Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3
4
5
v.
7
8
Case No.:
HENDRY COUNTY,
Defendant.
9
10
11
12
13
Section 24(b) and 286.011 of Florida Law, commonly referred to as Floridas Sunshine
14
Law, seeking judicial relief from Hendry Countys evasion of public scrutiny when it
15
approved a highly controversial facility owned by a mysterious entity called SoFlo Ag LLC
16
that will reportedly confine, quarantine, and breed thousands of wild and imported non-human
17
human primates are known carriers of a wide array of serious infectious diseases such as
19
Ebola, Herpes B, tuberculosis, and parasites that may be transmitted to humans. In fact,
20
macaques have been responsible for outbreaks of an Ebola strain in United States research
21
facilities, and macaques have also escaped from other Florida breeding facilities in the past
22
resulting in bites and other injuries. Moreover, the operation of the facility will entail a
23
substantial increase in noise, traffic, and other activity in degradation of the neighborhoods
24
rural residential character that the Citizens have thus far enjoyed.
25
2.
Despite the radical impact that the SoFlo Ag facility will have on the
26
neighborhood, the County met behind closed doors with special interests in favor of the
27
facility while taking every possible measure to impede public participation. The County failed
28
-1COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
to hold a public meeting on its decision to approve the SoFlo Ag primate facility, and failed
to provide any notice about its impending decision to approve the development even though
3.
The Countys failure to provide public notice or hold a public meeting on the
issue violated the Sunshine Law because its approval of the facility rose to the level of a
decision-making function conducted behind closed doors. Whereas other Florida counties
have enacted ordinances dealing with wild and exotic animal possession, the Hendry County
Code of Ordinances is silent about the permissibility of operating a facility like SoFlo Ag that
confines, quarantines, and transports thousands of wild non-human primates. The Code is
10
therefore necessarily silent about critical issues such as whether such facilities may be built
11
next to residential neighborhoods, and whether other conditions must be satisfied such as
12
13
4.
Despite the gravity of the decision before it, the County did not engage in a
14
fair and open decision-making process as mandated by law. For example, the County could
15
have amended its ordinance to address wild and exotic animal facilities like SoFlo Ag, or
16
granted a variance from the general agriculture zoning. Each of these approaches would have
17
involved the public most impacted by the project in the process. Instead, County staff chose
18
the most secretive route by determining at a closed-door meeting that they would simply bend
19
the definition of animal husbandry (i.e. the care and production of domestic animals) to
20
include the care and production of infectious wild and imported non-human primates so they
21
could categorize the facility as general agriculture and avoid taking any official action on the
22
issue. See Hendry County Code of Ordinances 1-53-2.2 (general agriculture includes
23
24
25
20, 2014) (defining animal husbandry as the care and production of domestic animals.)
26
5.
27
Law by effectively creating zoning policy without any public input in regards to confining,
28
quarantining, and breeding thousands of wild and imported primates next to residential
-2SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
neighborhoods. This decision-making function was performerd with special interests behind
closed doors without public notice and without a public meeting in violation of the Sunshine
Law. Accordingly, the Citizens hereby ask the court to declare that the Countys approval of
SoFlo Ags Site Development Plan (SDP) is void ab initio, and to compel the County to
consider approval of the SDP at a public hearing after providing reasonable public notice.
JURISDICTION
6
7
6.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction in this action to enforce the Sunshine Law, and
circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to enjoin Sunshine Law violations. 286.011(2),
10
11
7.
and circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief. 86.011, Fla. Stat.
VENUE
12
13
14
8.
and it is the county where the cause of action accrued. 47.011, Fla. Stat.
PARTIES
15
16
Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the County violated the Sunshine Law,
9.
17
in Hendry County. Mr. Stephens lives in the residential neighborhood abutting the proposed
18
wild primate facility. Mr. Stephens is concerned about the threat of disease transmission from
19
primates to humans, noise, and a negative impact on property values. Mr. Stephens never
20
received any notice from the County about the proposed facility before approval or felt he had
21
22
10.
23
Hendry County. Ms. Grey lives in the residential neighborhood abutting the proposed primate
24
facility that will house the wild macaques. Ms. Grey is concerned about the threat of disease
25
transmission from these macaques to humans. She is also concerned about how the facility
26
will change the rural character of her neighborhood because of heavier traffic and other
27
activities associated with the non-human primate facility. Ms. Grey never received any notice
28
from the County about the proposed facility or felt she had the opportunity to participate in
-3SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
11.
