Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...xercise of the County's discretionary land use authority. Under the Planning Act, municipalities and counties within the state are vested with the power and responsibility to adopt comprehensive land use plans to guide future development and growth. § 163.3167(1)....

...cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Petition for Certiorari is granted but the writ is withheld pending compliance with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED. GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 163.3167, Fla....

...The "non-submission policy" constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Sec. 120.52(8)(C, Fla. Stat., by impermissibly calculating sanctions "from the first day after the due date established by the Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-12, F.A.C... ." in contravention of Sec. 163.3167(2), Fla....

...ursuant to Sec. 120.52(8)(C), Fla. Stat., by mandating that revenue sharing be withheld in contravention of Sec. 163.3184(11), Fla. Stat., which allows the Commission to exercise discretion in whether to impose sanctions. VII. Florida Statutes, Sec. 163.3167(2) and 163.3184(11)(a) unlawfully delegate the uniquely legislative power of determining the nature and extent of fines which may be assessed....

...rning the Commission's action in which the municipalities have not been afforded the opportunity to present evidence and legal argument. II) The municipalities were never afforded a clear point of entry into the administrative process. III) Sections 163.3167(2) and 163.3184(11)(a), Florida Statutes, are unlawful delegations of legislative power....

...Section 163.3184(10)(a) provides that during the administrative hearing held after the DCA has issued its notice of intent to find the plan not in compliance, "the local government's determination that the [plan] is in compliance is presumed to be correct." Section 163.3167(2) provides that the local government submit a "complete proposed comprehensive plan" by the due date....

...r itself. Similarly, the imposition of sanctions is a disincentive to noncompliance, and not to the pursuit of a 120.57 hearing on the issue of noncompliance. In their fifth point addressed to the rule challenge, appellants assert that the fact that section 163.3167(2)(b) provides for the imposition of sanctions for late submission only if the plan is more than 90 days late precludes the Commission from calculating sanctions for days 1-90. We disagree. The pertinent portion of section 163.3167(2)(b) provides: Any county or municipality that fails to meet the schedule set for submission of *410 its proposed comprehensive plan by more than 90 days shall be subject to the sanctions described in s....

...noncompliance, the hearing officer correctly found this posture to be reasonable, particularly given the mandatory nature of the Growth Management Act requirements. In their final point addressed to the rule challenge, appellants argue that sections 163.3167(2) and 163.3184(11)(a) are unconstitutional delegations of legislative authority as only the legislature can properly determine the nature and extent of the fines to be assessed....

...If the local government's plan was one of the ones required to contain a *411 coastal management element, subsection (b) provides an additional funding sanction under a particular statute. Section 163.3184(11) therefore sets forth the range of sanctions available with specificity. Section 163.3167(2)(b) further limits the imposition of any sanctions for late filing only to those local governments which fail to file their plans within 90 days of its due date....

...Absent any such limitation, theoretically a local government which submits a plan late or not in compliance could be subject to state revenue loss indefinitely. However, the wording of the statutes sufficiently limit the duration of any sanctions imposed. With regard to late submissions, section 163.3167(2)(b) provides that sanctions may be imposed as described in section 163.3184(11)(a) if a plan is more than 90 days late....

...Florida Patients Compensation Fund, 476 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1985). All reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of constitutionality. Bunnell v. State, 453 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1984); Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1983); Felts v. State . Applying this standard to sections 163.3167 and 163.3184, they are not an unlawful delegation of legislative authority....

...The transcript of the meetings demonstrate indisputably that the sanctions were imposed pursuant to an exercise of discretion, and not automatically. Third, they argue the Commission cannot impose sanctions for the first 90 days the plan a late. Nothing in section 163.3167(2)(b) indicates any statutory intent to afford a 90 day grace period....

...The trial court substituted the limited partnership for the corporation as the developer. Consequently, when we use the term "developer" in this opinion, we refer either to the corporation or the limited partnership or both as the context requires. [2] See § 163.3167(2), Fla....

...oses. [1] Established by a special act of the Florida Legislature. See Chapter 63-1716, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1963. [2] § 163.3215(2), Fla. Stat. (1985), effective July 1, 1985. [3] Anderson, 4 American Law of Zoning 3d (1986) § 27.20. [4] § 163.3167, Fla....

...Before proceeding further, an understanding of the relationship between a comprehensive land use plan and zoning regulations is important. A local comprehensive land use plan is a statutorily mandated legislative plan to control and direct the use and development of property within a county or municipality. § 163.3167(1), Fla....

...fact which the trial court found to be based on competent, substantial evidence. We only determine whether the trial court applied the correct law to those facts. Leon County v. Mitchell . [2] The plan and ordinance were adopted in 1990 pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes....

...[8] By limiting density to one unit per five acres, the comprehensive plan limits residential development on the 207-acre parcel to 41 units. [9] Local governments are required to adopt comprehensive plans that conform to the requirements of Chapter 163. § 163.3167(2), Fla....

...1154 (1968); therefore, a proper analysis, for review purposes, requires that they be considered separately. A local comprehensive land use plan is a statutorily mandated legislative plan to control and direct the use and development *632 of property within a county or municipality. § 163.3167(1), Fla....

...[2] That the land use plan does restrict local zoning power becomes increasingly clear with each legislative session. Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes (1985), requires that the future land use map designate the exact location and extent of all proposed commercial uses. Sections 163.3167, 163.3177, and 163.3184, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The County approved this development plan by issuing Resolution 95-82 as an amendment to the 1982 development order, as amended by Resolution 93-2. The Resolution further stated that the "DRI project is vested from application of the 1993 Walton County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes" for development rights to 301 condominium units, the number of units allowed under the 1982 development order....

...development under Resolution 95-82. [1] It challenged *219 the validity of Resolution 95-82, claiming that it was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan. Grand Dunes and KPM responded that their rights to complete development vested under section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes (1995), and under the common law principle of equitable estoppel....

...It is harmless error when, absent the error, the same result would have been reached. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Blackmon, 754 So.2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Here, absent the finding that the Association lacked standing, the trial court correctly found that the developers were vested under section 163.3167(8) from complying with the County's 1993 comprehensive plan. We review the trial court's interpretation of section 163.3167(8) de novo. See Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So.2d 582 (Fla.2000); Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Wilson, 782 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Section 163.3167(8) provides that: "Nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a final loc...

...lear and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction beyond giving effect to the plain meaning of the statutory words. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 609 So.2d 1315, 1317 (Fla.1992). Applying that standard here, the language of section 163.3167(8) is clear and unambiguous and should be given its plain *221 meaning....

...t orders. To arrive at such an interpretation would require inserting a comma after "final local development order." However, we are not permitted to add punctuation marks which the Legislature did not employ. See id. The dissent's interpretation of section 163.3167(8) would also render the statute's reference to a DRI development order superfluous....

...and Consumer Servs., 574 So.2d 120, 122 (Fla.1991); see also Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 748 So.2d 993, 1000 (Fla.1999) (stating that statutory interpretations which render provisions superfluous are disfavored). If the specific reference to DRI development orders in section 163.3167(8) is to be given effect, it must be read to create vested rights for DRI developments orders regardless of whether development has commenced or continued in good faith. Therefore, we reject such an interpretation which would render the reference to DRI as mere surplusage. Furthermore, the legislative history of section 163.3167 supports our interpretation. In 1975, the Legislature created section 163.3167 and provided that "[n]othing shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a Development *222 of Regional Impact pursuant to chapter 380." See Ch....

...This shows an intent that the good faith requirement should not apply to a DRI development. Accordingly, we conclude that upon attaining an authorized DRI development, a developer need not commence or continue development in order to retain its vesting rights under section 163.3167. As the present case involves a development of regional impact, section 163.3167 must be read in pari materia with the requirements of section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...tions, the changes did not require further DRI review. As the amendments did not require further DRI review, the project did not lose its original authorization for DRI development in the 1982 resolution, which the 1993 and 1995 resolutions amended. Section 163.3167(8) specifically states that the developers have vested rights to complete " any development that has been authorized" as a DRI....

...Under section 380.06(19), a substantial deviation would lead to a new DRI review and a new authorization for DRI development. Therefore, with a substantial deviation, a developer would lose any vested rights in the previous development, and new vested rights would arise *223 under section 163.3167(8) for the new DRI authorization....

...vernmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted." (emphasis added). This section only applies to land covered by the County's 1993 comprehensive plan. As discussed above, section 163.3167(8) removes the vested 1982 development area from the requirements of the 1993 comprehensive plan....

...Therefore, section 163.3194(1)(a) does not apply in this situation. As such, the amended development order need not be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the developers were vested, under section 163.3167(8), from complying with the County's 1993 comprehensive plan....

...I must respectfully dissent from the majority's proposed affirmance. [1] KPM, Appellee/developer, has failed to cite any statute, rule or case empowering the County to revive the expired 1982 DRI permit. Further, the developer did not present evidence of continuing good faith development. Fla. Stat. § 163.3167(8)....

...r the County to revive a permit once it has expired. Therefore, the action of the County in reviving the expired permit was ultra vires, and thus without legal effect. The majority attempts to justify its rationale based on the absence of a comma in section 163.3167(8)....

...Indeed, no development took place between 1984 and 1992, when KPM purchased the property and withdrew its application for extension of the permit. The County should have treated the development as abandoned. [6] In failing to do so, the County misapplied the law. The developer did not meet the requirements of section 163.3167(8) for "vesting," since the development was not continuing in good faith so as to retain any rights under the expired permit. This case aptly illustrates the dangers inherent in misapplying section 163.3167(8)....

...avoid, and the majority's decision in the present case will encourage further thwarting of our state's land use laws, defeating their very intent. Thus, I agree with the Attorney General's argument that KPM does not have "vested" rights pursuant to section 163.3167(8)....

...[3] The public hearing took place in two parts, the first being in December 1992 and the second in January 1993. Although a tape of the December 1992 part of the hearing appears in the record on appeal, no such tape or transcript of the January 1993 portion was provided. [4] Section 163.3167(8) provides as follows: (8) Nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a...

...enumeration in a series, a qualifying phrase will be read as limited to the last of the series when it follows that item without a comma or other indication that it relates as well to those items preceding the conjunction." (emphasis added). First, section 163.3167(8) does not enumerate a series....

...[6] Moreover, Appellants pointed out at the December 1992 hearing that, under the local land development code, failure to continue in good faith to complete a project is considered abandonment of the project. Therefore, under local laws as well as under section 163.3167(8), the project should have been considered dead, and KPM should have been required to reapply for a permit under the DRI statute....

...The term does not lead to a conclusion that the proposed changes are minor, of no significance, or exempt from the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. Only development rights originally approved are vested development rights. Once a DRI has been approved, the right to develop pursuant to the terms of the DRI vests. See § 163.3167(8), Fla....

...Third, statutes which relate to the same subject must be read in pari materia and construed to give meaning and effect to each part. See Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1273, 1286 (Fla.2000). *259 Here, the relevant statutes we must read in pari materia are sections 380.06(19)(f)6, 163.3194(1)(a), and 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...adoption of the comprehensive plan, must comply with the requirements of the comprehensive plan. Since "changes" cannot be vested, "changes" are included in the phrase "all development undertaken," and must comply with the local comprehensive plan. Section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes (2001) provides: "Nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 ...." Id....

...Thus, Appellant has no vested right to the significant development changes proposed. Its only vested development right is in completing development authorized by the original DRI. When reading these sections in pari materia, an approved DRI creates vested rights to complete any development that " has been authorized. " See § 163.3167(8), Fla....

...hts of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a final local development order and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith." § 163.3167(8), Fla. Stat. (2001). In this case, the precise issue is whether the vested rights created by section 163.3167(8) inure to the benefit of appellant, or whether the nature of the NOPC advanced by appellant extinguishes its vested rights....

...No issue exists in this case as to whether development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. The issue upon which I disagree with the majority is whether a proposed change to a DRI, when such change does not constitute a substantial deviation, as that term is used in section 380.06, is entitled to the protection of section 163.3167(8)....

...n Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n v. Walton County, 833 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 889 (Fla.2003). Edgewater holds that a DRI approved before the adoption of a county's comprehensive plan is entitled to the vested rights of section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes, and is therefore exempt from complying with the comprehensive plan for any changes to the DRI that do not constitute substantial deviations....

...end the termination date of the development order, to reduce the density in Phase III, and to develop Phases IV, V, and VI at the originally approved levels. Id. at 218. The county allowed these changes based upon the developers' vested rights under section 163.3167(8)....

...rty values.... [T]he proposed development would place some of the Association's recreational facilities in the shade until noon." Id. at 220. *265 This court then conducted a de novo review on the question of whether the development was vested under section 163.3167(8). Id. We determined that section 163.3167(8) "is clear and unambiguous and should be given its plain meaning." Id. at 220-21. We reviewed the legislative history of section 163.3167 and determined: In 1975, the Legislature created section 163.3167 and provided that "[n]othing shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to chapter 380." See Ch....

...elopment must commence and continue in good faith for the developer to maintain its right to develop the DRI. Id. at 221-22. We then reached the holding that controls the present matter: As the present case involves a development of regional impact, section 163.3167 must be read in pari materia with the requirements of section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...As in the present case, the aggrieved property owners did not challenge that particular issue. Id. We noted that because the amendments "did not require further DRI review, the project did not lose its original authorization for DRI development." Id. We observed that section 163.3167(8) provides to developers vested rights to complete " any development that has been authorized." Id....

...I order, and which development does not constitute a substantial deviation under section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (2001). I further find that Bay County's Future Land Use Element 3.4.5 harmonizes with the vesting rights provision of section *266 163.3167(8)....

...evelopment order. Accordingly, any rights held by the developer, or the developer's successors, under the DRI development order would not be sacrificed to an after-enacted comprehensive plan. Such is consonant with the Legislature's determination in section 163.3167(8) not to further limit the property rights of one already subject to a previously authorized DRI. Because appellees in the present case are unable to demonstrate that appellant would need further DRI authorization to conduct the activities set out in the NOPC, appellant is entitled to the vesting provision of section 163.3167(8) and FLWAC erred by holding otherwise....

...development of property within a county or municipality. The plan is likened to a constitution for all future development within the governmental boundary." Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citations omitted). See also § 163.3167, Fla....

...1988), the court explained the difference between planning and zoning functions as follows: A local comprehensive land use plan is a statutorily mandated legislative plan to control and direct the use and development of property within a county or municipality. § 163.3167(1), Fla....

...4th DCA 2006) (finding that a property owner could not show a "reasonable investment-backed expectation" for an existing use). In addition, the City's Comprehensive Plan prevails over conflicting zoning regulations. See Halls River, 8 So.3d at 420-21 (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla....

...The state court judgment here The appellate court's judgment in Pelham v. County of Leon, 643 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) sets forth the following description of the litigation before it. In 1990 Leon County adopted the Leon County Comprehensive Land Use Plan pursuant to § 163.3167, Fla.Stat....

...r as otherwise provided by law. Elector approval shall not be required for any Plan or Plan Amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land or as otherwise prohibited by Florida *1148 Statutes including but not limited to Florida Statutes [sic] Section 163.3167....

...parcels. A comprehensive land use plan ("Plan") or comprehensive land use plan amendment ("Plan Amendment") (both as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 163), which Plan or Plan Amendment affects five or fewer parcels as defined in Florida Statutes Section 163.3167, shall only be adopted by the City Commission (the "Commission") by a unanimous vote of the Commission....

...Discussion Petition II The City contends that the circuit court erred when it permitted Petition II to appear on the ballot. The proposed amendment requires a unanimous vote by the City Commission for matters affecting five or fewer parcels under the comprehensive land use plan. The City relies on section 163.3167(12), which provides: An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited....

...st. Conclusion We hold that the proposed amendments are neither facially unconstitutional nor unconstitutional in their entirety, not because they merely add another step in an already detailed process but because they are inferentially permitted by section 163.3167(12): *1150 An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited....

...Language from a recent Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion, albeit dicta, further bolsters our reasoning: [T]he statutory scheme already in place allows local governments to utilize a referendum process in regard to a plan amendment if the amendment affects more than five parcels of land. See § 163.3167(12), Fla....

...[3] Rather than conflicting with the statutory framework, the proposed City charter amendments complement it: they are the flip side of the proverbial coin. There should be no concern that such things as repeated refusals to approve a plan or amendment will thwart the statewide policy. Section 163.3167(2) authorizes the Administration Commission to impose sanctions on a local government that fails to timely submit a plan; and subsection (3) empowers the responsible regional planning agency to adopt any missing elements of a local government's plan....

...On occasion, the Legislature provides explicit guidance as to its intent and how a statute is to be applied for a specific case. This is one such instance. We reverse the declaratory judgment in favor of the appel-lees, which interpreted a 2012 amendment to section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes, as requiring the City of Boca Raton to submit a development order to public referenda....

...petition to require reconsideration by the council of any adopted ordinance or resolution, and if council fails to repeal an ordinance or resolution, to approve or reject it at a city election .... At the time the appellees initiated their petition, section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes (2011) (“the 2011 Amendment”), barred referendum proceedings for all development orders. As became effective on April 6, 2012, however, the Legislature amended section 163.3167(8) (the “2012 Amendment”) to permit local governments to “retain[ ] and implement^ ]” charter provisions that were in effect as of June 1, 2011, and provided “for an initiative or referendum process in regard to development orders.” § 163.3167(8), Fla....

...vision “for the referendum process on any Ordinances” impliedly included development orders, the trial court reasoned “the 2012 Amendment supported] the referendum process in th[e instant] case.” To support its ruling, the trial court traced section 163.3167(8)’s legislative history, recognizing the 2012 Amendment was enacted to grandfather in previously permitted charter provisions rendered invalid under the 2011 Amendment’s blanket prohibition....

...Comm’n, 473 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla.1985)). To discern the Legislature’s intent in enacting the 2012 Amendment, first we must navigate the statute’s history. The limitations placed upon referenda for development orders originated in 1995, when the Legislature enacted section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided as follows: An initiative or....

...Town of Palm Beach, 50 So.3d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), rev. denied, 63 So.3d 750 (Fla.2011). Preserve Palm Beach involved the determination as to whether a proposed charter amendment constituted a development order, and thus was statutorily barred from referendum. In finding section 163.3167(12) to apply, this Court noted “ ‘the due process problems associated with subjecting small property owners to public referendum votes when they would otherwise be entitled to a quasi[-]judicial hearing and review procedures.’” Id....

...ote on is one of utmost importance in our democratic system of government. But there are issues — such as the right of a small landowner to use his property subject only to government regulations — which should not be determined by popular vote. Section 163.3167(12) rightfully protects the small landowner from having to submit her development plans to the general public and ensures that those plans will be approved or not, instead, by the elected officials of the municipality in a quasi-judicial process. Id. Less than a year after Preserve Palm Beach, the Legislature enacted the 2011 Amendment, which served to bar referen-da for all development orders, comprehensive amendments, and map amendments. See § 163.3167(8), Fla....

...See Town of Yankeetown, FL v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, et al., Case No. 37 2011 CA 002036 (Fla.2d Cir.Ct.2011). To resolve the matter, Yankeetown and the Department of Community Affairs reached a proposed settlement contingent upon the Legislature amending section 163.3167(8) to “grandfather-in those charter provisions, such as Yankeetown’s, in place on the effective date of the Act that specifically provided for an initiative or referendum process relating to approval of any development order or any comprehensive plan or map amendment.” Fla....

...However, any local government charter provision that was in effect as of June 1, 2011, for an initiative or referendum process in regard to development orders or in regard to local comprehensive plan amendments or map amendments may be retained and implemented. § 163.3167(8), Fla....

...1146 , 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (“[Cjourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”). 2013 Amendment and the Intent of the Legislature Such interpretation is cemented by a 2013 amendment to section 163.3167(8), which provided as follows: (8) (a) An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order is prohibited....

...pplies retroactively to any initiative or referendum process commenced after June 1, 2011, and any such initiative or referendum process that has been commenced or completed thereafter is hereby deemed null and void and of no legal force and effect. § 163.3167(8)(a)-(c), Fla....

...islative will.’ ” White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 , 443 n. 5 (Fla.1998) (quoting Sun Bank/S. Fla., N.A. v. Baker, 632 So.2d 669, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). Here, the above-mentioned staff analysis, when taken in conjunction with the changes made to section 163.3167(8), clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent to bar referendum for development orders unless exempted by specific authorization that existed before June 1, 2011....

property within a county or municipality. See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). A comprehensive plan acts

...ive plan and a different governing body. Furthermore, as the County pointed out, the development would be dependent upon public services and utilities from an adjacent county, contrary to the County's plan to guide its future development and growth. § 163.3167(1)(b), Fla....

...lot in violation of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, which requires the council to pass an enabling resolution, which the council did not vote affirmatively to do; and that the ballot question was unconstitutional because it was in violation of section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a referendum process involving a comprehensive land use change affecting five or fewer parcels of land....

...ction 166.031. The city cannot complain that its own failure to perform its duty can prevent the citizens from voting on the charter amendment proposal. Finally, the appellants argue that the proposed charter amendment is invalid because it violates section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides: An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited....

