You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

City of Bradenton v. Amerifirst Development Corp.

Citations: 582 So. 2d 166; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6700; 1991 WL 125737Docket: Nos. 90-02784, 90-03505

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 10, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the City of Bradenton contested a decision by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (D.E.R.) regarding a permit for Amerifirst to construct a boat ramp, which included creating a wetland. Originally, Amerifirst applied for a special permit, prompting the City to seek a formal proceeding under Florida Statute 120.57(1). However, Amerifirst withdrew its special permit application and opted for a general permit, which D.E.R. indicated did not require agency action or third-party challenges. The court affirmed D.E.R.’s decision to dismiss the City's petition, emphasizing that the withdrawal of the special permit application rendered D.E.R.'s prior notice irrelevant and barred the City from contesting the general permit. Despite recognizing the City's environmental concerns, particularly regarding water quality and its drinking water supply, the court clarified that these concerns could be pursued in ongoing litigation in circuit court. The decision underscores the limitations of challenging general permits and affirms the City's right to address public health and environmental issues through other legal avenues. Judges Danahy and Altenbernd concurred in the judgment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Environmental Concerns and Public Health

Application: The court acknowledged the City's environmental concerns regarding the potential impact on water quality and drinking water supply, affirming the City's right to pursue related issues in circuit court.

Reasoning: The court acknowledged the City’s legitimate concerns, which are recognized in the state constitution, and noted that related litigation is ongoing in circuit court.

General Permits and Agency Action

Application: The court determined that a general permit does not require agency action nor does it permit third-party challenges, thus negating the City's ability to contest the project after the withdrawal of the special permit application.

Reasoning: However, the court found that a general permit does not necessitate agency action or allow third-party challenges.

Withdrawal of Special Permit Applications

Application: When Amerifirst withdrew its special permit application, the prior notice issued by D.E.R. was deemed irrelevant, eliminating the City's opportunity to challenge under the previous application framework.

Reasoning: Consequently, once Amerifirst withdrew its application, D.E.R.’s prior notice became irrelevant, and there was no opportunity for the City to contest the general permit.