Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Only 526 acres of the total area have been identified as dry enough to be classified as nonwetlands. On June 18, 1975, Estuary applied to the board of county commissioners of Lee County for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI) pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...mercial centers, four marinas, five boat basins, three golf courses, and twenty-eight acres of tennis facilities. The development proposal was submitted to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), which prepared a report pursuant to section 380.06(8)....

...property interests of the landowner. In this respect we agree with the district court. Although the act does not expressly mandate balancing, such legislative intent is clear from the stated purpose of the act [5] and the factors *1378 enumerated in section 380.06(8), [6] which the regional planning agency must consider in making a DRI recommendation....

...The act specifically states that private property rights are to be preserved. § 380.021, Fla. Stat. (1973). Therefore, the only way to logically and feasibly apply the act is by balancing the often conflicting interests according to the considerations listed in section 380.06(8). The district court found that the adjudicatory commission had not balanced the considerations in section 380.06(8) nothing that the commission found favorably on four of the considerations and unfavorably on only two....

...There is no evidence, however, that the commission did not balance the factors. Balancing in an adjudicatory process does not always mean that four favorable considerations outweigh two unfavorable considerations. The legislature did not place specific values on each consideration listed in section 380.06(8)....

...ngs. [7] In Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1978), we stated that "[f]lexibility by an administrative agency to administer a legislatively articulated policy is essential to meet the complexities of our modern society." Id. at 924. Section 380.06(8) sets out guidelines for implementing the policies of the act....

...Once there is sufficient evidence of an adverse impact, it is neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable to require the developer to prove that the proposed curative measures will be adequate. In holding that the state has the initial burden of showing that a proposed DRI will have an adverse impact in light of section 380.06(8), we do not ignore or alter the established rule of administrative law that one seeking relief carries the burden of proof....

..., sewage treatment facilities, and other government services. [4] Final Order of the Fla. Land and Water Adjudicatory Comm'n., Estuary Properties, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs., App.No. 7608 (Dec. 27, 1977). [5] § 380.021, Fla. Stat. (1973). [6] § 380.06(8) states: Within 50 days after receipt of the notice required in paragraph (7)(d), the regional planning agency, if one has been designated for the area including the local government, shall prepare and submit to the local government a report and recommendations on the regional impact of the proposed development....

...opment of its remaining lands in Port Malabar — 15,500 acres in some fifteen separate but neighboring tracts in and around the City of Palm Bay, Brevard County — will constitute a development of regional impact which is subject to regulation under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...acts known as Port Malabar are in the aggregate a development of regional impact, although those tracts are separated from each other by developed and undeveloped lands owned by others and by GDC lands which are "vested," hence beyond the Division's Section 380.06 jurisdiction, because GDC obtained development authority from local government before Section 380.06 became fully effective....

...ubmit applications for development approval of each tract to local governments, subject to review under certain standards by the regional planning agency and by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sections 380.06(6) through (11), .07. A developer who bypasses Section 380.06 supervision of its development of regional impact does so at its peril and, notwithstanding local zoning and building permits, the developer may be enjoined during construction. Section 380.11. To sustain GDC's position with respect to one or more of the Port Malabar tracts would release that land from Section 380.06 control....

...n, as we were in Cross Key Waterways v. Askew, 351 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); but the Division's power respecting developments of regional impact derives from the same source, the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972. [2] Section 380.06 required the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Administration Commission, to adopt as rules, subject to legislative approval, guidelines and standards "to be used in determining whether particular developments shall be presumed to be...

..., in Brevard and other counties having a population between 100,001 and 250,000, a proposed residential development that is planned to accommodate more than 1,000 dwelling units shall be presumed to be a development of regional impact and subject to Section 380.06....

...on plan of rental, advertising, or sale, or (c) the construction of residential structures, or (d) the establishment of mobile home parks. To alleviate a developer's "doubt whether his proposed development would be a development of regional impact," Section 380.06(4) provides that the Division of State Planning shall issue binding letters of interpretation resolving those doubts. Such letters "bind all state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the developer." Section 380.06(4)(a)....

...The southern boundary of the southernmost tract is roughly twelve miles from the north boundary of the northernmost tract. Of the total of 42,000 acres, 26,500 acres were "vested" by prior development authority given GDC by local governments. The 15,500 acres in Port Malabar which remain potentially subject to Section 380.06 lie in some fifteen tracts, ranging in size from less than a quarter-quarter section to one of *1204 roughly fourteen sections or 9,000 acres....

...t threshold at which the Rule presumes regional impact. The present controversy arose when GDC reduced its proposed development of Tract E to a subthreshold density of 202 dwelling units, intending thus to free Tract E for development independent of Section 380.06. The Division responded, in the March 2 and April 15, 1976 letters, by declaring all of unvested Port Malabar subject to Section 380.06 jurisdiction and vacating its prior determinations that development of Country Club Vista and PM-55 would not be of regional impact....

...pact... . The Division's March 28, 1974 binding letter did not explicate the decision, but an underlying staff memorandum expresses the view that "a single increment of a total development [cannot] be considered separately" and thus be exempted from Section 380.06 jurisdiction. When it issued its binding letter of March 28, 1974, the Division had not ascertained which of GDC's Port Malabar lands were vested. On GDC's application, the Division made that determination May 9, 1974. Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...he Division reevaluated the unvested portion and found in a binding letter issued May 30, 1974, that "the proposed Country Club Vista development ... is not a Development of Regional Impact... ." Having exempted Country Club Vista from the effect of Section 380.06, GDC then sought the same treatment for PM-55, a proposed development of 223 dwellings on 124.22 acres. The Division issued a binding letter of interpretation on December 23, 1974, finding that PM-55 was not in itself a development of regional impact but that "this unit should be combined" for Section 380.06 treatment with nearby Tract A or Tract C, which GDC represented on its planning map as "probable" developments of regional impact....

...tself, a development of regional impact, nor is it reasonably related to any other proposed development which, if aggregated, would constitute a development of regional impact. With Country Club Vista and PM-55 now favorably determined to be free of Section 380.06 implications, GDC on December 15, 1975 filed a formal request for determination that Tract E was not, after all, a development of regional impact....

...The application represented that GDC "has radically changed its planning assumptions about tract `E' at Port Malabar since the original designation of this tract, and we would like to go forward with planning for the area which would call for 202 units of a minimum of 5 acres each." Sensing it was losing Section 380.06 control of Port Malabar by increments, the Division on March 2, 1976 issued a binding letter of interpretation determining that, its January 6, 1975 letter to the contrary notwithstanding, all nonvested portions of Port Malabar, includ...

...exceed in aggregate the 1,000 dwelling unit threshold for presumed developments of regional impact. GDC's request for reconsideration produced another binding letter of interpretation on April 15, 1976, further reclaiming Division jurisdiction under Section 380.06: We must therefore revoke the January 6, 1975 letter as a planning approach for Port Malabar......

...GDC urges that the Division was powerless to revoke those determinations by its letters of March 2 and April 15, 1976. The Division replies that GDC dissolved an agreement with the Division which was the essential inducement for the Division's determinations *1206 of May 30, 1974 and December 3, 1975. Section 380.06(4) provides that the Division's binding letters of interpretation shall "bind all state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the developer." If binding letters of interpretation are to have the settling effect intended for them by...

...lands not proposed for immediate development, which agreement the developer may later find burdensome. When both the Division and the developer agree that changed plans or new information require revision of a prior binding letter of interpretation, Section 380.06(6) does not forbid the change....

...nce referred to in the letter, that separate applications for development approval would be or "probably" would be submitted for Tracts A, B, C, D, E and F, as depicted on the Port Malabar planning map. The Division was content to release PM-55 from Section 380.06 scrutiny in exchange for conceded control of the larger tracts. We consider that the Division was released from the bargain when on December 15, 1975, GDC sought to release Tract E from the strictures of Section 380.06 by reducing its projected density to a subthreshold level of 202 dwelling units. GDC having dissolved the agreement by which PM-55 was exempted from Section 380.06 jurisdiction, the Division was at liberty on April 15, 1976, to revoke its exemption of PM-55....

...The binding letters of interpretation issued March 2 and April 15, 1976 found that the remaining nonvested GDC land constituted a development of regional impact and that Tract E was part of the development. GDC urges that Tract E must be independently examined for Section 380.06(4) purposes, and that the Division may not in that examination aggregate the projected unit density of contiguous GDC tracts separated from Tract E by vested lands and by lands of others....

...GDC's other nonvested lands in Port Malabar and that, counting all probable units in the aggregated tracts, the overall GDC development will far exceed the Rule 22F-2 threshold of 1,000 units. The issue presented is a mix of questions arising under Section 380.06, part of the Florida Environmental Land and Management Act of 1972, and Chapter 120, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1974. In issuing its March 2 and April 15, 1976, binding letters of interpretation, the Division was required to satisfy both the substantive requirements of Section 380.06 and the procedural requirements of the APA....

...ties, hospitals, industrial plant, office parks, schools, shopping centers and residential developments of a certain size, stated in terms appropriate to those types of development. Rule 22F-2 is the only substantive rule now extant which implements Section 380.06; and it was promulgated to satisfy the legislature's requirement for rule standards by which developments could be "presumed to be of regional impact" because of "environmental problems such as air or water pollution or noise," pedestrian or vehicular traffic, population density, site size, the likelihood of consequential development, and "the unique qualities of particular areas." Section 380.06(2). *1208 Rule 22F-2, with its quantitative thresholds, meets the legislative requirement in letter and in spirit. But the Rule affords only a presumption, not a rule of decision. The Rule does not reduce the Division's responsibility under Section 380.06(4) to a mechanical chore of counting dwelling units or making other quantitative calculations. The presumption afforded by the Rule is to be respected, but the Division still must decide ; and in decision the Rule must not be permitted to swallow the statute, which provides in Section 380.06(1): "Development of regional impact," as used in this section, means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county....

...Similarly, the character or location of a proposed development may relieve it of regional impact although the projected density exceeds the threshold of the Rule's presumption. If numbers alone were conclusive, there would be little need for the substantive definition in Section 380.06(1), or for a mere "presumption," or for "binding letters of interpretation." In determining whether a newly proposed development will have regional impact because of its "character, magnitude, or location," the Division may and should consider existing area development, whether "vested" in Section 380.06(12) terms or not. A new residential development in the midst of a piney woods will have a different regional impact than the same development on the edge of an already overburdened multicounty water supply. The Division's task under Section 380.06(4) is not simply to count the houses and apply the presumption of Rule 22F-2, but rather to determine whether the statutory definition is satisfied. For the same reasons, the Division also has power to consider a developer's known plans for related development of nearby lands. The Division is not bound to accept the developer's definition of the "development" for which the developer seeks a Section 380.06 exemption. It is the Division's responsibility to establish indicia of a relationship between ostensibly separate developments which is sufficient to require their aggregation for Section 380.06 consideration....

...Rule 22F-2.10(2)(b) considers dwellings a "development" for purposes of the presumption if they are "part of a common plan of rental, advertising, or sale." The Rule does not exhaust the Division's power to find other indicia of a single development involving separate tracts. Standards for Division implementation of Section 380.06 are found not only in Rule 22F-2 but also in the definition section above quoted, in Section 380.06(2), text at n. 3, supra, and in Section 380.06(8), which requires regional planning agencies to review applications for authority to proceed with developments of regional impact....

...n, Section 20.31(2), though subject in this area to legislative approval. Section 380.10(2). The Administration Commission has not as yet adopted substantive rules beyond those in Rule 22F-2 which establish quantitative presumptions. In implementing Section 380.06, the Division and Administration Commission have a responsibility to "structure their discretion progressively by vague standards, then definite standards, then broad principles, then rules," McDonald v....

...When an agency's incipient policy is permissibly developed through orders, our duty is to require the agency "to expose and elucidate its reasons for discretionary action." McDonald, 346 So.2d at 584. A binding letter of interpretation issued by the Division under Section 380.06(4) is final agency action in the form of an order which determines substantial interests of the developer....

...form to Section 120.57. [8] Formal proceedings are available to the developer if timely requested pursuant to the model rules of the Department of Administration, Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-5.15, or Rule 22F-1.16(10) governing Division proceedings under Section 380.06(4)....

...VACATED; the Division's binding letter of interpretation concerning Country Club Vista, entered May 30, 1974, is REINSTATED; and the cause is REMANDED to the Division for further proceedings. MILLS, Acting C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] Sec. 380.06(12) provides that requirements respecting developments of regional impact shall not "limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized" by lawful authority before the effective date of Administration Commission rules affecting developments of regional impact. [2] This case does not raise constitutional questions concerning § 380.06. In Cross Key we held that certain provisions of § 308.05 violate Art. II § 3 of the Constitution by delegating legislative power without adequate standards for its exercise. In that decision we noted that § 380.06 contains greater legislative specification of standards for administrative action and that the legislature retained supervision over agency rulemaking. 351 So.2d at 1066, 1069. [3] Sec. 380.06(2), Fla....

...We need not decide that technical question; but it does point up the desirability of the Division distinguishing by clear designation its binding letters from other correspondence. [5] An "ADA" is the application for development approval required before commencement of a development of regional impact. Sec. 380.06(6), Fla. Stat. (1975). It is filed with the local government having jurisdiction but is reviewed by the regional planning agency before approval is granted, § 380.06(8); and local government's approval is subject to review by the Governor and Cabinet....

...[6] The letter, signed by the director of the Division of State Planning, states "the proposed Country Club Vista development in Brevard County is not a Development of Regional Impact... . The proposed development, therefore, will not be required to comply with the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes." [7] Sec. 380.06(8), Fla....

...[3] Chapter 380 provides for Administration Commission supervision and, where deemed necessary, supersession of local government regulation of development, by designation and regulation of areas of critical state concern, Section 380.05, and by similar control of developments of regional impact, Section 380.06....

...Property subject to the development order was subdivided among various mortgage holders. After 1976, ownership of the DRI 3 We do not hold, however, that Murray is precluded from acquiring development rights in addition to development rights already allocated to Parcel 208/308. See § 380.06(19), Fla. Stat. (2015) (addressing procedures for proposed change to a previously approved DRI). Any “developer” may submit a notice of proposed change to a DRI order. See § 380.06(19)(a); (f)2., Fla....

...ted by the local government agency based upon objective guidelines. On June 25, 1974, the Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. Z-162-74 determined that respondents had vested rights in regard to certain sections of this property in accordance with Section 380.06(12) Florida Statutes (1973), and was not subject to the statutory provisions relating to developments of regional impact (DRI)....

...This was clearly set forth, among other ways, in Zoning Resolution No. Z-162-74, which exempted respondents from the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, as follows: "... provided, however, that any determination hereunder for purposes of determining vested or legal rights, pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, shall not be deemed, nor is it intended, to vest rights or predetermine issues, pertaining to future applications for zoning or rezoning on the subject property." As stated above, this Resolution was not appealed....

...Pursuant to the procedure set out in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, for approval of a DRI, the developers in September, 1981, filed an application for development approval (ADA) with the local governmental entity having jurisdiction over the property — appellee Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. § 380.06(6), Fla. Stat. Because a DRI impacts on more than a mere neighborhood or one community, the statutory procedure for review of a DRI requires consideration by both the local government and a "regional planning agency." § 380.06(9)-(11), Fla....

...[4] The regional planning agency recommended approval of the DRI. In early 1982, the Palm Beach County Commission considered the regional planning council's recommendation, held a public hearing regarding *1263 the developers' DRI proposal, approved the DRI, and issued a section 380.06(2) development order....

...Part of the process of designing a new cause of action includes delineation of who has standing. The DRI review process and appeal to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission sets up an essentially new process or cause of action. [16] AFFIRMED. MILLS, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Retired), Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes, defines a DRI as "any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county." (e.s.) This defi...

...4, Laws of Florida. Ivester v. State, 398 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1982). In actuality, whether a particular project is a DRI for Chapter 380 purposes may only be resolved on a case-by-case basis. See generally § 380.06(4), Fla....

...pact that a proposed DRI will have upon the environment, economy and adequacy of housing of the geographic area, as well as upon government's ability to furnish adequate public transportation, water, sewer and solid waste disposal. §§ 380.031(13), 380.06(11)(a) 1.-6., Florida Statutes....

...We are concerned by these allegations, since they suggest a course of conduct in direct contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 27F-1.12, which requires all agencies having responsibility for DRI review to encourage public imput in the review process. Further, Section 380.06(11)(c), Florida Statutes, mandates that any party that would be "substantially affected" by a DRI shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to the governing board of the regional planning agency....

...at enforcement of these statutes vests exclusively in the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA). We do not agree. Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes (1989), mandates developments of regional impact to undergo a review and approval process. § 380.06, Fla....

...quired to undergo DRI review. DRI review and approval is mandated for "any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county." § 380.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). Both appellants and Dade County agree that a 12,000-seat stadium would be subject to DRI review. See §§ 380.0651(3)(b)(1)(b), 380.06(2)(d)(1)(b), Fla....

...This argument is without merit. The laws governing DRI review do not allow developers to commence limited construction of a project which ultimately must undergo DRI approval without obtaining a final development order or a preliminary development agreement, in accordance with section 380.06, Florida Statutes, before commencing construction. Section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, permits a developer to obtain a written preliminary development agreement from the FDCA as a prerequisite to engaging in limited construction of a project which will ultimately trigger DRI review....

...finition of a "unified plan of development" under chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative Code, thus subjecting the project to DRI review. Chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative Code (1986), was superseded in 1988 when its provisions were inserted in section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes. Ch. 88-164, § 3, Laws of Fla. The aggregation provisions in section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes, were revised from the previous aggregation provisions contained in chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative Code....

...m from DRI review as a "unified plan of development." These new provisions, in fact, strengthen the regulations requiring two or more projects meeting certain criteria to be aggregated and treated as a single DRI, subject to the review provisions of section 380.06, Florida Statutes. § 380.0651(4), Fla....

...o undergo DRI review. The record demonstrates ample proof that such stadium is part of a "unified plan of development" under the criteria set forth in chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative Code, and as now statutorily prescribed and strengthened in section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes....

...or to receiving a DRI development order. The Department reserves all its rights pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, concerning this development and further review of the project may be required if the developer's plans are materially changed. Section 380.0651(4)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that the aggregation provisions of section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes, do not apply to developments in which, prior to July 1, 1988, the FDCA had issued "[w]ritten decisions, agreements, and binding letters of interpretation." We rule that this letter is not a written decision, agreement, or binding letter of interpretation, under this subsection. Section 380.06(4), Florida Statutes, and section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, define binding letters and preliminary development agreements. Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: If any developer is in doubt whether his proposed development must undergo development-of-regional-impact review under the guidelines and standards, ......

...ding application, the state land planning agency shall determine and notify the applicant whether the information in the application is sufficient to enable the agency to issue a binding letter or shall request any additional information needed... . Section 380.06(8)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in part: A developer may enter into a written preliminary development agreement with *132 the state land planning agency to allow a developer to proceed with a limited amount of the total proposed development......

...According to the clear terms of the applicable statute, only the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA), the state land planning agency, has the power to require a developer, here the county, to undergo a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review. § 380.032(1); [2] § 380.06(5)(b), Fla....

...Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, 429 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As the administrating state agency of Chapter 380, the FDCA monitors developments which meet the statutorily set thresholds defining a development of regional impact. See §§ 380.06(2)(a); 380.0651, Fla. Stat. (1987). When the agency determines that the threshold has been met, it is required by state statute to coordinate an extensive review assessing the regional impact of the project on the natural environment. [4] § 380.06....

...oversee projects, both private and public, to insure that the projects are in compliance with Chapter 380. In this case, the applicable guideline states that any sports facility that will provide more than 10,000 permanent seats requires DRI review. § 380.0651(3)(b)1.b, Fla....

...ation and enforcement of this act and all rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. § 380.032(1). [3] or regional agencies may inquire whether a proposed project is undergoing or will be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review. § 380.06(5)(b). [4] If a development meets the statutory criteria for DRI review, the developer, together with the county zoning authority, must file an application with the regional planning agency and with the FDCA. § 380.06(6)....

...fees, where appropriate." § 163.01(5)(h), Fla. Stat. (1983). Chapter 380 contains detailed provisions relating to DRIs and provides that regional planning agencies "may adopt additional rules ... to promote efficient review of developments-of-regional-impact applications." § 380.06(22)(c), Fla....

...The Council's attorney attended the preapplication meeting requested by the developer with the Department staff and he made several calls concerning the project to the Department during the consideration of the binding letter. On the last day of the 60-day period allowed by the statute (Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes), within which it must act on binding letter requests, the Department issued a binding letter determining that the Lake Talquin project was not a DRI....

...In its letter denying the Council's petition, the Department outlined the pertinent circumstances, and fully explained its application of the law and its reasons for the denial. We quote with approval from the Department's letter: Binding letters are issued pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a) F.S....

...ral permitting requirements must be complied with. A binding letter merely determines whether the developer's plans must, in addition to other permitting requirements, be reviewed and approved by local government in accordance with the provisions of Section 380.06 F.S. The Legislature in enacting Section 380.06(4)(a), did not specify or intend that third persons, such as your client would be given standing as a formal party to participate in, and thereby delay, the determination by the Department as to whether a developer is subject to the additional review and approval procedures specified by Section 380.06, F.S....

...regional. Furthermore, any such impact would result from actual construction of the project, which is not permitted or authorized by a binding letter, rather than the mere determination whether such construction must first be authorized pursuant to Section 380.06 in addition to other applicable local, state or federal permitting procedures....

...There is no reference to studies, reports or the existence of factual information that tends to challenge or contradict the information and facts referred to in the July 9, 1979 binding letter. The Lake Talquin Estates binding letter was required to be issued on July 9, 1979, pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a) F.S....

...l the Petition was delivered on the morning on which the binding letter was due. Under these circumstances, the Department finds and concludes that the binding letter was properly issued on July 9, 1979, within 60 days of receipt as required by F.S. § 380.06(4)(a) and that the Petition For Hearing was not timely filed....

...n application. We agree that this procedure of allowing and soliciting input by the Council in this binding letter proceeding adequately protected the Council's interest. In its order, the Department went one step further in stating that in enacting Section 380.06(4)(a), "the Legislature did not specify or intend that third persons," such as the Council, "would be given standing as a formal party to participate in, and *1373 thereby delay," the determination by the Department of whether a developer is subject to the additional DRI review specified by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...rative procedures suggested by the Model Code, see Pelham, supra at 44, Chapter 380 nonetheless provides for public notice and hearing on applications for development approval, which proceedings are to be held "in the same manner as for a rezoning." Section 380.06(1)....

...The Department failed to appeal the finding by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County that Port Bougainville's 1982 plan is not a substantial deviation, in spite of its August 2, 1982 position that the same (according to Mr. Scharenberg) plan-called "1981 plan" — was a substantial deviation. 27. Section 380.06(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in part, "if the proposed changes are found to be a substantial deviation, the development shall be subject to further review pursuant to this section." 28....

...loper must undergo further review through another application." emphasis added. 29. The Department has a statutory duty to prevent the developer from proceeding with a plan for development until "further review" of the development is completed under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...fees, where appropriate." § 163.01(5)(h), Fla. Stat. (1983). Chapter 380 contains detailed provisions relating to DRIs and provides that regional planning agencies "may adopt additional rules ... to promote efficient review of developments-of-regional-impact applications." § 380.06(22)(c), Fla....

...ased fee provisions of rule 29L-2.02 valid. We answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court. It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1983), defines development of regional impact: (1) The term "development of regional impact," as used in this section, means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a subst...

...be accompanied by a fee deposit, as detailed below. When required, no application shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by this fee deposit. This fee deposit shall be combined with other funds available to perform the function outlined by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...Governmental agencies shall pay after receipt of an invoice and are not required to pay a deposit in advance. When required, no application shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by this fee deposit. This fee deposit shall be combined with other funds available to perform the function outlined by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...applicant. If the cost of the review exceeds the fee deposit, the applicant shall be liable to the Council for 100 percent of the review costs. (4) No fees or costs are required of an applicant for the initial pre-application conference required by 380.06(7). Further pre-application assistance shall be provided at the applicant's request. Charges for this assistance will be based upon reasonable fees for professional services and costs incurred. A deposit shall be required. [3] Section 380.06(23)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: (d) Regional planning agencies which perform development-of-regional-impact and Florida Quality Development review are authorized to assess and collect fees to fund the costs, direct and indirect, of conducting the review process....

...[5] § 166.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1987); City of Miami v. Kayfetz, 92 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1957); City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769 (Fla. 1914). [6] §§ 125.01(1)(m) and (w); 163.3161(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). [7] Chapters 334, 335, 336; § 380.06(15), Fla....

...mitations, the local government shall consider whether, and the extent in which: * * * * * * (c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency submitted pursuant to subsection (8) of this section." Section 380.06(11), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Council and then, if necessary, by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. [8] We therefore find that appellant's petition for writ of certiorari was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Affirmed. NOTES [1] § 380.06, Fla....

...(1975), defines "developments of regional impact" as follows: "(1) `Development of regional impact,' as used in this section, means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of more than one county." § 380.06(2) required the Administration Commission to adopt guidelines and standards "to be used in determining whether particular developments shall be presumed to be of regional impact." These standards are codified in Fla....

...r 380, Florida Statutes: Any proposed residential development that is planned to create or accommodate more than the following number of dwelling units: * * * * * * (f) In counties with a population in excess of 500,000 — 3,000 dwelling units." [2] § 380.06(5), Fla. Stat. (1975). [3] The Council's Impact Assessment for the Kendale Lakes project clearly displays that full consideration was given to the criteria for evaluation set forth in § 380.06(8), Fla....

...Over objection, he was qualified as an expert witness on three subjects: the Department's policies as regards vested rights, chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and land use planning. Secretary Pelham testified that the Department's policy was that rezoning was not sufficient to vest development rights under section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes (1973)....

...We quash the opinion below and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In more detail, the argument runs as follows: Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes (1973), creates an exemption from DRI review for land on which an authorization to begin development had been obtained and the developer has changed position after relying on that authorization....

...zed. Ridgewood's argument was that development rights vested when the tract was purchased upon the agreement of the city to annex the tract and to rezone it for the prospective use. The tract was annexed, rezoned, and purchased during 1971 and 1972. Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, which governs developments of regional impact, took effect in 1973....

...or structures customarily regarded as land." Pasco County agrees with Lake Padgett, noting that it has consistently maintained the project must be approved by it as the local agency with authority to grant initial approval of DRI's under Fla. Stat. § 380.06. Both Lake Padgett and Pasco County view the Cypress Creek Well Field Project as a development of regional impact which is statutorily defined in § 380.06(1) as: "......

...the economic, social and environmental impact of the proposed project. Because of the potential impact of this project as a large scale regional well field and flood detention area, they argue it must receive the environmental review contemplated by § 380.06, which statute they view as implementing the constitutional mandate of Art....

...ett contends that these administrative guidelines do not necessarily list all possible DRI's but only those which are presumed to be DRI's. In any event, Lake *478 Padgett argues that such guidelines cannot amend the statutory definition of a DRI in § 380.06(1), which it contends is "self-executing" and requires no further legislative action. Our conclusions make it unnecessary to pass on whether or not the enumerations in 22F-2 are all inclusive or whether the DRI definition in Fla. Stat. § 380.06(1) is self-executing....

...Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise." [5] The appellant Division of State Planning issued the appellants Pinellas County and City of St. Petersburg a "binding letter" under Fla. Stat. § 380.06(4)(a) that the Cypress Creek Well Field is not a DRI....

...After a series of public hearings, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County denied the proposed rezoning and denied Estuary's application for development approval. The Board's development order is set forth below: "* * * The Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, pursuant to Section 380.06, after due consideration of the consistency of this development with the Local Land Development Regulations, the report from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Agency, the report from the County's staff and members of the public b...

...* * *" (emphasis supplied) Estuary appealed the development order to the Adjudicatory Commission which is comprised of the Governor and Cabinet. The case was assigned to a hearing officer, who conducted a de novo hearing. The hearing officer considered the principal issues which F.S. 380.06(8) and (11) required to be considered. He declined to consider the "taking issue" because that issue was determined to be a judicial question beyond the purview of the administrative hearing. Concerning the requirements of F.S. 380.06(8) and (11), the hearing officer found that the effect the development would have on the economy, housing, and energy resources of the region was little, if any, different than any other project to provide 26,500 housing units in the area w...

...The conclusion of the hearing officer and the Adjudicatory Commission that removal of 1,800 acres of black mangroves from petitioner's property would cause degradation of water quality in the adjacent bays is not supported by, and is contrary to competent substantial evidence of record. F.S. 380.06, Fla....

...The local government then submits the application to the appropriate regional planning agency. The regional planning agency is required to review the application and to submit a report to the local government. In preparing its *1133 report and recommendations, the regional planning agency is required by F.S. 380.06(8), to consider whether, and the extent to which: "(a) The development will have a favorable or unfavorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the region....

...d for, or additional use of, energy * * *." If, as here, a proposed development of regional impact is not located in an area of critical state concern, the local government, in considering whether the development should be approved, is required by F.S. 380.06(11), to consider whether, and the extent to which: "(a) The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to the area; "(b) The development is consistent with...

...he law of the case, the only evidentiary issue remaining to be resolved on this appeal is whether, and the extent to which the "... development will have a favorable or unfavorable impact on the environmental and natural resources of the region." (F.S. 380.06(8)(a)) Consideration of that issue is further limited to the hearing officer's and the Adjudicatory Commission's determination that petitioner's proposed removal of 1,800 acres of mangroves from the property would adversely affect the envir...

...A decision by us in that regard is rendered unnecessary by our holdings as to other points, post. B. The Adjudicatory Commission, Lee County, and the planning council required petitioner to meet an incorrect standard of proof and to carry an unconstitutional burden of proof. The history and interpretations of F.S. 380.06, show that the creators of the development of regional impact process intended that governmental agencies balance the various impacts of a proposed development....

...ncy must balance the impacts in determining whether a development will have "favorable or unfavorable impact," will "efficiently use or unduly burden" certain public facilities and will "favorably or adversely affect" the availability of housing. (F.S. 380.06(8)) Such a balancing is required by the very fact that as reasonable people we know that to some degree every use of land, every felled tree and every structure has some impact on the environment....

...of laymen, must rely heavily upon the staff's professional report and recommendations. Local government must consider, for instance, whether "the development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency... ." (F.S. 380.06(11)(c)) Sub judice, the Planning Council's report is replete with nebulous assessments in the form of factual determinations such as: "The introduction of petrochemical[s] associated with boat traffic within the drainage collector canal (In...

...of fact and conclusion of law by the hearing officer. As above stated, there were six major areas of statutory inquiry: environment and natural resources, economy, public facilities, housing, energy, and policies of the regional planning agency. (F.S. 380.06(8)) The hearing officer found that Petitioner's proposal was satisfactory in four areas: economy, public facilities, housing, and energy....

...Lee County and the Adjudicatory Commission were without power to deny Petitioner's vested development rights conferred by a valid and binding settlement agreement between the State and Petitioner's predecessor in title, and the denial of such rights violates the United States and Florida Constitutions and Sections 380.06(12) and 380.08(1) Fla....

...Petitioner's reliance upon Askew v. Gables-By-The-Sea supra and Zabel v. Pinellas County Water Navigational Control Authority, supra, is misplaced. We find that contention to be without merit. Finally, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of F.S. 380.06(8), primarily on the grounds that the standards set forth therein are so vague as to deny due process and further that the statute constitutes a delegation of purely legislative powers....

...NOTES [1] The County also petitioned for a writ of certiorari, based on conflict. We have determined that conflict is absent. [2] General Development Corp. v. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, et al., District Court of Appeal Case No. BB-69. [3] See § 380.06(1), Fla....

...due to lack of substantive standards to guide the Commission or its hearing officer in making determinations pursuant to section 380.07. Since the substantive standards to be used in making determinations under Chapter 380 are contained in sections 380.06(8) and 380.06(11), Florida Statutes, Transgulf argues that the circuit court implicitly found those sections unconstitutional also. We find this contention without merit. The circuit court order in the instant case makes no mention of section 380.06 or any of the substantive standards contained therein....

...Willis , leaves no doubt that the only issue before the circuit court was the constitutionality vel non of section 380.07(3), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in failing to grant Transgulf relief based on its counterclaim which asserted the unconstitutionality of sections 380.06(8) and 380.06(11), Florida Statutes....

...regional planning agency, and any other persons designated by the state land planning agency as entitled to receive such notice. The interests of the citizens of the surrounding area are protected by the explicit *658 requirements of Florida Statute 380.06(8) in that within 30 days of receiving notice, the regional planning agency must submit to the local government a report and recommendations on the proposed project....

...exercised) to seek review of the dismissal in this Court. [3] Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1973). Also see Finnell, Saving Paradise: The Florida Land & Environmental Act, 1972 Urban Law Annual 103. [4] Florida Statute 380.021. [5] Florida Statute 380.06(6). [6] Florida Statute 380.06(7). [7] Id. [8] Florida Statutes 380.06(8)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) direct that the report shall address itself to the effect of the development on the environment, natural resources, economy, efficient use or undue burden on water, sewers, solid waste disposal, other public facilities, public transportation, ability of people to find adequate housing, and any other areas which the regional planning agency shall deem appropriate. [9] Florida Statute 380.07(2). [10] Florida Statute 380.07(2). [11] Florida Statutes 380.06(8), 380.08, and 380.07(2)....

...inistrative approval of DRI's, it is the state agency responsible for the project, and its absence would require the remaining parties to improperly bear the state's liability for any monetary damages the state may have caused. Pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 380.06(12), the Planning Council only makes recommendations to Dade County concerning DRI's....

...t (City). The complaint alleged that GDC was contemplating a certain land development known as Myakka Estates, lying entirely within the City and situate in the County, which constituted a "`Development of regional impact,'" as defined in Fla. Stat. § 380.06 (1973). GDC had obtained from the City an order approving the development. The County complained of improprieties in the procedures followed in obtaining the City's approval under § 380.06, and alleged that it was attempting to appeal this order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission....

...alleging a departure from the procedures prescribed by Chapter 380. We cannot see how the County has standing to make these complaints. The City is clearly the "local government" having zoning jurisdiction over the land in question under Fla. Stat. § 380.06(5) (1973)....

...The dissent's interpretation of section 163.3167(8) would also render the statute's reference to a DRI development order superfluous. A DRI development order is a "final local development order," just as a building permit or zoning decision is. See § 380.06(15), Fla....

...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). See State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006 (Fla.2000) (stating that statutes relating to the same or closely related subject should be read in pari materia); Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981). Section 380.06 outlines the procedures for review and approval of a development of regional impact. Once approved as a DRI and a development order has been issued authorizing development, a project need not be subject to additional DRI review and approval under section 380.06 unless an amendment to the project involves a substantial deviation. § 380.06(19), Fla. Stat. (1995). Section 380.06(19) provides for the local government to determine whether a proposed amendment to a DRI constitutes a substantial deviation....

...ment. This vesting would continue until the development was subjected to another DRI review. That is, non-substantial deviations to the original DRI development order would not cause loss of the vesting rights to the original development plan. Under section 380.06(19), a substantial deviation would lead to a new DRI review and a new authorization for DRI development....

...Nonetheless, in January 1993, the commission members decided to revive the expired permit, apparently under a "vesting" rationale. [3] The controlling state statute does not provide for revival of an expired DRI permit. The County's authority to act on DRI permits derives from section 380.06, Florida Statutes, also known as the DRI statute....

...before this Court for review. See F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 606 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). [2] The County's determination that the amendments were not substantial deviations is reviewable only by FLWAC. See §§ 380.06(19)(f)6 and 380.07, Fla....

...dence that may occur in a section 380.07 proceeding, that case did not involve the same underlying statutory framework as the instant case. In Estuary Properties, a developer was denied approval for a development of regional impact (DRI) pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974). The developer appealed the order to the Commission and a de novo hearing ensued. Upon review, this Court determined that the state had the initial burden of showing that the proposed DRI would have an adverse impact in light of section 380.06(8). Under that statutory framework, the appropriate local government was required to give notice and hold a hearing on the application for development approval. § 380.06(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1974). Upon receipt of that notice, the regional planning agency was required to submit to the local government a report and recommendations on the regional impact of the development, including any resulting adverse impact. § 380.06(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1974). In addition, the statute also charged the local government with determining the extent to which the development unreasonably interfered with the applicable state land development plan. § 380.06(11)(a), Fla....

...Moreover, if a proposed development of regional impact falls within an area of critical state concern, "the local government shall approve it only if it complies with the land development regulations therefor under s. 380.05 and the provisions of this section." § 380.06(13), Fla....

...er government approvals. Lakes filed an application for approval of a development of regional impact and obtained a Development Order permitting construction of a shopping center on the land from the South Florida Planning Council. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 380.06(10) (development of regional impact application must be approved by regional planning agency). Lakes also obtained plat approval from Broward County. Finally, the City of Pembroke Pines (“the City”) passed an ordinance approving the shopping center and the conceptual site plan. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 380.06(6), (11) (development of regional impact application must be approved by the local government zoning authorities)....

...plan, Lakes did not obtain the approvals called for in Article Twelfth. CFP, however, does not indicate what approval Lakes failed to obtain. The City Manager and City Planner testified that the conceptual site plan was approved under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 380.06, which provides for municipal approval of developments of regional impact....

...The changes, although rather dramatic to the affected parcels, do not constitute a regional impact on the entire 946 acre DRI. Since the proposed changes do not have regional impact, they are not classified as "substantial deviations" and do not require further regional review. See § 380.06(1), and § 380.06(19), Fla....

...The definition of changes classified as "substantial deviations." A DRI is defined as "any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county. " § 380.06(1), Fla....

...y type of regional impact created by the change not previously reviewed by the regional planning agency, shall constitute a substantial deviation and shall cause the development *258 to be subject to further development-of- regional -impact review." § 380.06(19)(a), Fla....

...od that it will have a substantial effect on the health, safety or welfare of citizens of more than one county. Such a change is automatically required to undergo a new DRI review. Changes which meet this classification are expressly delineated. See § 380.06(19)(a)-(c), (e), Fla. Stat. (2001). All other changes, whether statutorily enumerated or not, would be classified as "not a substantial deviation." See § 380.06(19)(e), 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). Section 380.06(19)(f)6, recognizes local government's authority to review and approve proposed changes to previously approved DRIs....

...ete any development that " has been authorized. " See § 163.3167(8), Fla. Stat. (2001). Proposed changes that are not required to undergo a new DRI permitting process, must be "otherwise approved" and may be subject to "conditions of approval." See § 380.06(19)(f)6., Fla....

...residential occupancy. Bay County has approved fifteen amendments to the Bay Point DRI development order since 1986. None of these changes constituted a "substantial deviation" requiring further DRI review under Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes. § 380.06(19)(a), Fla....

..., or any type of regional impact created by the change not previously reviewed by the regional planning agency, shall constitute a substantial deviation and shall cause the development to be subject to further development-of-regional-impact review." § 380.06(19)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Specific numerical thresholds appear in section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes, applicable *262 to determination of whether a proposed change triggers the substantial deviation provisions of section 380.06....

...Here, the West Florida Regional Planning Council, pursuant to its statutory duty of comment, advised Bay County that the NOPC initiated by appellant for parcels F, 12, 9, and 10 would not constitute a substantial deviation to the Bay Point DRI. The Department of Community Affairs, which under section 380.06(19)(f)4....

...change, did not submit any such objections to Bay County. Under the statutory scheme, if the Department of Community Affairs had submitted objections, it would have done so before the public hearing at which the proposed change would be considered. § 380.06(19)(f)4., Fla....

...Both the ALJ and FLWAC were content with their determination that the NOPC would go beyond what was originally approved in the DRI development order of 1986. Countering this, appellant essentially argues that, assuming a non-substantial deviation under section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (2001), will go beyond what was originally approved, the determinative issue should be whether the proposed change would require further DRI review under section 380.06....

...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)....

...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). Section 380.06 outlines the procedures for review and approval of a development of regional impact. Once approved as a DRI and a development order has been issued authorizing development, a project need not be subject to additional DRI review and approval under section 380.06 unless an amendment to the project involves a substantial deviation. § 380.06(19), Fla....

...ady bought residential units object, after the developer proposes construction of high-rise condominiums on property owned by the developer, subject to a pre-existing DRI order, and which development does not constitute a substantial deviation under section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...Bal Harbour also expressed concern about adverse environmental impact on Biscayne Bay, which Bal Harbour shares in common with North Miami. Finally, Bal Harbour asserted that the parking requirements for the amphitheater exceeded the threshold for a development of regional impact ("DRI"), see § 380.0651(3)(b)1.a., Fla....

...ronmental Protection and the federal Environmental Protection Agency, respectively. [11] Dismissal is also appropriate to the extent that the matters complained of by Bal Harbour are cognizable through the Development of Regional Impact process. See § 380.06, Fla.Stat....

...undertaken enforcement action with respect to the landfill. [12] Bal Harbour's "verified complaint" served under Section 163.3225, Florida Statutes, alleged that the size of the amphitheater project rendered it a Development of Regional Impact, see 380.0651(3)(b)1.a., Fla.Stat., but that North Miami had not sought the required approvals.

...mit conditions and the laws and rules in effect at the time of issuance. 4.3 Developments of Regional Impact — For projects where an application for developmental approval was filed under the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes, prior to March 31, 1987, the developer may request that the project be reviewed under the Chapter 40D-4 wetland permitting criteria in effect prior to October 1, 1986....

...1990, in response to this Court's mandate issued in White. [1] The fears expressed by the appellees are well-founded. White v. Metropolitan Dade County held that the projected stadium was subject to Development of Regional Impact reviews pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...First, from the Act pursuant to which the ARPC was created in 1979, the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969." Chapter 163, Fla. Stat. (1983). Second, from the Act which sets out some of the ARPC's activities and authority, the "Florida Regional Planning Council Act." Chapter 160, Fla. Stat. (1983). And third, from section 380.06, Fla....

...the developer for such reviews. Section 160.02(12) empowers the ARPC to "fix and collect ... fees when appropriate." Likewise section 163.01(5)(h) authorizes the ARPC to fix and collect "fees, where appropriate," and to promulgate rules to that end. Section 380.06(22)(c) permits the ARPC to promulgate rules to promote efficient review of DRI applications....

...sidents of this state... ." Section 380.021. Further, the statutes serve as a control on the privilege of land development which is potentially dangerous to the citizens of more than one county "because of its character, magnitude, or location... ." Section 380.06(1)....

...ices is simply "a technical issue of implementation and not a fundamental policy decision." Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d at 820. Though the legislature has spoken extensively on DRI guidelines, standards, and procedures in sections 380.06 and 380.0651, the complexity and needed flexibility inherent in the DRI review process as it applies to individual applicants is too pronounced to be practicably placed within the scope of legislative responsibility....

...stration Commission, the pertinent regional planning council and water management district, and local governments as well as, potentially, other state agencies such as the Departments of Natural Resources, and Environmental Regulation. See generally section 380.06....

...-scale land development, e.g., types of land, natural resources, and water supplies impacted, population, and energy impacts, types of development projects, and existing surrounding uses and those likely to follow as a result of the development. See section 380.06(2)(b)....

...(See Exhibit 3) Third, the City of Dania approved Airport development by the City of Dania Resolution 449 dated March 23, 1982. (See Exhibit 4) The addition of land to an approved development is a substantial deviation and requires application for review and approval. Section 380.06(19)(e)(3)....

...We therefore hold that the City's alleged loss of tax base and expenditures for infrastructure improvements do not constitute a valid basis for intervention. We also hold that the City has failed to assert a valid ground for intervention based upon the County's alleged failure to comply with section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1993), and its failure to submit an application for review as provided by its resolution 26-95....

...1st DCA 1994); Harbor Course Club, Inc., v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 510 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dade County v. United Res., Inc., 374 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The only exception to this common law rule under Chapter 380 is specifically provided for in the statute. See § 380.06(20), Fla....

...[3] The first land development regulations were adopted in 1986 pursuant to Sections 380.05(6) and (8), Florida Statutes (1985). In 1992, the Rate of Growth Ordinance ("ROGO") was adopted as part of a state emergency rule. Finally, in January of 1996, Monroe County adopted its 2010 comprehensive plan. [4] Section 380.06(20)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that: For the purposes of determining the vesting of rights under this subsection, approval pursuant to local subdivision plat law, ordinances, or regulations of a subdivision plat by formal vo...

...pplication for a development permit. (3) A "development permit" includes any building permit, zoning permit, plat approval, or rezoning, certification, variance, or other action having the effect of permitting development as defined in this chapter. 380.06 Developments of regional impact....

...By following these sections, it becomes clear that the correct procedures for a developer to use when he is involved with a development of regional impact are exactly those which Estech used in the present case. The developer first files an application for a development permit with the local zoning authorities. § 380.06(6)....

...The petition is denied. On November 23, 1976, Sarasota County (County) filed a petition for declaratory statement with the Department of Administration (Department) pursuant to Section 120.565, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), concerning the applicability of Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975) and Section 380.11, Florida Statutes (1975), with regard to the construction of a crude oil splitter refining facility (the Project) in Manatee County by Manatee Energy Company, a subsidiary of Belcher Oil Company. Thereafter the Department issued a declaratory statement dated December 27, 1976, stating that the definition of a development of regional impact (DRI) in Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975) is limited *804 by and applicable only to those projects described in Fla. Admin. Code Rule 22F-2, pursuant to Section 380.06(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...This is particularly true in situations where the posture of the case presents the standing issue for the first time in the reviewing court. [5] Since it is axiomatic that jurisdiction may be questioned at any stage, we must turn to the applicable provisions of Chapter 380 to evaluate the County's position. Section 380.06 sets forth a comprehensive administrative scheme designed to insure that those entities affected by local, regional or even state-wide development will have some input into the planning, implementation and future of said developments. At the heart of this planning statute is the developer. Thus, if the type of development proposed is already classified as one of regional impact, as defined in Section 380.06(1) and (2), [6] the developer must comply with the procedures delineated in Section 380.06(5)-(11)....

...rea; (2) regional planning agencies; and (3) the state *806 planning agency. [7] In fact, this statute contemplates the joinder of more than one local government where the proposed DRI falls within the jurisdiction of more than one local government. Section 380.06(7)(f)....

...DRI process if the proposed development is not one of those which is presumed to be a DRI under Fla. Admin. Code Rule 22F-2.01-12? Although the statute does not directly answer this question, some guidance is offered by subsections (3) and (4)(a) of Section 380.06....

...Although I concur in the result reached by Judge Hobson I hasten to add that I do not construe the majority opinion as ultimately precluding relief to Sarasota County. The avenue the county has chosen to pursue is at best an abrogation of the scheme established by the legislature in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, while there were and are two viable alternatives available to petitioner. First, Sarasota County may proceed through its regional planning agency to effect the same result it sought to achieve by acting on its own behalf. See Section 380.06(3), Florida Statutes....

...See Section 403.412, Florida Statutes. SCHEB, Judge, dissenting. Sarasota County here seeks a review of a declaratory statement issued by the respondent Department of Administration (DOA) holding the "guidelines and standards" administratively adopted pursuant to Section 380.06(2), Florida Statutes (1975), limit the application of the general definition of a development of regional impact (DRI) contained in Section 380.06(1)....

...Supp. 1976). This court has the duty to review such actions under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976). In my opinion the declaratory statement issued by the respondent is incorrect as a matter of law. Department of Administration said that Section 380.06(2), Florida Statutes (1975), requires the administration commission (governor and cabinet) to adopt specific guidelines and standards to be used by the state land planning agency to determine if a development should be determined *808...

...s no authority to find it to be one. In other words, the presumptions itemized in 22F-2 are all-inclusive with no discretion left in the state land planning agency to consider whether an unlisted project is or is not a DRI. With this I cannot agree. Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975), defines a DRI to be, "[A]ny development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county." Section 380.06(2) then gives the administration commission the right to formulate the standards to guide the state land planning agency in deciding what is a DRI....

...a DRI. The state land planning agency is the receptacle of this delegated legislative authority as is shown by its role in receiving recommendations from regional planning agencies and in issuing letters of interpretation to developers. See Sections 380.06(3) and (4)(a)....

...Chapter 380, known as the Florida Environmental Land & Water Management Act of 1972, is landmark legislation implementing Article II, Section 7, Florida Constitution (1968), which places great stress on well planned development and the quality of life of all the residents of this state. Section 380.06(1) quoted above is a legislative directive designed to implement these intentions....

...has unduly restricted that legislative intent. Accordingly, I would grant the county's petition for review and remand this cause to DOA with directions to reconsider and reformulate its declaratory statement consistent with the legislative intent of Section 380.06(1), rather than by limiting the statute's applicability to the presumed DRI's listed in Florida Administrative Code 22F-2. NOTES [1] § 380.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1975) defines a development of regional impact as: ... [A]ny development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county. § 380.06(2), Fla....

...n Commission has designated as a DRI, and where such project falls within the zoning jurisdiction of a local government, the developer must make application to the local government stating his intention to undertake a development of regional impact. § 380.06(6), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976). Following said application the local government must give notice and hold a hearing. § 380.06(7)....

...gional planning agency, if any, must submit a written notice that the application contains sufficient information for it to discharge its duties. Should the information be insufficient, the applicant is permitted to amend upon request by the agency. § 380.06(7)(a), (b). Thereafter notice of public hearing is forwarded to the state planning agency, applicable regional planning agency and to other persons designated by the state planning agency to receive such notice. § 380.06(7)(d). Following receipt of such notice of public hearing by the regional planning agency, if one exists, the latter prepares a report and recommendation on the impact of such a project. § 380.06(8)....

...d to obtain a "Development of Regional Impact" approval order pursuant to chapter 380. Under the procedures outlined in chapter 380, the developer must first file an application for a development permit with the appropriate local zoning authorities. § 380.06(6), Fla....

...that fails to comply with section 163.3177(6)(a), I would reverse. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part. NOTES [1] No issue has been raised as to the standing of appellants to bring this appeal. [2] §§ 163.3161-.3245, Fla. Stat. (1999). [3] § 380.06, Fla....

...urisdiction. Section 120.565 thus provides a broad declaratory remedy, whatever the agency and whatever the issue of statutory application, much like the Division of State Planning's "binding letter of interpretation" which states the application of section 380.06 regional impact standards to proposed developments....

...of Community Affairs (Department), denying their petition for formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1977). The petition was filed after the Department issued a binding letter to International Paper Realty Corp. (IPRC) pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), determining that a 90-acre tract of land in Bay County was not a development of regional impact (DRI). The issue which is dispositive of this appeal is whether Peterson, et al. had standing under Section 380.06(4)(a) to demand a Section 120.57(1) hearing....

...On 22 May, the Department informed Peterson, et al. that the binding letter of 14 March was final agency action as to their request for a formal hearing. Peterson, et al. appeal from the 22 May letter. Peterson, et al. are not entitled to party status under Section 380.06(4)(a). They have no substantial interests that will be determined or affected by the Department's issuance of a binding letter. Their standing must be considered in light of Chapter 380. Only DRIs are subject to the requirements of Section 380.06, and developers need a means of determining whether their projects constitute a DRI....

...Fletcher, Coral Gables, for amici curiae, Marina Biscayne, Inc. and Martin Rabin. LARRY SMITH, Judge. Appellant, South Florida Regional Planning Council, appeals from orders entered by the Division of State Planning in connection with the discharge of its duties under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The primary issue for our consideration is whether the Division should have permitted the Council to intervene as a party to the agency proceeding wherein the Division issued a "binding letter" under Section 380.06(4)(a) finding that a marina development proposed by the City of Miami would not be a development of regional impact....

...ent the development and operation of the marina improvements were turned over to Marina Biscayne, Inc., and Mr. Blitstein, consultant to the corporation, acted as the City's agent for making the application. As permitted under subparagraph (4)(a) of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, Blitstein filed an application with the Division seeking a binding letter of interpretation with respect to the proposed development....

...The Division commenced its review of the application, received information from various sources, including the Council, and in due course issued its binding letter of determination (BLID) finding that the proposed Marina Biscayne development was not a development of regional impact (DRI). Under Section 380.06(1), "development of regional impact" means "any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county". The legislature has provided two methods by which a project may be determined to be a DRI, and therefore subject to Section 380.06. First, the developer may file an application under Section 380.06(4)(a), which states, in pertinent part: "If any developer is in doubt whether his proposed development would be a development of regional impact......

...er of interpretation with respect to the proposed development. Binding letters of interpretation . . shall bind all state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the developer." The second method whereby DRI status may be determined is pursuant to Section 380.06(6)....

...That section provides for the filing of an application with the local government concerned which application shall contain, if such be the case, a statement that the developer "proposes to undertake a development of regional impact" as defined under the statute. The statute further provides (Section 380.06(7)) that the appropriate local government shall give notice and hold a hearing on the application and comply with certain other additional requirements including the receipt of a report and recommendations on the regional impact of the...

...Under subparagraph (11) the local government in considering whether the development shall be approved or denied shall consider whether, and the extent to which the development is "consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency ...". (Section 380.06(11)(c)) Under the statutory scheme as briefly outlined above, the legislature has assigned to the regional planning agency powers and functions which are advisory only, in instances where the development is determined to be a development of regional impact. However, under those provisions of the statute providing for a binding letter of interpretation by the land planning agency, the regional planning council was given no responsibilities (Section 380.06(4)(a))....

...A 1982 development order approved this substantial project which was scheduled to be completed on or before October of 1989. The project could not be completed within that time, however, and RTC applied for an extension of the buildout date in accordance with section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...tion does not state facts sufficient to serve as a *162 basis for appeal. The Motion is predicated on the fact that the Division of State Planning, Department of Administration, on November 24, 1975, issued a `Binding Letter of Interpretation' under Section 380.06(4), Florida Statutes, that the proposed project is not a development of regional impact....

...the land to permit the development of approximately 5,000 condominium units and 1,500 hotel units. "c. On April 11, 1975, Fisher filed an Application for Development Approval (ADA) for a development of regional impact with the SFRPC. "d. Pursuant to Section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, the SFRPC, in July 1975, issued and referred its report and recommendations on the development proposal to Dade County....

...ment consisting of 1,200 dwelling units and 200 hotel units is not a residential development of regional impact as legally defined in Chapter 22F-2.20, Florida Administrative Code, and therefore would not be required to comply with the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...On November 26, 1975, Dade County deferred action on the application *163 to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the SFRPC still had jurisdiction to review the revised application. On January 9, 1976, the Attorney General advised the Dade County Attorney that since Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes, as amended, provides that a binding letter of interpretation `shall bind all state, regional and local agencies as well as the developer,' and in the absence of judicial guidance to the contrary, both Dade County and the SFRPC must treat the proposal as not being a development of regional impact and that the approval procedures in Section 380.06 were not applicable....

...would be permanently fixed and established at a total of 1,200 apartment units and 200 hotel units. "6. The pending Motion raises the question of whether a binding letter of interpretation issued by the Division of Land Planning to a developer under Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes, that a revised proposed project does not constitute a development of regional impact effectively terminates an ongoing DRI process and bars a regional planning agency from pursuing an appeal of favorable local...

...380 to consider the action taken by the Dade County Commission because the Division of State Planning has determined by its binding letter of interpretation to the developer that the revised proposed project is not a development of regional impact. Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that such letters of interpretation `shall bind all State, regional, and local agencies, as well as the developer.' A binding letter was issued in this case and it is deemed dispositive of the matter....

...Among the points raised by appellant on appeal, two of them require discussion and may be summarized as follows: (1) whether a binding letter of interpretation that a revised proposed project does not constitute a development of regional impact (DRI) issued pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), by the Division of Land Planning (Division) to appellee Fisher binds SFRPC as to the determination by the Division and bars SFRPC from pursuing an appeal of favorable local government action under Section 380.07(2) to Fla.WAC; and (2) whether SFRPC is barred from collaterally attacking the validity of a binding letter of interpretation issued under Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), where it made an appearance in the proceedings, but failed to take judicial review therefrom....

...y, and authorizing appeal of those decisions to a state adjudicatory commission. If a prospective developer is in doubt about whether his proposed development is a DRI or whether a proposed change to a project would divest rights grandfathered under Section 380.06(12), it may apply to the Division for a binding letter of interpretation. § 380.06(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977). This Section provides as follows: "380.06 Developments of regional impact — (4)(a) If any developer is in doubt whether his proposed development would be a development of regional impact, or whether his rights have vested pursuant to § 380.06(12), he may request a determination from the state land planning agency....

...lity in regard to what constituted a DRI on a statewide basis. Pursuant to this Section, if the Division issues a "binding letter" that the proposed development does not constitute a DRI, it is presumed to be exempt from the regulatory procedures of Section 380.06....

...n. The Florida Legislature delegated the entire responsibility in regard to binding letters to the State planning agency. The regional planning agency has only statutory power and authority to make recommendations to local government consistent with Section 380.06 and to file appeals from development orders by local government pursuant to Section 380.07. Chapter 380 is directed toward those decisions involving important state or regional interests, while allowing local control over those matters of only local concern. The language of Section 380.06(4)(a) is clear and unambiguous; accordingly, it should be construed according to the plain meaning of the words employed by the State Legislature....

...Appellant has misconstrued the relevancy of the GECC case to this cause. Unlike GECC which altered its development plan and never sought a formal release of the requirements of Chapter 380, Fisher was officially removed from the provisions of Chapter 380 by receiving a "binding letter of interpretation" pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a)....

...An agency may by rule authorize limited forms of participation in agency proceedings for persons who are not eligible to become parties." Whether SFRPC was a "party" within the meaning of Section 120.52(10) must be considered together with Chapter 380. Both the amendment in 1974 to Section 380.06(4)(a) and the revisions to Chapter 120, both being concurrently enacted statutes, should be construed in harmony with one another to determine the standing of *167 SFRPC on matters of binding letters....

...[1] To supply the storage facility, Colonial Pipeline Company ("Colonial"), plans to build a 45-mile petroleum pipeline from Bainbridge, Georgia, to Lloyd. In Florida, the pipeline will be confined to Jefferson County and will be approximately 22 miles in length. On May 26, 1993, Leon County petitioned the DCA under section 380.06(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), to require Colonial to obtain a binding letter of interpretation regarding the DRI status of the pipeline itself and/or of *1004 the pipeline in conjunction with the storage facility. Specifically, the petition asserted that both the proposed pipeline and the storage facility met the statutory definition of a "DRI" as set forth in section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1991). The petition also stated that the pipeline, as an "industrial" or "distribution facility" under section 380.0651(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), in combination with the storage facility under rule 28-24.021, Florida Administrative Code, met the minimum numerical threshold requirements under the DRI guidelines and standards for a "multi-use development" under section 380.0651(3)(i), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...ssentially making the same arguments. In a response to the requests, Colonial delivered a letter to the DCA stating, among other things, that Leon County had no authority to request a binding letter; that the definition section of chapter 380, i.e., section 380.06(1), was not self-executing; that the DCA could not require a DRI review of projects that were not DRIs under the guidelines and standards; that the pipeline project was not an industrial use; and that the pipeline and storage facility combined was not a DRI under the multi-use threshold....

...ackleff, supra, to determine that the pipeline was not included in the statutory guidelines and standards and therefore was not subject to DRI review. The DCA reasoned that pipelines are not specifically identified in the guidelines and standards of section 380.0651 and chapter 28-24, Florida Administrative Code, as a type of development which may be subject to DRI review and explained that for nearly the last twenty years, since their original enactment, it has interpreted the guidelines and standards as not including pipelines. Further, the DCA found that the storage facility, by itself, was to be constructed at less than 80 percent of the applicable numerical threshold for petroleum storage facilities. As such, under section 380.06(2)(d)1.a., Florida Statutes (1991), it was not required to undergo DRI review....

...The DCA rejected Leon County's assertion that the pipeline and storage facility together were subject to DRI review under the multi-use doctrine. In sum, the DCA determined that it lacked authority to require the developers to obtain binding letters for the project under section 380.06(4) because the pipeline and the storage facility, either separately or combined, were not subject to DRI review....

...f was not subject to DRI review was not clearly erroneous. "Petroleum storage facility" is a development specifically listed under the guidelines and standards of chapter 28-24, Florida Administrative Code, and as result, the numerical thresholds of section 380.06(2)(d) apply....

...Texaco has asserted that the facility would only store 155,964 barrels, which is approximately 78 percent of the applicable numerical threshold for petroleum storage facilities. Since the facility is below 80 percent of the numerical threshold, under section 380.06(2)(d)1.a. the storage facility is not required to undergo DRI review. Thus, we affirm that part of DCA's order. As for the pipeline or the pipeline in combination with the storage facility, the DCA's reading of subsections 380.06(1) and (2) together and in conjunction with section 380.0651 to determine which developments may be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review, and its conclusion that the pipeline (alone or in combination) is not subject to such review, is also not clearly erroneous....

...Concern over the potential magnitude of a possible environmental disaster does not justify ignoring well established rules of law. Indeed, any project such as this will be subjected to a plethora of regulations and environmental protection statutes, whether or not it is considered a development of regional impact under section 380.06, Florida Statutes. The appellant conceded in the initial brief that a variety of federal and state permits would be required for this project. Although section 380.06(1) broadly defines "development of regional impact," the DCA did not act unreasonably in concluding that the "statewide guidelines and standards" referred to in section 380.06(2) directly modify that definition, thereby limiting the projects which may be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review. The "guidelines and standards" incorporated by reference in section 380.06(2) are contained in section 380.0651....

...by this court. [9] The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act [10] was enacted to protect and preserve the natural resources and environment of this state, an exercise of the *1007 police power. § 380.021, Fla. Stat. Subsection (1) of section 380.06 sets out the definition of developments of regional impact; subsection (2) provides for statewide guidelines and standards "to be used in determining whether particular developments shall undergo development-of-regional-impact review." § 380.06(2)(a) (emphasis added). To date, some fourteen types of developments have been identified by statute and rule with guidelines and standards. § 380.0651, Fla. Stat.; Chapter 28-24, Fla. Admin. Code. The Department has ruled that since pipelines are not listed, it is without jurisdiction. The purpose of Florida Statutes sections 380.06(2) and 380.0651(3) is to facilitate regulation of the particular developments listed. The Legislature has not undertaken to list all projects that are potentially subject to DRI review. On the contrary, the preface to the guidelines and standards list, section 380.0651(3), Florida Statutes, is: "The following statewide guidelines and standards shall be applied in the manner described in s. 380.06(2) to determine whether the following developments shall be required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review: ......

...ll be subject to review," or "DRI review will be limited to the developments listed," or more to the point, that "Pipelines shall be exempted from DRI review." Instead, the Legislature has given the Department a perfectly good definition of a DRI in section 380.06(1) with the intent that the agency apply that definition. So that there is no mistake, only subsection (1) of section 380.06 is entitled "Definition." As it stands, the listed projects are governed by the guidelines and standards; the unlisted are not. Projects not assigned numerical thresholds are subject to regulation if they meet the statutory definition for DRI review of section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes....

...ent presumed to be of regional impact (chapter 27F-2, Florida Administrative Code) [now chapter 28-24, Florida Administrative Code]." (Emphasis added.) [12] The correct interpretation of these statutes is one that gives effect to both subsections of section 380.06, as well as to section 380.0651, in the context of the whole purpose of the Act....

...e, safety, and quality of life of the residents of this state, it is necessary adequately to plan for and guide growth and development within this state. [3] Pelham, Environmental and Land Use Law, Fla.Bar Journal 51, 52 (1982). [4] Florida Statutes section 380.06 states, in part, as follows: (1) DEFINITION....

...— The term "development of regional impact," as used in this section, means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county. [5] Florida Statutes section 380.06(4)(c)....

of Community Affairs’ binding letter under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, determining that Units Five

...At the same time appellants filed their complaint, they also filed a petition for writ of certiorari, raising the same issues. The trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, as did our court. In our order of denial, we stated: The circuit court correctly applied section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), when it determined that the subject ordinance, which simply expanded the definition of a permitted use to include a hotel, did not constitute a substantial deviation under the statute....

...(b) Projects which are existing or activities regulated under this part which are under construction or projects for which permits or determinations pursuant to s. 373.421 or s. 403.914 have been sought. 3. (c) Activities which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other activities regulated under this part which may reasonably be expected to be located within surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s....

...vities regulated under part IV, chapter 373 which are under construction or projects for which permits or determinations pursuant to sections 373.421 or 403.914 have been sought. (b) activities which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to section 380.06, or other activities regulated under part IV, chapter 373 which may reasonably be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters, in the same drainage basin, based upon the comprehensive plans, adopted pursuant to chapt...

...Information about the expansion was made available only to those who specifically inquired. The Broward County neighborhood immediately abutting Coscan’s northern canal is a luxury single-family waterfront neighborhood with a high degree of security and privacy. Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes (1987), requires the reviewing authority, FLWAC, to consider whether, and the extent to which: (a) The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted state land developmen...

...The development is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land development regulations; and (c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency submitted pursuant to subsection (12). § 380.06(14), Fla.Stat. (1987). Because there is no evidence that the proposed development unreasonably interferes with the objectives of the state land development plan, the criteria in section 380.06(14)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), are not applicable, but subparagraphs (b) and (c) are applicable.....

...llenges to various zoning and planning ordinances enacted by the City of Coconut Creek. The City and the Seminole Tribe [Tribe] respond that the residents lack standing. We chose the simplest legal recipe and hold that the recent statutory change in section 380.06, Florida Statutes (2012), eliminates the possibility of a miscarriage of justice under the facts of this case....

...e plan for a seven-story parking garage with more than 2,800 spaces. Three City residents opposed the expansion. They maintain the City could not approve substantial changes within the development without complying with the mandatory requirements of section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (2010), the development of regional impact [DRI] statute....

...ing and site plan approvals. The Tribe points out that, even if the circuit court applied the wrong law, there is no miscarriage of justice because section 880.06 has since been amended. 2 We agree with the last , argument and find it determinative. Section 380.06(19)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), provides in part: Any proposed change to a previously approved development which creates a reasonable likelihood of additional regional impact, or any type of regional impact created by the change not previously reviewed by the regional planning agency, shall constitute a substantial deviation and shall cause the proposed change to be subject to further development-of-regional-impact review. The balance of section 380.06(19) provides examples of proposed changes to a DRI that necessarily constitute a “substantial deviation” requiring further DRI impact review. The City originally approved the Commerce Center of Coconut Creek Development of Regional Impact in 1987 by adopting Ordinance No. 116-87, the formal development order for the DRI. By its express terms, the ordinance was adopted pursuant to section 380.06....

...The circuit court denied the petition. The City, Tribe, and circuit court interpreted the 2001 amendment to mean that proposed changes to development within the DRI were permitted as long as the 2,107 peak hour trip threshold was not exceeded regardless of any other criteria in section 380.06(19)....

...parking spaces. The application acknowledged the proposed project was within the Commerce Center DRI and the City’s Main-Street Project Area and was within the DRI peak trip threshold of 2,107. It did not mention any of the statutory thresholds in section 380.06(19)(b)l.-14....

...At a public hearing, the Tribe’s attorney argued the Tribe had vested rights through the DRI that gave it 2,107 peak hour trips and the proposed project would not exceed that amount. The Tribe’s land-planning expert indicated the proposed rezoning was within the DRI threshold. Neither referred to section 380.06(19)(b)....

...The residents’ counsel appeared at the hearing and argued the proposed 1,000 room hotel constituted a “substantial deviation” from the previously approved DRI development order because it increased the number of hotel rooms beyond the 83-room threshold in section 380.06(19)(b)(9), Fla....

...Stat. (2010). 3 The residents’ counsel argued the project had to undergo further development of regional impact review at the state, local, and regional level because the proposed multi-story parking garage constituted a substantial deviation under section 380.06(19)(b)l., Fla....

...lation of the City’s rezoning criteria. The circuit court reviewed the petition and issued an order to show cause. In their response, the City and Tribe raised three main arguments. They first argued that the numeric thresholds in the DRI statute, section 380.06(19), did not apply because the rezoning application and site plan did not seek to amend the existing DRI development order....

...In fact, Chapter 11-139, § 55 at 170, Laws of Florida, elim- *1012 mated hotel and motel development from DRI review altogether. The statewide guidelines and standards previously subjected proposed hotel or motel development that exceeded a certain number of units to DRI review. See § 380.0651(3)(f), Fla....

...In addition, another recent amendment to the DRI statute provides that “[cjhanges that do not increase the number of external peak hour trips and do not reduce open space and conserved areas within the project except as otherwise permitted by sub-subparagraph j” do not constitute a substantial deviation. § 380.06(19)(e)2.k., Fla....

...a-ri in these circumstances. In addition, we conclude that the residents’ claims regarding the City’s Main-Street Design Standards is beyond the scope of this court’s review. We therefore deny the petition.’ WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. . Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (2010), defines a DRI as “any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county." The statute provides for *1009 adoption of statewide guidelines to determine whether particular developments must undergo development-of-regional-impact review. § 380.06(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). . The amended statute now exempts hotels and ■ motels -from DRI review. § 380.06(19)(e)2.k., Fla....

...t an attraction or recreational facility by ten percent or 330 spaces, whichever is greater, constitutes a substantial deviation. A hotel, however, is treated separately from “attractions and recreation facilities” under the DRI statute. Compare § 380.065 l(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010) ("Attractions and recreation facilities”), with § 380.0651(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2010) ("Hotel and motel development”), and § 380.06( 19)(b) 1, Fla. Stat. (2010), with § 380.06(19)(b)9„ Fla....

substantially the following question: Does section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2010-147

Dear Mr. Shepard: On behalf of the City of Maitland, you ask substantially the following question: Does section 380.06 , Florida Statutes, require a permit holder to provide timely notice to be eligible for extension of the permit authorized under the act? In sum: Section 380.06 , Florida Statutes, requires a permit holder to notify the agency authorizing the permit no later than December 31, 2009, to be eligible to extend the permit....

...ranted the extension of any permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district, as well as local government-issued development orders or building permits. Section 14, Chapter 2009-96 , Laws of Florida, amended section 380.06 , Florida Statutes, to provide: "(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), and in recognition of 2009 real estate market conditions, any permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district pursuan...

...2 years following its date of expiration. This extension includes any local government-issued development order or building permit. The 2-year extension also applies to build out dates including any build out date extension previously granted under s. 380.06 (19)(c), Florida Statutes....

