1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. v. Palm Beach County
2011 WL 4577746, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15755, 69 So. 3d 1123 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a land use policy states that an activity is permitted 'only to support' an enumerated list of purposes, the word 'only' creates a restrictive and exclusive list. The activity is therefore limited solely to those specified purposes and cannot be conducted for other, non-enumerated purposes.
Facts:
- Bergeron Sand and Rock Mine Aggregates, Inc. sought to expand its mining operations on property located within the 'Everglades Agricultural Area' of Palm Beach County.
- The property was designated for 'agricultural production' under the county's comprehensive land use plan.
- The plan contained Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policy 2.3-e.3, which stated that within this designation, 'mining may be permitted only to support public roadway projects or agricultural activities or water management projects...'
- Bergeron admitted that aggregate mined from the property could be used for purposes other than those enumerated in the policy.
- Lonnie Bergeron, representing the company, conceded he had no control over the final use of the excavated material once it was sold on the open market.
- Despite this, the Palm Beach County Commission issued a development order granting Bergeron the right to mine, finding the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Procedural Posture:
- The Palm Beach County Commission issued a development order to Bergeron Sand and Rock Mine Aggregates, Inc.
- Appellants filed a complaint in the trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the development order's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan.
- The trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Palm Beach County and Bergeron, upholding the development order.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a development order permitting mining in an agricultural area, where the mined material can be sold on the open market, violate a comprehensive plan policy stating that mining may be permitted 'only to support' a specific list of enumerated projects, such as public roadway projects?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
Yes, the development order violates the comprehensive plan policy. The word 'only' creates a restrictive and exclusive list of permissible uses for the mined material. The court reasoned that rules of statutory construction require giving words their plain and ordinary meaning. Dictionaries and legal precedent define 'only' as 'solely' and 'nothing else,' which limits the permissible mining to the three enumerated activities. The trial court's interpretation, which would allow mining as long as some portion of the material supported an enumerated use, would render the word 'only' superfluous and eviscerate the clear restriction in the plan. The court also invoked the canon of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius,' meaning the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others, to support its conclusion that the list of three activities was intended to be exhaustive.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of plain meaning in the interpretation of statutes and local ordinances, particularly in land use law. It establishes that limiting words like 'only' must be given their restrictive effect, preventing regulatory agencies from creating loopholes by adopting unreasonably broad interpretations. The case serves as a precedent against development orders that nominally comply with a regulation while substantively undermining its restrictive purpose. This holding curtails the discretion of local governments, requiring strict adherence to the exclusive nature of enumerated permissions in comprehensive plans.
