A “development permit” is defined in § 163.3164, to include “. . . any bulding permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local governing having the effect of permitting the development of land.” The court held because a plat does not (in and of itself) authorize “development” as that term is defined in the statute, it is not a development order.
On rehearing, the Court entered a new opinion. The Court reversed its initial position, and found that the action was in fact a “development order” subject to challenge under § 163.3215. The opinion on rehearing found that “section 163.3215 does not suggest that a development order is one which grants development rights only in the advanced stages of the development process or to a shovel-ready project.” The dissent clung to the idea that a “plat approval” is not covered by the list of permit types in § 163.3164’s definition of development permit, and that it does not “permit the development of land.” The dissent ignored the fact that a “plat approval” is a “subdivision approval” by another name.