Lee County. Ms. Cinkota lives in the residential neighborhood abutting the proposed wild
primate facility. Ms. Cinkota is concerned about the welfare of the primates as well as the risk
that the primates may spread infectious disease by escaping or by transmitting disease to
workers who then spread it to the community. Ms. Cinkota never received any notice from
the County about the proposed facility or felt she had the opportunity to participate in the
decision-making process.
12.
10
Countys Board of County Commissioners (Board) is responsible for, among other things,
11
approving variances and special exceptions to the zoning code, and amending the zoning code
12
as needed. The Countys Planning and Zoning Department (Department) is responsible for,
13
among other things, approving Site Development Plans (SDP). As government entities, the
14
Board and Department must generally conduct all decision-making functions at open public
15
meetings after reasonable notice. See 286.011, Fla. Stat.; Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934
16
(Fla. 1983) (staff committee that screened and eliminated candidates for an open law school
17
18
19
A.
20
21
22
14.
Pertinently, the Code requires that the County approve a site development plan
land.
23
24
the Department will review proposed developments at a level of detail showing specific
25
26
developments compliance with the law. Code of Ordinances 1-58-57. This review is
27
designed to verify compliance with specific use regulations, development standards, and
28
other standards and requirements of this code. Id. Department staff will then review the SDP
-4SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
application and approve it if the requirements are satisfied. Code of Ordinances 1-58-60.
15.
Zoning regulations are among the various land use regulations that the SDP
The Code establishes a zoning map and defines various types of zoning
The County does not have an ordinance regulating the use and possession of
wild or exotic animals. See Code of Ordinances Chapters 1-5 (animal control) and 1-53
(zoning). By contrast, other Florida counties have enacted ordinances specifically regulating
wild and exotic animal possession, and almost all of those require a public hearing before
10
11
12
exotic animals, the Countys ordinances only contain provisions for domestic livestock under
13
the general agriculture zoning category. See Code of Ordinances Chapter 1-53.
14
19.
The Code establishes zoning district A-2 for General Agriculture. Code of
15
Ordinances 1-53-2. Permissible use under general agriculture includes agriculture. Code
16
of Ordinances 1-53-3.1. In turn, agriculture is defined as the use of land for growing crops
17
18
19
20
21
Agriculture means the use of land for agricultural purposes, including farming,
dairying, pasturage, apiculture (beekeeping), horticulture (plants), floriculture
(flowers), silviculture (trees), orchards, groves, viticulture (grapes), animal and
poultry husbandry, specialty farms, confined feeding operations and the
necessary accessory uses for packing, processing, treating or storing the
produce; provided, however, that the operation of any such accessory uses shall
be secondary to that of the normal agricultural activities.
22
Code of Ordinances 1-53-2.2 (emphasis added). The common definition of the phrase
23
animal husbandry is limited to the production and care of only domestic animals. See Animal
24
Husbandry,
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
ONLINE,
available
at
http://www.merriam-
25
20.
Land uses that do not strictly conform to their zoning category require a
27
variance or special exception. See Code of Ordinances 1-53-3.1, 1-51-5, & 1-51-6. The
28
landowner, board of county commissioners, or local planning agency may request a variance
or special exception. Code of Ordinances 1-53-5.1 & 1-51-6.1. Review of the application
for a variance or special exception must be considered at a public hearing after due public
B.
BREEDING FACILITY
21.
door pre-application conference on June 14, 2012 to discuss a proposal to build a facility in
the county that would confine and breed 3,200 macaques to be sold for experimentation in the
10
biomedical research industry. On information and belief, the attendees of that conference
11
included developers Rock Aboujaoude and David Rolls on behalf of Rock Enterprises, Inc.,
12
a real estate broker, a representative of the Hendry County Economic Development Council,
13
Myra Johnson and Sarah Catala from the Countys Planning and Zoning Department, and two
14
other unidentified individuals. On information and belief, the meeting did not include
15
residents living near the proposed development who would be most affected by the facility,
16
and the County provided no public notice or opportunity for the public to attend to the
17
meeting.
18
22.
On information and belief, the purpose of this June 14, 2012 conference was
19
to help Rock Enterprises determine whether it could proceed with its development plans by
20
purchasing property and formally applying for a permit for its SDP. One issue discussed in
21
this meeting was whether the property was properly zoned to allow for the breeding of
22
thousands of wild and imported primates. Department staff for the County officially
23
determined that breeding thousands of wild and imported non-human primates was an
24
allowable use in general agriculture. This cursory determination ignores the fact that animal
25
husbandry for agriculture purposes is limited by common definition to the care and production
26
of domestic animals.
