Fourth DCA Inexplicably Holds that Plat Approval is Not A Development Order - Then Reverses Itself on Reconsideration

In Graves v. City of Pompano Beach,  the Fourth District Court first held that a plat approval was not a “development order” subject to challenge under    § 163.3215.  The opinion, which is inconsistent with other opinions and I believed applies an incorrect rule of statutory interpretation, holds that an application for a plat approval does not meet the definition of a development permit.

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.

Not only does this opinion misapply the “trailing comma” rule by applying the last modifier to the entire set, but it is also contrary to prior opinions and the clear intent of the statute.  Under this case, the ONLY development permits that would be subject to challenge under 163.3215 would be earth moving permits, final plats (approving utilities, etc),  and building permits. I cannot see how the the attorneys for the developer and the City could argue this interpretation with any clear professional conscience. 

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.

Fourth DCA overturns mining permit as inconsistent with Plan

In 1000 Friends of Fla. v. Palm Beach County et al, the Fourth District adopted a strict interpretation of the term "only" in a plan policy and overturned the circuit court's decision that a mining permit was consistent with the policy.

The policy permits mining in a certain areas "only" for public road building, agricultural and water management purposes.  While the FDOT was the primary intended customer, the development order did not restrict the sale of mined aggregate for the stated uses, but only required annual reporting of sales and customers.  There was deposition and trial testimony that the company could not track the use to which sold aggregate was put.   Based on that, the 4th District held that the permit was inconsistent with the plain language of the policy and also reaffirmed that reviewing courts do not have to give deference to local government interpretations of their plans.

I am sure that this is not the last we'll hear of this matter.  These mines have significant strategic importance because they would produce high-quality aggregate needed for highway construction and the nearest alternative sources (in the Dade County lakes belt) may be shut down on federal permitting issues.  The other major south Florida source is in Lee County - but there the County Commission is waging war on aggregate producers and trying to prevent any new aggregate mines through aggressive comp plan policies and land development regulations.

So, the policy will be rewritten and adopted without the restrictive provisions, we'll have another fight, and if the lack of permitting will affect major road construction, I predict we'll get legislation next year that preempts local comprehensive plans and regulations of strategic aggregate mining operations.