Counties — Zoning — Rezoning and general development plan — Hearings — Due process — Landowners who contend that they will be affected by proposed development plan are participants in

quasi-judicial rezoning and development approval process, with due process right to attend and provide comment at open public hearings on plan, but do not have right to have expert review and provide testimony on elements of plan — Participants’ due process right to attend and make comments at hearing was not violated by fact that hearing, that had been noticed as being closed to public comment, was not continued and renoticed as being open to public comment after plan was updated at hearing, where board of county commissioners stated on record that new plan would be submitted after break in hearing and public comment might be reopened at that time; and where changes to plan, which included removal of estuary enhancement area and retaining wall, were minor changes that did not require that hearing be continued and renoticed — Ex parte communications — No merit to participants’ claim that impermissible ex parte communications occurred between developer and board through conduit of county staff’s discussions with developer where participants have provided no proof that any information made its way from developer through county staff to board that was not made part of record — Review of record indicates that board met essential requirements of law in approving plan and all challenged grounds for approval were supported by competent substantial evidence