie Boulevard - 161 members; Old St. Lucie Boulevard - 19 members; Kingswood - 61 members; and Conquistador - 26 members.

5.6 Ms. Pine lives immediately adjacent to a Witham Field Airport runway, and substantial air traffic from Witham Field crosses within close proximity to her home.

5.7 Mr. Ziegler lives on the western boundary of the Town of Sewall’s Point, and substantial air traffic from Witham Field crosses within close proximity to his home.

5.8 The Airport Challengers are adversely affected by the AMP to a greater degree than the general interest in the community shared by all persons.

Plaintiffs reallege the allegations in Sections 1 through 3, and 5.

6.1 This is an action pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statues, for declaratory judgment.

6.2 The Airport Challengers believe and contend that the County and MPO failed to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements contained in § 339.175, Florida Statutes, and other state and federal laws, relating to the County and MPO’s participation in the planning and improvement construction of Witham Field.

6.3 The Airport Challengers believe that the applicable laws relating to the County and MPO’s participation and planning and construction at Witham Field legally requires participation by various subcommittees and agencies under the MPO.

6.4 Airport Challengers believe that the County has applied for state and federal funds for improvements to Witham Field that require as condition precedent appropriate involvement in the legally required planning processes which have not been followed and which have led to the AMP being: (1) adopted without public participation as required by state and federal law; (2) adopted without appropriate comment and recommendations from persons or entities with particular knowledge or expertise who are required to participate in the planning process pursuant to state and federal law; and (3) inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

6.5 A present and actual controversy exists between the Airport Challengers and the County and MPO with regard to the County and MPO’s responsibilities and duties under § 339.175, Florida Statues, and state and federal law regarding airport planning, funding, and construction.

WHEREFORE, the Airport Challengers request the Court: (1) enter a judgment declaring that the County and MPO have failed to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of § 339.175, Florida Statutes, and state and federal law: (2) enter a mandatory injunction pursuant to § 86.061, Florida Statutes, requiring the County and MPO to comply with the provisions of § 339.175, Florida Statues, and state and federal law; (3) invalidate the existing AMP, and require the County and MPO to re-adopt a properly processed airport master plan; (4) award the Airport Challengers costs in this action; and (5) enter a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of all airport improvement constructed through approvals granted without the proper approval process.

Plaintiffs reallege the allegations in Sections 1, 4, and 5.

7.1 This is an action pursuant to § 163.3215, Florida Statutes, for injunctive relief against the County and MPO from taking any action that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

7.2 On July 24, 2001, County approved the AMP for Witham Field (the "Development Order"). The Development Order is a development permit under § 163.13164(8), Florida Statutes, because it is an action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land. Without the County’s approval the AMP, the proposed construction improvements contained within the AMP could not be physically made to Witham Field.

7.3 On August 23, 2001, the Airport Challengers filed a Verified Complaint with the County, pursuant to § 163.3215(4).

WHEREFORE, the Airport Challengers request that this Court (1) enter a judgment determining that the AMP is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) void the provisions of the AMP which are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (3) enter a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of any improvements or facilities constructed at Witham Field during the pendency of this lawsuit which are inconsistent with the AMP as amended, pursuant to the Court’s declaration; and (4) award the Airport Challengers’ costs in this action; and (5) grant all other appropriate relief.

WRIGHT, PONSOLDT & LOZEAU,
TRIAL ATTORNEYS, L.L.P.

_________________________________

TIM B. WRIGHT

Fla. Bar No. 823351

1000 S.E. Monterey Commons Boulevard
Suite 208
Stuart, Florida 34996
(561) 286-5566 - Phone
(561) 286-9102 - Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs