Turner v. Sumter County, Bd. of County Com'rs, 94-1159

• Citation: 649 So.2d 276
• Decision Date: 13 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-1159,94-1159
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D178, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D488 Theodore R. TURNER, Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 276

649 So.2d 276

20 Fla. L. Weekly D178, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D488

Theodore R. TURNER, Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellee.

No. 94-1159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fifth District.

Jan. 13, 1995.

As Amended on Denial

of Rehearing or Clarification

Feb. 17, 1995.

C. David Coffey, of McPherson, Coffey & Kalishman, P.A., Gainesville, for appellant.

Christopher C. Ford, of Ford & Associates, Tavares, for appellee.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Theodore R. Turner ["Turner"] seeks review of the dismissal of a complaint for certiorari and mandamus which challenges an order of Sumter County, granting a third party's application for a mining permit. Although purportedly a timely complaint for certiorari ¹ challenging issuance of the permit in violation of Sumter County's Mining Ordinance, the complaint plainly alleges that the mining ordinance is part of Sumter County's Comprehensive Plan and that it "implements the Plan's determination of vested rights as it relates specifically to mining." Turner claims issuance of the permit does not comply with the comprehensive plan because the permittee does not meet the criteria for vested mining rights. ² In the main, Turner seeks to challenge an earlier determination by the county that third parties had vested rights, which was the predicate for issuance of the permit. We agree with Sumter County that Turner's remedy for this claim was an action under section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (1991), Board of County Comm'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla.1993); Parker v. Leon County, 627 So.2d 476 (Fla.1993); Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Seminole County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 623 So.2d 593, 595-596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 622 (Fla.1994), not certiorari review of the issuance of the permit. In so doing, we do not mean to suggest that a county's noncompliance with its own ordinances is limited to a section 163.3215 remedy simply because the ordinance is made part of the comprehensive plan. After studying the complaint, however, it is clear that the gravamen of this action is the county's decision to enter into a settlement of the vesting issue with the third parties. Appellant filed a section 163.3215 proceeding but elected not to pursue it.

Appellant does marginally raise one other issue, however--whether the county complied with the requirements of due process in the permit issuance procedure followed in June 1993. As...