Running through the Senate - with a House bill accompanying it - is this (CS/CS SB 0162) that would "vest" development orders whose time for appeal/attack had run if the LDR that the DO was issued under was later found invalid.
I can't think of many situations in which a DO issued under the color of a valid LDR would later be rescinded because the LDR was found to be void (or voidable?).
Here's the language:
(13)(a) If a local government grants a development
18 order pursuant to its adopted land development regulations and
19 the order is not the subject of a pending appeal and the
20 timeframe for filing an appeal has expired, the development
21 order may not be invalidated by a subsequent judicial
22 determination that such land development regulations, or any
23 portion thereof that is relevant to the development order, are
24 invalid because of a deficiency in the approval standards.
25 (b) This subsection does not preclude or affect the
26 timely institution of any other remedy available at law or
27 equity, including a common law writ of certiorari proceeding
28 pursuant to Rule 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure,
29 or an original proceeding pursuant to s. 163.3215, as
The bill then goes on to make this retroactive to January 1, 2002.
I can only think that "deficiency in the approval standards" means that the LDR is void for vagueness and that this is some kind of fix for the situation that some of the amicus in Omnipoint complained of - that the questions the 3d DCA created regarding the validity of Dade County's non-use variance standards were dramatically affecting the ability for projects to go forward. Here's one of the Omnipoint briefs.
If anyone out there has other insight into the problem or situation that this bill is trying to solve, I'd love to hear about it.