27
28
23.
husbandry i.e. the production and care of domestic animals had the far-reaching effect of
-6SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
completely cutting the public out of the decision-making process because it allowed the
County to avoid normal public processes such as granting a variance, granting a special
24.
SoFlo Ags decision to operate in almost total secrecy further foreclosed the
the corporations owner(s) and their competency to oversee the confinement, quarantine, and
breeding of thousands of wild and imported non-human primates that may carry serious
infectious diseases.
25.
On July 18, 2012 nearly one month after the initial conference SoFlo Ag
10
LLC filed articles of organization with the Florida Secretary of State. It listed its principal
11
office as a United Parcel Service (UPS) mailbox at 4846 Sun City Center Blvd. #287, Sun
12
City Center, FL, 33573. It further listed P2B2 LLC as its sole manager.
13
26.
One day later, P2B2 LLC filed nearly identical articles of incorporation using
14
the same authorized representative that filed the articles of incorporation for SoFlo Ag. P2B2
15
listed the same UPS mailbox as its principal address, and named XII LLC as its sole
16
manager that was also located at the same UPS address. To date, no entity named XII LLC
17
18
27.
19
another UPS store address in 2013: 5781 Lee Blvd. Unit 208-217, Lehigh Acres, FL 33971.
20
P2B2 continued to list XII LLC as its manager in subsequent annual filings despite the fact
21
that no entity named XII LLC has ever been registered. On information and belief, the owners
22
of SoFlo Ag used P2B2 and XII LLC for the purpose of concealing their identities from the
23
public.
24
28.
Around the same time it filed its articles of incorporation in July 2012, SoFlo
25
Ag purchased approximately thirty-four acres of property in western Hendry County along its
26
border with Lee County. The address for that property is now 2500 Townsend Canal Grade,
27
LaBelle, FL. The property is located approximately one mile south of State Road 80. The
28
1
2
along the western edge of Hendry County and continues into Lee County.
29.
On information and belief, the only time that SoFlo Ags wild primate facility
was publically discussed was when a member of the public raised the issue at a public meeting
that took place around the time SoFlo Ag bought this property. The Board of County
Commissioners held a public meeting on July 24, 2012. The Board did not place the wild
primate facility on the agenda, but a Florida resident did raise the issue during the public
comment portion of the meeting. According to the Countys minutes for that meeting, Don
Anthony Communications Director for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida said that
he understood that some developers were considering building a primate facility in the county.
10
He specifically asked that the Board keep the public informed about the facility and then ceded
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
application on behalf of SoFlo Ag to the Planning and Zoning Department. The application
19
sought permission to improve a 34.2 acre area of land located approximately one mile south
20
of SR 80 in western Hendry County for the purpose of confining and breeding 3,200
21
nonhuman primates. On information and belief, the facility will also be used for holding and
22
quarantining primates although that use was not specifically identified in the application.
23
31.
Notably, the application did not include any address, telephone number, fax
24
number, or email address or any contact information whatsoever for SoFlo Ag or its owners;
25
instead, it only included the contact information for developer Rock Enterprises. Moreover,
26
the owner of SoFlo Ag did not even sign the Letter of Authorization that authorized Rock
27
Enterprises to act on SoFlo Ags behalf. Instead, the letter was signed by a local attorney hired
28
by SoFlo Ag. Nowhere does the application indicate who owns or operates SoFlo Ag.
-8SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
32.
On March 26, 2013, the Department responded to SoFlo Ags application with
a Request for Additional Information (RAI). Among other things, the RAI sought contact
33.
On May 17, 2013, Rock Enterprises responded to the RAI. The updated contact
information listed a UPS store mailbox as SoFlo Ags address, and simply reused Rock
Enterprises phone number as SoFlo Ags phone number. Rock Enterprises provided no
additional information about SoFlo Ag or its owners who to this day remain unconfirmed.
8
9
10
11
34.
On May 23, 2013, the Department sent a letter to Rock Enterprises notifying
the developer that SoFlo Ags SDP was approved. No public notice was provided and no
public meeting was held on the matter before the Department sent the approval letter.
35.
On July 23, 2013 nearly two months later a Hendry County resident who
12
lives near the proposed wild primate facility sent an email to all of the county commissioners.