...Thus, a prohibition of one use among many in that category with respect to a particular parcel would not require a plan amendment to accomplish the intent of the charter amendment on property owned by the City itself. Because the proposed amendment does not involve or require a comprehensive plan amendment, section 163.3167 is irrelevant....

...RTC ultimately prevails the extended time would commence upon the decision becoming final. Further, the city agreed that RTC's rights in this project, if RTC prevails in its appeal of the city's decision to deny the extension, are vested pursuant to section 163.3167(8) and would not be subject to the proposed changes in the comprehensive plan....

...ng arts and/or visual arts or for lectures or other special events. The complaint pled two counts of declaratory relief. Count I sought a determination of the constitutionality of the proposed amendment based on whether the amendment conflicted with section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, by purporting to use the initiative or referendum process to alter a development order....

...trial court determined that the 1979 Agreement was a development order. Accordingly, the court granted the Town of Palm Beach's motion for summary judgment finding that the proposed amendment was facially unconstitutional because it conflicted with section 163.3167(12). The court then determined that the issue of whether the proposed amendment was unconstitutionally vague was moot. Preserve now timely appeals. We agree with the trial court's order and affirm. Section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, provides in part: An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited. § 163.3167(12), Fla....

...However, we note that development orders are often the product of negotiations between a developer and a municipality. Joseph Van Rooy, The Development of Regional Impact in Florida's Growth Management, 19 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 255, 256 (Spring 2004). The legislative history of section 163.3167(12) does not provide any guidance as to the purpose of the statute....

...dment attempts to subject the landowner of the property at issue to the referendum process every time the landowner wishes to do something not anticipated in the 1979 Agreement. In other words, this amendment seeks to do the very thing prohibited by section 163.3167(12)....

...The right of the people to vote on issues they are entitled to vote on is one of utmost importance in our democratic system of government. But there are issues—such as the right of a small landowner to use his property subject only to government regulations—which should not be determined by popular vote. Section 163.3167(12) rightfully protects the small landowner from having to submit her development plans to the general public and ensures that those plans will be approved or not, instead, by the elected officials of the municipality in a quasi-judicial process....

...on of the bridge at its present location. [4] Turning now to exerpts in the DOT file which do not support the construction of the replacement bridge at the new location, we find: (1) The DOT depends heavily on its choice to relocate on the fact that section 163.3167(4) of the Florida Statutes (1983), requires a municipality to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan by July 1, 1979....

...should be construed in connection with all other sections of the act to produce a harmonious whole. See Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972); Forehand v. Manly, 2 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1941); and Ozark Corp. v. Pattishall, 185 So. 333 (Fla. 1938). Section 163.3167 , F....

county in the state adopt a comprehensive plan. § 163.3167(2), Fla.Stat. (1975). Under the GMP, the subject

...that parcel. Save Our Neighborhood and Anderson sought to invoke the referendum process set forth in the City of Lake Worth’s Charter to challenge City ordinances. The availability of the Charter’s referendum process turned on interpretation of section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (2005), and its definition of the term “affects.” Section 163.3167(12) provides: “An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.” Within the Final Judgment the trial court found that “affected” parcels include the parcel specifically described in the amendment at issue and may also include other affected parcels. We disagree. Section 163.3167(12) prohibits the referendum process in situations where amendments affect five or fewer parcels of land....

...t. This is so regardless of whether the amendment may be said to have an impact or an effect on people who own nearby property. This case involved one parcel of property only and therefore an initiated or referendum *1004 process is prohibited under section 163.3167(12)....

are required to prepare and adopt plans. Section 163.-3167(2), (3), Florida Statutes (1977). Appel-lees

...g and land development regulation powers, duties, and responsibilities. (e.s.) The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires adoption or amendment of comprehensive plans by counties and municipalities. See, s. 163.3167 (1), F.S., as amended by s....

...3, Ch. 85-55, Laws of Florida. Each county, beginning July 1, 1987, and on or before December 1, 1987, must prepare a comprehensive plan of the type and in the manner set out in the act or amend its existing plan to meet the requirements of the act. Section 163.3167 (2), F.S., as amended supra. And see, s. 163.3167 (2), F.S., as amended supra, which provides that the time limits established therein may be extended by the State Land Planning Agency for not longer than 6 months upon certain conditions. See also, s. 163.3197 , F.S., as amended by s. 12, Ch. 85-55, which states that where, prior to the adoption of a revised plan pursuant to s. 163.3167 (2), a local government has adopted a comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof, such adopted plan or element or portion thereof shall have such force and effect as it had at the date of adoption until a new comprehensive plan or e...

