Lowe's Loss - See the Video of the Cabinet Meeting and Read the Herald Article. By Geniusofdespair

The county will now live with the decision, said Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel. But Martha Harrell Chumbler, the lawyer who represented Lowe's, said that her client will decide in the next 30 days whether to appeal the ruling. - Miami Herald and:
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Joe Martinez, who championed the Lowe’s application, said he was disappointed by the ruling and hoped Lowe’s would continue its fight. - The South Florida Business Journal

Watch the Cabinet Meeting on the Lowe's application to move the Urban Development Boundary.
The discussion begins at 41:00 on the counter but don't bother going to the link if you don't have Real Audio Player. Here is the Miami Herald article (that McCollum is a real idiot):

Florida Cabinet thwarts plan to alter Miami-Dade development boundary

By MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

Gov. Charlie Crist and Cabinet members sent Miami-Dade and other urban counties a message Tuesday when they rejected the county's attempt to move the development line west to accommodate a Lowe's Superstore.

Crist and the Cabinet, voting 3-1, agreed with an administrative law judge that the county violated the state's Growth Management Act when it expanded the urban development boundary for the home improvement center.

Environmentalists and urban planners hailed the decision, saying it sets a precedent for dealing with counties that attempt to bend state growth management laws and allow sprawl. They hope the ruling will halt attempts by politically powerful developers who are seeking to move development boundaries in other counties, including the creation of a new suburb on the Everglades' doorstep in Miami-Dade called Parkland.

"You can't hire a consultant to sort of gerrymander a needs analysis to determine the outcome," said Richard Grosso, a lawyer who represented the National Parks Conservation Association and 1000 Friends of Florida in the case.
He said counties like Miami-Dade can't "justify moving the boundary for the next parcel" just because it's next to farmland. "It's a boundary for a reason."

In Miami-Dade, the Urban Development Boundary, or UDB, is a demarcation line that runs along the western and southern edges of the county and limits development to one dwelling per five acres outside its borders. Lowe's sought the boundary change in order to build a store at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and Southwest 137th Avenue on a 52-acre parcel.

The Cabinet decision was a blow to county commissioners who twice overrode a veto by Mayor Carlos Alvarez and pushed through the changes based on a consultant's analysis that said there was a need for the Lowe's store in the region. Alvarez had argued that the county had enough commercial space and the expansion wasn't needed.

APPEAL BY LOWE'S?
The county will now live with the decision, said Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel. But Martha Harrell Chumbler, the lawyer who represented Lowe's, said that her client will decide in the next 30 days whether to appeal the ruling.

`WRONG STANDARD'
Chumbler told the governor and Cabinet that the judge's ruling was flawed because he failed to consider an analysis that showed the community needed general commercial development. ``The wrong standard of review has been applied,'' she said.
In a separate case, the panel also agreed with Judge Bram D.E. Canter that the county was within the law when it approved another amendment for a 42-acre commercial development at the western end of Kendall Drive, known as the Brown tract.
Miami-Dade's Department of Planning and Zoning had urged denial of that change as well, saying there was plenty of available space inside the boundary lines. But Canter said the exception was justified because of the unusual configuration and location of the parcel and because it set no precedent for future developers wishing to move the UDB line.

Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson was the lone no vote.

But Attorney General Bill McCollum also seemed to waver. When he was first asked his vote, he responded: ``I didn't say no.'' Twenty minutes later, he amended his vote to ``yes'' and explained that he still had questions about the issue.

`I'M NOT SURE'
``I'm not sure which side is correct on it,'' McCollum said after the meeting. ``It seems to me there is an argument and it may go to court to challenge it.''

He said that because he was in doubt, he voted to approve the staff recommendation to reject the Lowe's amendment and approve the Brown amendment.

Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@MiamiHerald.com