13
In that email, the resident expressed concerns about the safety of the facility and the lack of
14
transparency in the decision-making process. She asked the commissioners for some
15
information on what has been requested by [the facility] and where the county stands on the
16
matter. . . She also asked that the commissioners start including this community on any
17
future discussions.
18
36.
On information and belief, nobody replied to the resident. However, her email
19
sparked an internal discussion culminating in the decision that there would be no public notice
20
or public meeting to approve the development. Commissioner Karson Turner emailed County
21
Administrator Charles Chapman and City Attorney Mark Lapp to determine whether any
22
public involvement was necessary. In turn, they asked an associate planner of the Department,
23
Sarah Catala, whether a public meeting was necessary. Ms. Catala sent a one-page memo
24
determining that the facility qualified as general agriculture (A-2) zoning, and that County
25
approval at a public hearing was unnecessary. However, as explained previously, the Code
26
only contemplates the care and production of domestic animals under general agriculture, and
27
is totally silent about wild and exotic animals such as the thousands of non-human primates
28
37.
Chapman, and City Attorney Lapp deferred to Ms. Catalas judgment, and no public notice or
38.
SDP to adjust an easement connecting SoFlo Ags property to SR 80. On information and
COUNT I
10
39.
11
12
A.
13
DOORS.
14
40.
15
Floridas Sunshine Law voids official acts that are not properly decided at a
16
18
19
Fla. Stat. 286.011(1). Moreover, [t]he circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to
20
issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of [the Sunshine Law] upon application by any
21
17
22
41.
The Florida Supreme Court has observed that the Sunshine Law was enacted
23
in the public interest to protect the public from closed door politics and, as such, the law
24
must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose. Wood, 442 So. 2d
25
at 938.
26
42.
In order to achieve this remedial and protective purpose, the Sunshine Law
27
will apply to any government action that rises to the level of a decision-making function
28
even if the action is taken by staff or citizen groups rather than a board or commission. See
-10SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
id. at 939. Courts have found exercise of a decision-making function where a committee
comprised of university staff eliminated certain law school dean candidates from an applicant
pool in closed meetings (Wood, 442 So. 2d at 939), where an ad hoc committee of public
hospital staff members drafted an annual budget in closed meetings (News-Press Publishing
Co. v. Carlson, 410 So. 2d 546 (Fla. App. 1982)), and where a citizens planning committee
Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974)). Thus, the proper focus is the nature of the act
performed, not on the make-up of the committee in determining whether the Sunshine Law
10
B.
11
12
43.
13
14
IN
The Hendry County Code of Ordinances establishes a zoning map and defines
The County does not have an ordinance regulating the use and possession of
15
wild or exotic animals. See Code of Ordinances Chapters 1-5 (animal control) and 1-53
16
(zoning). By contrast, other Florida counties have enacted ordinances specifically regulating
17
wild and exotic animal possession, and almost all of those require a public hearing before
18
19
45.
20
exotic animals, the Countys ordinances only contain provisions for domestic livestock under
21
the general agriculture zoning category. See Code of Ordinances Chapter 1-53.
22
46.
The Code establishes zoning district A-2 for General Agriculture. Code of
23
Ordinances 1-53-2. Permissible use under general agriculture includes agriculture. Code
24
of Ordinances 1-53-3.1. In turn, agriculture is defined as the use of land for growing crops
25
26
27
28
Agriculture means the use of land for agricultural purposes, including farming,
dairying, pasturage, apiculture (beekeeping), horticulture (plants), floriculture
(flowers), silviculture (trees), orchards, groves, viticulture (grapes), animal and
poultry husbandry, specialty farms, confined feeding operations and the
necessary accessory uses for packing, processing, treating or storing the
-11SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
produce; provided, however, that the operation of any such accessory uses shall
be secondary to that of the normal agricultural activities.
Code of Ordinances 1-53-2.2 (emphasis added). The common definition of the phrase
animal husbandry is limited to the production and care of only domestic animals. See Animal
Husbandry,
47.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
ONLINE,
available
at
http://www.merriam-
Land uses that do not strictly conform to their zoning category require a
variance or special exception. See Code of Ordinances 1-53-3.1, 1-51-5, & 1-51-6. The
landowner, board of county commissioners, or local planning agency may request a variance
or special exception. Code of Ordinances 1-53-5.1 & 1-51-6.1. Review of the application
10
for a variance or special exception must be considered at a public hearing after due public
11
12
48.
SoFlo Ags primate breeding facility does not qualify as agriculture under the
13
plain language definition of animal husbandry because operation of the SoFlo Ag facility
14
15
49.
