Background
Riverstone Properties owns 51 pristine oceanfront acres on the southern tip of Amelia Island, zoned residential and situated between a state park and private residential development. Nassau County reduced the allowable height restriction for structures on the property from 85 feet to 45 feet. Riverstone sued the county under Florida’s Bert Harris Act, alleging the height reduction imposed a compensable “inordinate burden” on the property. The parties settled the litigation with an agreement that provided some protections to Riverstone (higher height allowance) and some to the county (increased buffers and beach access), but did not authorize any immediate development.
The Amelia Island Sanctuary Property Owners Association—representing neighbors in the adjacent residential development—sued to challenge the settlement agreement. The Association argued the settlement constituted a “development order” subject to review under Florida’s growth management statute, § 163.3215, which requires development orders to be consistent with local comprehensive plans. The trial court ruled against the Association, finding the settlement was not a development order. The Association appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed, holding the settlement agreement does not qualify as a “development order” under Florida law. A development order is defined as “any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit.” A development permit includes building permits, zoning permits, subdivision approvals, rezonings, and similar official actions permitting land development. The settlement agreement here did not result from any permit application; it was merely a negotiated settlement of litigation between the county and Riverstone under the Bert Harris Act.
Critically, the settlement agreement does not authorize development at this time. Rather, it provides conditional terms that would apply only if and when Riverstone chooses to submit future development permit applications. As the county acknowledged at oral argument, the property remains in its natural state, development may never occur, and preservation groups have expressed interest in keeping the land undeveloped. The agreement essentially resolves the property rights dispute while leaving future development decisions to separate permitting processes.
The court also addressed broader questions about judicial review of Bert Harris Act settlements. The opinion explains that while this particular challenge fails because the settlement is not a development order, other avenues exist to challenge such settlements—namely through actions for declaratory or injunctive relief in circuit court. The court noted that settlement agreements under Bert Harris subsection 70.001(4)(d)1, which modify local ordinances, are subject to permissible (though not mandatory) judicial review to ensure they protect the public interest and provide only necessary relief.
Key Takeaways
- A settlement agreement resolving a property rights dispute is not a “development order” simply because it involves conditions related to possible future development.
- Development orders must result from permit applications; settlements of litigation do not fit this definition regardless of their content.
- Judicial review of Bert Harris Act settlements is available through declaratory or injunctive relief actions, though the Association did not pursue this remedy in this case.
- The statutory presumption that Bert Harris settlements protect the public interest is rebuttable, suggesting courts retain authority to review such agreements when challenged directly.
- Robust public participation is essential when reviewing Bert Harris settlements to ensure the public interest is protected.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that local governments can settle property rights disputes—including those arising from regulatory changes that may constitute compensable takings—without triggering the detailed procedural requirements of growth management law. The settlement mechanism allows flexibility in balancing property owner rights against regulatory goals. However, the opinion makes clear that such flexibility is not unlimited; settlements that contravene state statutes require mandatory judicial approval with public participation, and settlements modifying local ordinances remain subject to judicial review if directly challenged.
For developers and property owners, the ruling confirms that Bert Harris settlements can survive growth management challenges if properly structured as conditional agreements rather than unconditional development permits. For neighbors and citizen groups, the decision preserves avenues for judicial review through declaratory and injunctive relief actions—avenues the Association simply did not pursue here. The concurring opinion signals ongoing judicial caution about substituting court judgment for local government policy decisions, suggesting future challenges to Bert Harris settlements may face separation-of-powers obstacles.