In short: Yes. Neighbors who are adversely affected can sue under section 163.3215 to challenge a development order as inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan, and conflicting expert opinions on consistency mean the case cannot be decided on summary judgment. In Howell v. Pasco County, neighboring landowners challenged the county’s 2013 approval of limerock mining with blasting and crushing next to their land. On March 27, 2015, the Second District reversed the summary judgment for the county and the mine operator and sent the case back for an evidentiary hearing.
The Facts
The mine site and much of the land around it, including some of the neighbors’ property, were designated Agricultural Rural (AG-R) in Pasco County’s 1990 comprehensive plan. That category allows mining, but mining with ancillary processing such as blasting, crushing and grinding requires special approval from the Board of County Commissioners.
Outlaw Ridge, Inc. had held a permit to mine sand on the property since 2007. In 2011 it asked to extend the sand mining and add limerock mining with processing. Neighborhood opposition defeated the limerock request at first. After a mediated settlement under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, the Board approved limerock mining in May 2013 for fifteen years, subject to forty-three conditions. Neighbors Robert J. Howell, Terry Hoppenjans and Myles Friedland objected.
The neighbors sued under section 163.3215(3), claiming the approval was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Outlaw Ridge moved to dismiss, arguing that limerock mining is excluded from the statutory definition of “development” in section 380.04, so there was no development order to challenge. The trial court denied that motion but then granted summary judgment for Outlaw Ridge, reasoning that because the plan lists mining as a permitted use, the limerock mine was consistent. The neighbors appealed, and Outlaw Ridge cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss.
The Decision
The Second District reversed the final summary judgment and remanded in a written opinion issued March 27, 2015. It found no merit in Outlaw Ridge’s cross-appeal. Rehearing and clarification were denied on May 19, 2015.
The court held that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment while disputed issues of material fact remained. A planning administrator offered by Outlaw Ridge said the limerock mine fit the AG-R uses in the plan. The neighbors’ certified planner said mining with blasting and processing was inconsistent with specific objectives and policies of the plan. Choosing between those opinions requires weighing credibility, which a judge cannot do on summary judgment.
The court also said the trial court overlooked the plan’s special-approval requirement for mining with ancillary processing. That requirement suggests such mining is not always consistent with the plan, so the general listing of “mining” as an allowed use could not settle consistency for this project. That question required an evidentiary hearing.
The Law
Section 163.3215 is the exclusive way to challenge whether a development order is consistent with a local comprehensive plan. An “aggrieved or adversely affected party,” someone whose interest protected by the plan is harmed more than the general community’s, may file a de novo action in circuit court within 30 days after the order is rendered, unless the local government has adopted the special-master certiorari procedure in subsection (4).
Under section 163.3194(3), a development order is consistent with the plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development it permits are compatible with and further the plan’s objectives, policies, land uses and densities or intensities.
Current law (2026): two later changes matter. Since 2019 (chapter 2019-165), section 163.3215(8) provides a summary procedure and lets the prevailing party in a subsection (3) challenge recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including appellate fees. And since May 1, 2021, rule 1.510 follows the federal summary judgment standard, so a party opposing summary judgment must show a genuine dispute supported by evidence; the older standard the court applied in 2015, which required the moving party to show irrefutably that the opponent could not prevail, no longer controls. Conflicting qualified expert opinions on a material fact still generally require a trial.
Lessons
- Neighbors who object to a development approval have only 30 days to file a consistency challenge. Track the date the order is rendered.
- “The plan allows mining” is not the end of the analysis. Courts look at the specific objectives and policies, and at any special-approval requirements for more intense versions of a use.
- A qualified planning expert who ties the project to specific plan policies can defeat summary judgment.
- Since 2019 the loser in a section 163.3215 challenge can be ordered to pay the winner’s attorney’s fees. Weigh that risk before filing, whether you are the neighbor or the developer.
Source: Howell v. Pasco County, No. 2D14-893 (Fla. 2d DCA March 27, 2015) (reversed and remanded); 2d DCA docket.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
⛏️⚖️ Rezoning Kills Your Mining Business — Is That a "Taking"? | Howell v. Pasco County | 2D14-893
Read the Law on FloridaRules.net
The statutes and court rules discussed in this article, free to read on FloridaRules.net:
Go Deeper
- Code Enforcement Appeals Get Full Appellate Review (MGM of West Florida v. Manatee County)
- Daytona Beach Vacation Rental Owners Lose on Appeal (Synk v. City of Daytona Beach)
- Miami Beach Short-Term Rentals vs. the City: Injunction Denied (Eisenberg v. Miami Beach)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue to stop a mine or development near my house in Florida?
You may be able to challenge the county’s approval under section 163.3215 if you are an aggrieved or adversely affected party and the approval is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. In Howell v. Pasco County, neighbors of a limerock mine got their case sent back for an evidentiary hearing.
How long do I have to challenge a development order in Florida?
Generally 30 days after the development order is rendered, or after any local administrative appeal ends, whichever is later. If the local government has adopted the special-master procedure in section 163.3215(4), the challenge is a certiorari petition with the same 30-day deadline.
What does it mean for a development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Under section 163.3194, the uses, densities or intensities and other aspects of the development must be compatible with and further the plan’s objectives, policies, land uses and densities. A use listed as allowed in a land use category can still be inconsistent if it conflicts with specific plan policies.
Who pays attorney's fees in a comprehensive plan consistency lawsuit in Florida?
Under the current section 163.3215(8), added in 2019, the prevailing party in a challenge filed under subsection (3) is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including on appeal. That provision did not exist when Howell was decided in 2015.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate disputes, title problems and appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