...Finding that summary judgment was properly entered in Pacet-ta’s favor, we affirm. On appeal, the Town first argues that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the number of “parcels” affected by the charter amendment. This issue was significant because section *841 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (2008), 2 prohibits local initiatives or referenda in regard to development orders or comprehensive amendments affecting five or fewer “parcels,” as defined by section 163.3164(16)....

...ote on is one of utmost importance in our democratic system of government. But there are issues — such as the right of a small landowner to use his property subject only to government regulations — which should not be determined by popular vote. Section 163.3167(12) rightfully protects the small landowner from having to submit her development plans to the general public and ensures that those plans will be approved or not, instead, by the elected officials of the municipality in a quasi-judicial process.”)....

...4 and in no way limits the development “unit” to single uses. Because the evidence was uncontrovert-ed that the citizens’ initiative referendum affected five or fewer parcels, 5 the trial court correctly determined that the referendum violated section 163.3167(12), and declared it invalid. With respect to the ordinance conforming the comprehensive plan to the referendum, it only makes sense to hold the ordinance invalid as well — as this would be the only way to give effect to section 163.3167(12)....

...Finally, we note that although the trial court found the referendum and ordinance invalid on other grounds as well, we need not reach any other issue having found that summary judgment was properly entered — and the referendum and ordinance were properly held invalid — based on the application of section 163.3167(12)....

Village asserted that Petition 82 violates section 163.3167(8)(a) of the Florida Statutes. We address

...It does not give the public the power to establish policy, collect funds, administer those funds, or adjudicate liability. In fact, the statutory scheme already in place allows local governments to utilize a referendum process in regard to a plan amendment if the amendment affects more than five parcels of land. : See § 163.3167(12), Fla....

...prehensive plan amendment' or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.”). Thus, this initiative would mandate a process already approved by the Legislature in certain instances. Although the initiative would override section 163.3167(12) with respect to plan amendments that affect five or fewer parcels, the nullification of an existing statutory provision does not in and of itself establish a single-subject violation....

...IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. More importantly, as we observed in Land Use Plans, the statutory scheme already in place allows local governments to utilize a referendum process in regard to a plan amendment if the amendment affects more than five parcels of land. See § 163.3167(12), Fla....

...mprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.”). Thus, this initiative would mandate a process already approved by the Legislature in certain instances. Although the initiative would override section 163.3167(12) with respect to plan amendments that affect five or fewer parcels, the nullification of an existing statutory provision does not in and of itself establish a single-subject violation. 902 So.2d at 769 (emphasis supplied). Section 163.3167(12) was not amended during the 2005 legislative session....

...nd strengthen the existing role, processes, and powers of local governments in the establishment and implementation of comprehensive planning programs to guide and control future development.” § 163.3161(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied). Section 163.3167(1) of the Act provides that local governments “shall have the power and responsibility: (a) To plan for their future development and growth, (b) To adopt and amend comprehensive plans ......

...This was significant because “[a] local comprehensive land use plan is a statutorily mandated legislative plan to control and direct the use and development of property within a county or municipality.” Citrus Cty. v. Halls River Dev., Inc., 8 So. 3d 413, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla Stat....

...d as a single unit. Id. at 841. Therefore, we concluded that “[b]ecause the evidence was uncontroverted that the citizens’ initiative referendum affected five or fewer parcels, the trial court correctly determined that the referendum violated section 163.3167(12), and declared it invalid.” Id....

well as protecting environmental quality. Section 163.3167(10), F. S., provides that: Nothing in

...deviations with no regional impact) fall outside the scope of the Agreement. Hence, local land use requirements—like those found in the comprehensive plan—still apply: [A]n approved DRI creates vested rights to complete any development that “has been authorized.” See § 163.3167(8), Fla....

certain statutory standards by July 1, 1979. Section 163.3167(2) and (3). Two 1-year extensions may be granted

requirements of which are set forth in the act. Section 163.3167. See s. 163.3177, which sets forth the required