DENIS POTIRIS AND BART NOVACK, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed dismissal of a petition challenging a land use change because the petitioner, a land planner who occasionally provided services in the municipality, lacked standing under Florida law requiring ownership or operation of a business within the jurisdiction.
A person who occasionally provides land use services in a municipality does not satisfy the statutory requirement of 'owning or operating a business' within that jurisdiction and therefore lacks standing to challenge a comprehensive plan amendment.
[1] Occasional provision of land use services in a municipality does not constitute owning or operating a business within that jurisdiction for purposes of establishing stand…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“conducting business activity in connection with the planning process does not comply with the standing requirement”
Court cited St. Joe Paper Co. v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs to support the distinction between occasional business activity and owning or operating a business.
Potiris, a land planner with no residence, property ownership, or business license in Wellington, filed a petition to challenge a land use change appr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
KLEIN, J.
Potiris filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing to challenge a land use change approved by the Village of Wellington. Potiris is a land planner who does not live, own property, or have a business address or business license in Wellington. He asserted that he was an affected person as is defined in section 163.3184(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), be cause he was a person “owning or operating a business within the boundaries of the local government whose plan is the subject of the review.” If Potiris was such a person he would have standing to challenge the consistency of the comprehensive plan amendment in a section 120.57 administrative hearing. § 163.3184(9), Fla. Stat. (2004).
We affirm the final order dismissing Po-tiris’s petition for lack of standing. We do not agree with Potiris that, because, from time to time, he provides land use related services for properties in Wellington, he had standing. The fact that Potiris conducted some business activity in Wellington is not the same as “owning or operating a business” in Wellington. St. Joe Paper Co. v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 657 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (conducting business activity in connection with the planning process does not comply with the standing requirement). We accordingly affirm the dismissal for lack of standing.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ST. JOE Paper Co. & St. Joseph Land & Dev. Co. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 657 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)