In fact, the SoFlo Ag facility will have a significantly greater impact on the
16
17
Management of the thousands of wild primates at the SoFlo Ag facility will require highly
18
specialized expertise to properly care for the primates, clean up after the primates, keep
19
workers safe from disease transmission, and protect the public from escaped primates and
20
ensuing disease transmission. On information and belief, SoFlo Ag will have thousands of
21
macaques that can potentially transmit a wide array of serious and fatal diseases to humans
22
23
50.
24
be subject to a very specialized set of regulations under both state and federal law to ensure
25
that these vital public interests are adequately protected. The Florida Fish & Wildlife
26
Commission, Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and U.S.
27
28
breeding, sale, and quarantine of these wild and exotic nonhuman primates.
-12SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
51.
This public safety risk will have a significant impact on the surrounding
community. Primates have escaped from breeding facilities in Florida in the past and have
injured people, and in the ensuing lawsuits, courts have affirmed that the primates are indeed
wild animals. According to one published court of appeal opinion, a macaque escaped from a
Florida breeding facility and bit a person. Scorza v. Martinez, 683 So.2d 1115, 1115-1117
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The court held that the breeder was strictly liable for damages because
macaques are wild animals, and conveyed that [the] monkeys are a mildly aggressive breed
52.
On information and belief, SoFlo Ag will have thousands of the same primates
10
as the species that escaped in Scorza i.e. macaques. In order to protect public health of the
11
community, SoFlo Ag will be required to utilize specialized expertise to comply with the
12
myriad of technical regulations by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, Centers for
13
Disease Control, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
14
53.
Thus, SoFlo Ags breeding of wild primates does not qualify as general
15
agriculture (A-2) zoning under the plain text definition of the phrase animal husbandry
16
because the primates are wild rather than domestic animals. Moreover, operation of the wild
17
primate facility will have a significantly greater impact on the local community than a
18
19
54.
Because SoFlo Ags wild primate facility does not qualify as agriculture, the
20
21
C.
22
23
55.
The Countys failure to provide public notice or hold a public meeting on the
24
issue violated the Sunshine Law because its approval of the facility rose to the level of a
25
26
56.
Whereas other Florida counties have enacted ordinances dealing with wild and
27
exotic animal possession, the Hendry County Code is silent about the permissibility of
28
operating a facility like SoFlo Ag that confines, quarantines, and transports thousands of wild
-13SUNSHINE LAW COMPLAINT
non-human primates. Instead, the Code only addresses the care and production of domestic
animals by including animal husbandry in the list of acceptable land uses in areas zoned as
57.
The County should have filled this zoning policy void with some kind of an
official action at a public meeting. For example, it could enact a wild and exotic animal
ordinance like other Florida counties, or it could have considered granting a variance or
special exception from the limitation of domestic animal production under general agriculture
zoning.
58.
Instead of engaging the public, the County staff, in collusion with at least one
10
11
function when they determined that SoFlo Ags wild primate breeding facility qualified as
12
13
meeting in July 2012, through an SDP approval letter in May 2013, and by memo and email
14
15
16
17
59.
On information and belief, each of these three actions occurred behind closed
The Board and Department effectively created new zoning policy qualifying
18
as a decision-making function when they secretly expanded the scope of agriculture and
19
animal husbandry for purposes of general agriculture (A-2) zoning beyond the plain definition
20
that is limited to the care and production of domestic animals. As the Attorney General of the
21
22
23
category in which the particular property is place." 1980 Fla. AG LEXIS 1, 5 (1980), quoting
24
25
61.
26
of agriculture to avoid a public hearing, the County performed the functional equivalent of
27
granting a variance or amending its ordinance, but without giving the Citizens any meaningful
28
62.
husbandry effectively created new zoning policy that rose to the level of a decision-making
function under the Sunshine Law. Accordingly, that determination was subject to the public
notice and public meeting requirement of the Sunshine Law. Because there was no public
notice or public meeting on the issue, the Countys approval of SoFlo Ags SDP is void, and
the Citizens have a right to injunctive and declaratory relief against County.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8
9
Citizens therefore request that the Court grant the following relief:
10
1.
Declare that Hendry Countys approval of SoFlo Ags SDP is void because it
11
was not considered at a public hearing after adequate public notice as required by the Sunshine
12
Law;
13
14
15
16
2.
Ags SDP;
3.
primate facilities in general agriculture zoning without first conducting a public hearing;
17
4.
18
5.
Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3
Respectfully submitted,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28