...Reading these parts together and giving effect to each does not appear to alter the Legislature's intent to provide relief to permit holders affected by recent real estate market conditions who may require additional time to complete projects that have been permitted. 3 Accordingly, it is my opinion that the amendments to section 380.06 , Florida Statutes, by section 14, Chapter 2009-96 , Laws of Florida, require a permit holder to notify the authorizing agency no later than December 31, 2009, to be eligible for extending the permit pursuant to the act. Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tals 1 Section 14, Ch. 2009-96 , Laws of Fla., appears in n. 3, s. 380.06 , Fla....

District Court of Appeal Case No. BB-69. . See § 380.06(1), Fla.Stat. . § 120.57, Fla.Stat. . § 120

...approval for the Maitland Center development. We reverse. The uncontroverted factual evidence, as opposed to the contrary conclusionary legal opinion of the DCA’s secretary, establishes that prior to July 1, 1973 appellant had vested rights under section 380.06(20) of the Florida Statutes (1989) to complete the Maitland Center development....

...a Statutes. The record establishes that in all prior similar or comparable situations the DCA has taken a legal position consistent with appellant’s position and contrary to the opinion of its secretary concerning the matter of vested rights under section 380.06(20). Because appellant established, without any factual contradiction, that prior to July 1, 1973 the City of Maitland gave the required “authorization to commence development” under section 380.06(20), we reverse the order of the Department of Community Affairs and remand with directions to dismiss the administrative proceedings against appellant....

issues based upon specified review criteria. 5 Section 380.06(12)(c), F.S. 6 See, s. 380.07(2), F.S. 7 Jennings

...rasota County. Pursuant to the Final Development Order, GDC was to, inter alia, extend a road, Sunnybrook Boulevard, through the Myakka Estates DRI. GDC has not done *553 this, nor has it abandoned the Myakka Estates DRI pursuant to Florida Statutes § 380.06(26)....

...Developments of Regional Impact (“DRI”) are governed by Chapter 380 of Florida Statutes. Upon examining this chapter it is evident that a DRI condition, such as the road extension imposed upon GDC, is just another name for an impact fee. See, e.g., Fla.Stat. §§ 380.06(1), (15)(d) & (e) and (26)....

...LEGAL ANALYSIS Whether Sarasota County has an allowable claim depends upon whether GDC’s intent to abandon the, as of yet undeveloped, Myakka Estates DRI is sufficient to render the DRI condition unenforceable where GDC has not abandoned the Myakka Estates DRI pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 380.06 (26)....

...ring its *554 obligation to fulfill the DRI condition. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Sarasota County’s claim no. 061214 is disallowed subject to GDC’s commencing abandonment, as soon as statutorily possible, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 380.06(26)....

...Sarasota County has not argued that the DRI condition forming the basis of its claim is able to meet this, nor any other, standard governing the imposition of impact fees. . The Court does not know why GDC has yet to abandon the Myakka Estates DRI pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 380.06(26) as no explanation was given by either of the parties....

Gerald S. Livingston General Counsel East Central Florida Regional Planning Counsel QUESTION: Is the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council authorized by ss. 186.501 - 186.513 , F.S., or by 380.06 (23), F.S....

...d conditions for developments of regional impact? SUMMARY: The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is authorized to adopt an administrative rule establishing criteria for wetland buffers pursuant to either ss. 186.501 - 186.513 , F.S., or s. 380.06 (12) and (23), F.S....

...Thus, reading these two statutes in pari materia , 19 it is my opinion that regional planning councils have the authority to adopt administrative rules which set forth the basis or criteria to be used in fulfilling their statutorily prescribed duties under s. 380.06 , F.S. Section 380.06 , F.S. (1990 Supp.) Section 380.06 , F.S. (1990 Supp.), provides the framework for the regulation of "developments of regional impact" 20 or DRI's. Pursuant to s. 380.06 (12)(a), F.S....

...Thus, a regional planning agency is granted general authority to adopt criteria for determining the regional impact of development when it determines that such criteria should be considered. With regard to the responsibilities of regional planning agencies, s. 380.06 (23)(b) and (c), F.S....

...d planning agency, to promote efficient review of development-of-regional-impact applications . Regional planning agency rules shall be adopted pursuant to chapter 120. (e.s.) Thus, the rule-making authority of regional planning councils pursuant to s. 380.06 (23), F.S....

...25 According to the rule which you have proposed: This rule shall be used by the Council to review the adequacy of wetland buffers in Binding Letters of Interpretation, Preliminary Development Agreement, Applications for Development Approval, and DRI Development Orders and other activities pursuant to s. 380.06 , F.S ....

...ncil from recommending that a local government deny that aspect of a developer's proposed project. The council would also be precluded from an appeal on this basis. Adoption of such a rule would appear to be in keeping with the statutory language of s. 380.06 (23), F.S....

...Such a rule establishing criteria for evaluation of the adequacy of a proposed wetland buffer would merely set, by rule, the technical criteria for the DRI review process 26 for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Therefore, it is my opinion, based on the provisions of either Ch. 186 , F.S., or 380.06 , F.S. (1990 Supp.), that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is authorized to adopt an administrative rule establishing criteria and standards for wetland buffers to be used in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities concerning s. 380.06 , F.S....

...Fla., 1962), for the proposition that when two statutes relate to common things or have a common or related purpose, they are said to be in pari materia , and where possible, a construction should be adopted which harmonizes and reconciles the statutory provisions so as to preserve the force and effect of each. 20 Section 380.06 (1), F.S....

...(1990 Supp.), defines "development of regional impact" for purposes of this section as "any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than on county." 21 See , s. 380.06 (11), F.S. (1990 Supp.), which sets forth the specific requirements for local notice. 22 And see , Rule 9J-2.024 , F.A.C., dealing with the regional report and recommendations required by s. 380.06 (12), F.S. 23 See , s. 380.06 (12)(a)6., F.S. (1990 Supp.). And see , rule 9J-2.020, F.A.C., setting forth summarized procedures and requirements for DRIs which include, in subsection (d), "[a] report and recommendations by the regional planning agency pursuant to Subsection 380.06 (12), Florida Statutes[.]" 24 The state land planning agency is the Department of Community Affairs. See , s. 380.031 (18), F.S. 25 Cf ., s. 380.06 (7)(b), F.S....

governmental agency to abridge those rights. Section 380.06(12), F. S. When a property owner acquires a

...The Babcock Company has appealed a final order of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission affirming a development order entered by the City of Tampa disapproving, with conditions, the construction of Phase II of Babcock’s Development of Regional Impact. We affirm. In October 1984, pursuant to Section 380.06(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), Bab-cock filed with the City of Tampa its application for approval of development on 62 acres of land on Rocky Point Island, located in Tampa Bay....

...Babcock’s argument on this point focuses entirely on the propriety of the requirement that it bear the full cost of the proposed overpass, contending that payment of the City of Tampa’s transportation impact fee should be held “adequate provision” for the negative traffic impact. See Section 380.06(15)(e)2, Florida Statutes (a local government shall not approve a development of regional impact that does not make adequate provision for the public facilities needed to accommodate the impacts of the proposed development)....

...s and developers of Bay Beach. Their objective is to construct individual wetslips or boat docks to be sold to owners of residential units at Bay Beach. We reverse and vacate the final summary judgment. The resolution of this matter is controlled by section 380.06, Florida Statutes, part of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, enacted to protect Florida’s environment and to facilitate orderly and well planned development throughout the state. See § 380.012, Fla.Stat. (1989). The Department is the state land planning agency responsible for carrying out the Act’s regulatory program and for determining whether particular developments “shall be presumed to be of regional impact.” § 380.06(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). If a newly proposed development is determined to be a development of regional impact (DRI), then it must undergo a review and approval process, ideally before commencement of the project. § 380.06, Fla.Stat. (1989). Section 380.0651, Florida Statutes, identifies twelve categories of development presumed to be of regional impact....

...— The proposed construction of any waterport or marina is required to undergo development-of-regional-impact review, except one designed for: l.a. The wet storage or mooring of fewer than 150 watercraft < used exclusively for sport, pleasure, or commercial fishing, .... § 380.0651(3)(e), Fla.Stat....

...on may be requested from the Department. The Department is then required to issue a binding letter of interpretation. Such letters “bind all state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the developer,” and thus constitute final agency action. § 380.06(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). On November 11, 1974, the developers of Bay Beach submitted to the Division of State Planning 1 an application for a “binding letter of vested rights” in accordance with section 380.06....

...On February 11, 1975, the Division issued a letter designating the project a DRI, which also stated that based on the information provided in the development plan, the developers of Bay Beach would “not be required to comply with the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes.” Lee County issued a final development order, and construction of Bay Beach began....

...heir four count complaint. The motion was granted and the trial court found as a matter of law that the “proposed wetslips do not constitute a ‘development’ under Section 380.04,” but instead constitute a “marina” as that term is used in section 380.0651(3)(e)....

...The trial court’s declaration that the proposed construction does not equate with a “development” is inconsistent with the declaration that the “structures proposed constitute a ‘marina’.” Once a design exceeds the numerical limitation found in section 380.0651(3)(e), a marina is a “development” subject to DRI review....

...mpleted of between $300,000,000 and $400,-000,000. It was contemplated that the property would generate a profit for the Chapman family. The size of the proposed project was such that it constituted a “Development of Region *362 al Impact” under section 380.06, Florida Statutes; therefore, it required approval by the Central Florida....

...agreements and DRI’s. After the County enacted Revised Ordinance 2017-12, Osborne claimed that, before considering SDI’s NOPC, the County failed to comply with the special public notice requirements under section 163.3225, Florida Statutes, section 380.06, Florida Statutes, the Walton County Land Development Code, and “Florida law.” Pertinent to this appeal, the section 163.3225 requirements apply when a local government considers entering into or modifying a development agreement; and, the section 380.06 requirements apply when a local government considers issuing or modifying a DRI DO. SDI moved for summary judgment, arguing that development agreements have nothing to do with DRI DOs....

...I On July 8, 2014, the County issued a DONC to SDI. The County found that SDI’s noncompliance with open space requirements created regional impacts that had not been addressed. In response to the DONC, SDI submitted a NOPC in 2016 under section 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...SDI submitted the NOPC Application concurrently to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (“DEO”) and the West Florida Regional Planning Council (“WFRPC”). Neither DEO (the state land planning agency at the time) nor WFRPC objected. See § 380.06(19)(e)1., Fla....

...As to the purpose of the public hearing, the notices stated: “Sandestin Investments, LLC, is requesting a determination that their application for a Notice of a Proposed Change (NOPC) to the previously approved Sandestin Development of Regional Impact (DRI) constitutes a non- substantial deviation under subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.” garbage service, pest control, insurance and taxes for the entire project.” Id. 4  On January 30, 2017, the County held a public meeting and considered SDI’s NOPC....

...9, 2017, notices stated: “Sandestin Investments, LLC, is requesting a determination that their application for a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the previously approved Sandestin Development of Regional Impact (DRI) constitutes a non- substantial deviation under subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.” On March 13, 2017, the BOCC reconvened and approved SDI’s NOPC subject to certain conditions....

...DO by changing the applicable definition of open space. The County identified two types of proposed changes: “E1 Amendments” and “F3 Amendments.” The term “E1” refers to changes subject to the review requirements of subparagraph (e)1 of section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes (2017); the term “F3” refers to changes that could trigger the public hearing requirements of subparagraph (f)3 of section 380.06(19). The BOCC found that both the “E1 Amendments” and the “F3 Amendments” in the NOPC “are non- substantial deviations” under section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. 5  On April 20, 2017, SOA petitioned for administrative review with FLWAC, challenging the County’s adoption of Ordinance 2017-12 (“the administrative appeal”)....

...c Hearing appeared in the Defuniak Springs Herald & Breeze. Signage was also posted within the DRI. The notices announced an upcoming meeting of the BOCC for November 7, 2017. The notices listed “QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS” to include “Sandestin DRI 380.06(19)(e)1 Change – Sandestin Investments, LLC is requesting to amend Ordinance 2017-12 to a previously approved 6 Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes.” The notices also stated: “The purpose of the hearing is to consider settlement of the pending lawsuit styled Sandestin Owners Association, Inc....

