The Florida District Court of Appeal has ruled that a settlement agreement between Nassau County and Riverstone Properties, LLC, does not qualify as a development order. This decision affects the Amelia Island Sanctuary Property Owners Association, Inc., which had challenged the agreement, claiming it violated local development laws. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal definitions surrounding development orders and property rights in Florida.
The case, known as Amelia Island Sanctuary Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Nassau County, Florida, Riverstone Properties, LLC, and Citizens Against Runaway Development, Inc., was filed under docket number 5D2025-1050. The court's decision was issued on July 10, 2026, and it addresses a dispute over a 51-acre oceanfront property on Amelia Island, which is currently zoned for residential use.
The parties involved in the case include the Amelia Island Sanctuary Property Owners Association, which represents homeowners in the area, and Nassau County, along with Riverstone Properties, the property owner. The Association argued that the settlement agreement reached between the County and Riverstone constitutes a development order that does not comply with the Nassau County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This plan is designed to ensure that any development aligns with local zoning and land use regulations.
The dispute arose after Riverstone Properties sued Nassau County, claiming that the County's reduction of allowable building heights from 85 feet to 45 feet imposed an inordinate burden on their property rights under the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. The settlement agreement was intended to resolve this dispute, but the Association contended that it effectively allowed for development that was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
In its ruling, the court determined that the settlement agreement is not a development order as defined by Florida law. The court stated, "The settlement agreement does not constitute a 'development order,' which is defined to mean 'any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit.'" The opinion was authored by Judge Makar, with Judges Lambert and MacIver concurring.
The court further clarified that the settlement agreement was simply a negotiated resolution and did not authorize any specific development at this time. The court emphasized, "Most of the provisions [in the settlement agreement] have to do with if development occurs in the future... it's in its natural state right now." This indicates that the property may remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future, depending on future decisions by Riverstone Properties.
The ruling has implications for property rights and development regulations in Florida. It reinforces the notion that settlement agreements arising from disputes under the Bert Harris Act do not automatically equate to development orders that must comply with comprehensive plans. The court noted that the Association had other avenues to challenge the settlement agreement directly but chose not to pursue them.
Going forward, this decision may influence how similar cases are handled in Florida, particularly those involving property rights and local government regulations. The ruling suggests that while property owners have rights under the Bert Harris Act, those rights must be balanced with the public interest as defined by local comprehensive plans.
As for what’s next, the Association may still have the option to appeal the ruling, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending actions. The court's decision sets a precedent that could affect future disputes involving development orders and settlement agreements in Florida.