...• Ordinance 89-9 incorporated the 1984 Agreement into the Sandestin DRI DO. 9 argued that section 163.3225, Florida Statutes, only applies to “statutorily defined Development Agreements” and therefore does not apply to DRIs under section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Even so, SDI admitted that “[d]uring the fall [of] 2017, the SOA and SDI entered [into] a settlement agreement concerning SDI’s NOPC and the development rights related to the Sandestin DRI.” (emphasis supplied)....

...SDI moved for summary judgment, arguing that Revised Ordinance 2017-12 involved the modification of a development order, not a development agreement. According to SDI, Chapter 163, which pertains to development agreements, can never apply to Chapter 380, which governs DRIs: Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, provides the statutory scheme under which DRIs are categorized, evaluated, approved, and amended, including the NOPC procedure. . . . The process outlined in section 380.06 is distinct and materially different that those processes for entering into ‘development agreements’ found in section 163.3225, Florida Statutes. In fact, nowhere in section 380.06, Florida Statutes, is the term ‘development agreement’ used....

...an order granting SDI’s summary judgment motion and denying Osborne’s cross-motion. The trial court did not address Osborne’s claim that the County failed to comply with the special public notice requirements contained in sections 163.3225 and 380.06, Florida Statutes....

...to amend that their application for a Ordinance 2017-12, to a Notice of a Proposed Change previously approved (NOPC) to the previously Development of Regional approved Sandestin Impact, section 380.06(19), Development of Regional Florida Statutes... The purpose Impact (DRI) constitutes a non- of the hearing is to consider substantial deviation under settlement of the pending subsection 380.06(19), Florida lawsuit styled Sandestin Statutes.” Owners Association, Inc....

...The first is that the benchmark standard 18  In 1984, after bankruptcies splintered ownership, the Sandestin Corporation reestablished unified development control over the Sandestin DRI and filed a NOPC application. See § 380.06(17)(a), Fla....

...approved pursuant to this section to the local government for a substantial deviation determination.”). The County approved the 1984 NOPC application as a non- substantial deviation and issued an amended DO for the Sandestin DRI (“the 1984 DO”). See § 380.06(17)(a), Fla....

...effect on the health, safety or welfare of citizens of more than one county. Such a change is automatically required to undergo a new DRI review. Changes which meet this classification are expressly delineated. See § 380.06(19)(a)-(c), (e), Fla. Stat. (2001). All other changes, whether statutorily enumerated or not, would be classified as “not a substantial deviation.” See § 380.06(19)(e), Fla....

...1st DCA 2004) (en banc) (citation omitted). When the County transmitted the 1984 DO to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) as the state land planning agency at the time, DCA questioned the County’s determination that the NOPC did not request a substantial deviation to the 1976 DO. See § 380.06(17)(a), Fla....

...that SDI was not in compliance with the Sandestin DRI DO. Additionally, the County found that SDI’s noncompliance created regional impacts that had not been addressed. This decision was based in part on a deficiency in open space acreage. Pursuant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes, the County directed that no further permits, approvals, or extension of services could be provided to SDI until the Sandestin DRI was brought back into compliance with the DO. See § 380.06(17), Fla....

...“The term ‘development of regional impact,’ . . . means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county.” § 380.06(1), Fla. Stat....

...(emphasis supplied)). As to future, non-substantial deviations, the 1984 Agreement did not pre-empt local land use regulations. See Bay Point Club, 890 So. 2d at 259 (“The language ‘and is otherwise approved’ [in 26 section 380.06(19)(f)6.] clearly and unambiguously requires a proposed change be subjected to, rather than exempted from, additional local approval even when no further DRI review is necessary.”). By stating that the developer could “adjust the land use ....

...development that “has been authorized.” See § 163.3167(8), Fla. Stat. (2001). Proposed changes that are not required to undergo a new DRI permitting process, must be “otherwise approved” and may be subject to “conditions of approval.” See § 380.06(19)(f)6., Fla....

...extent the trial court found that SDI was entitled to make non- substantial deviations without review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the court erred. See Id. Even if SDI’s NOPC only requested non-substantial deviations that did not trigger a public hearing under section 380.06(19)(f), Florida Statutes, those proposed changes were still subject to local land use approval....

...East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat. . . .”). The following are just a few examples of SDI’s misrepresentations to the trial court: • “Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, provides the statutory scheme under which DRIs are categorized, evaluated, approved, and amended, including the 28  NOPC procedure. . . . The process outlined in section 380.06 is distinct and materially different than those processes for entering into ‘development agreements’ found in section 163.3225, Florida Statutes. In fact, no where in section 380.06, Florida Statutes, is the term ‘development agreement’ used....

...from DRI’s. RUDYARD KIPLING, THE BALLAD OF EAST AND WEST lines 3-4 (“But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”). The 2017 version of section 380.06 in effect during the County’s consideration of Revised Ordinance 2017-12 proves this point, as it contains several provisions that expressly used the phrase “development agreement.” Most notably, subsection (8) of section 380.06 was entitled “Preliminary Development Agreements.” § 380.06(8), Fla....

...loper to proceed with a limited amount of the total proposed development, subject to all other governmental approvals and 29 solely at the developer’s own risk, prior to issuance of a final development order.” § 380.06(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis supplied); see also White v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 563 So. 2d 117, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“Section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, permits a developer to obtain a written preliminary development agreement from the FDCA as a prerequisite to engaging in limited construction of a project which will ultimately trigger DRI review.”). Subsection (8) of section 380.06 also stated that “[f]ailure to timely file an application and to otherwise diligently proceed in good faith to obtain a final development order shall constitute a breach of the preliminary development agreement.” § 380.06(8)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis supplied). Additionally, subsection (8) provided that “[t]he preliminary development agreement may allow development which is . . . .” § 380.06(8)(a)5., Fla....

...(2017) (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, it stated that “[a] notice of the preliminary development agreement shall be recorded by the developer in accordance with s. 28.222 with the clerk of the circuit court for each county in which land covered by the terms of the agreement is located.” § 380.06(8)(a)10., Fla....

...(2017) (emphasis supplied). Finally, subsection (8) outlined a process for “a developer who no longer wishes to pursue a development of regional impact may propose to abandon any preliminary development agreement executed after January 1, 1985.” § 380.06(8)(a)11., Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis supplied). Thus, contrary to SDI’s assertion below, section 380.06 clearly included the term “development agreement.” While 2017 version of section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, contemplated a development agreement between the state land planning agency and the developer, section 380.032(3) permits the State land planning agency to enter into an agreement separate and distinct from the preliminary development agreement specifically contemplated by section 380.06(8)....

...9 are precisely the type of agreements authorized by section 380.032 and at issue in Compass Lake Hills and Friends of Everglades – agreements that brought the developer back into compliance with the requirements of Chapter 380 and the DRI DO. And unlike section 380.06(8), the version of section 380.032 in effect today is the same version that was in effect in 2017....

...As the 1984 Agreement in this case illustrates, the local government’s decision often involves a determination whether a requested deviation to an existing DRI DO qualifies as substantial (regional impacts) or non-substantial (no regional impacts). See § 380.06(19), Fla....

regional impact of a proposed development. Section 380.06(8). In preparing its report and recommendations

...ision) erred in its binding letter of interpretation by determining that the City’s proposed 1,000 foot western extension of an existing 6,000 foot east-west runway at the Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport does not possess vested rights status. See § 380.06(18), Fla.Stat. We disagree and affirm. Specifically, the City argues that various actions on its part constitute “authorization to commence development” under the terms of section 380.06(18)....

...ed the cases. We turn, then, to the first issue, whether the DO imposed on Killearn and its successors in interest a ten-year buildout date. If the DO contains a buildout date, such date must arise from the terms of the DO itself, because nothing in section 380.06, Florida Statutes (1975), under which the DO was entered, required a buildout date....

...by Killearn which purported to allow septic tanks. We therefore reverse as to the third issue. The final order appealed from is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur. . Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes (1973), provides: "Development of regional impact," as used in this section, means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county. Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: |T]he developer shall file an application for development approval with the appropriate local government having jurisdiction. . Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, was amended by chapter 80-313, Laws of Florida, to require that DOs and amendments to DOs be recorded in the public records. The amendment was expressly made applicable only to DOs initially entered after July 1, 1980. . The DCA alternatively held that Chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida (effective October 1, 1985), which amended section 380.06, Florida Statutes, to require local governments to impose in DRI DOs buildout dates, was remedial and therefore applicable to the instant DO....

binding letter of interpretation under Florida Statute 380.06(4)(a). Upon consideration, we remand this

QUESTIONS: 1. Is approval of W. R. Grace Company's mining site plan to mine Hooker's Prairie by formal vote of the Polk County Commission tantamount to approval of a "subdivision plat" for purposes of vesting under s. 380.06 (12), F. S.? 2. Did W. R. Grace Company's development rights to mine Hooker's Prairie vest pursuant to s. 380.06 (12), F. S., prior to November 4, 1970? 3. Did W. R. Grace Company's development rights to mine Hooker's Prairie vest pursuant to s. 380.06 (12), F. S., as of June 26, 1973? 4. Did W. R. Grace Company's development rights to mine Hooker's Prairie vest pursuant to s. 380.06 (12), F....

...R. Grace Company's subdivision substantially complied with the requirements of Ch. 380? SUMMARY: Approval by a formal vote of a county board, pursuant to a local subdivision plat law, must occur prior to July 1, 1973, to create a vested right under s. 380.06 (12), F. S. The doctrines of nonconforming use and equitable estoppel may be applied to a fact situation created under s. 380.06 (12). In this instance, W. R. Grace Company's rights to mine Hooker's Prairie are vested under s. 380.06 (12)....

...On September 26, 1973, Grace was advised by the Division of State Planning (DSP) that the beneficiation facility was not a development of regional impact (DRI). The Division of State Planning notified Grace of its DRI reconsideration in August 1975. Grace contended that its rights had vested under s. 380.06 (12), F. S., and the county board resolved that Grace's rights had vested in June 1973. Question 1 is answered in the negative. Section 380.06 (12), F....

...On December 9, 1975, the commission attempted, by formal vote, to state that the June 26, 1973, vote had vested Grace pursuant to their subdivision plat law. It is my opinion that this vote is of no effect, as it is after the statutory cutoff. Question 2 is answered in the affirmative. Section 380.06 (12), F....

...These activities and expenditures cannot be isolated from the prospecting and engineering studies performed and the expenditure of approximately $7,000,000. Moreover, Grace was prepared to actually mine parts of the minerals as early as 1967. In addition, s. 380.06 (12), F....

...S., does not require actual commencement of operations to establish a nonconforming use. Therefore, it is my opinion that, under the facts submitted, Grace has substantially entered upon the performance of a series of acts necessary to the accomplishment of the intended goal. Grace is vested, pursuant to s. 380.06 (12), F. S., and is not required to comply with the other requirements set forth in Ch. 380, F. S. Question 3 is answered in the negative. Section 380.06 (12), F....

...S., vests such rights no later than July 1, 1973, the act's effective date. The county board issued the mining site approval on June 26, 1973, and could have rezoned the property until July 1, 1973. The county board and the Division of State Planning are estopped from affecting Grace's rights since Grace is within the s. 380.06 (12) exemption....

...county board, which it complied with. Board of City Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade v. Lutz, 314 So.2d 185 (3 D.C.A. Fla., 1975); City of North Miami v. Margulies, 289 So.2d 424 (3 D.C.A. Fla., 1974). Therefore, Grace is within the protection of s. 380.06 (12), F. S. Question 4 is answered in the negative. Section 380.06 (12), F....

...Since the binding letter was requested and issued pursuant to 22F-2.05, F.A.C. (industrial plants), it is my opinion the doctrine of equitable estoppel would not apply to the division as to the mining site. Question 5, first part, is answered in the affirmative. Unless an applicant is exempt under s. 380.06 (12), F....