Did Florida's 2009 two-year building permit extension happen automatically, or did you have to notify the agency?

Plain-English summary

During the 2009 real estate downturn, the Legislature gave permit holders a break. Section 14 of Chapter 2009-96 amended section 380.06 to extend by two years any qualifying permit, including local government development orders and building permits, that was set to expire between September 1, 2008, and January 1, 2012. The City of Maitland's attorney asked a simple but important question: was that extension automatic, or did a permit holder have to give notice to get it?

Attorney General Bill McCollum concluded that notice was required. While the amendment broadly extended permits for two years, a separate subsection required the holder of an eligible permit to notify the authorizing agency in writing no later than December 31, 2009, identifying the specific authorization it intended to extend and the anticipated timeframe for acting on it. Reading those provisions together, as the rules of statutory construction require, the notice requirement did not defeat the Legislature's purpose of helping permit holders affected by the market. It simply set a condition. So a permit holder who wanted the two-year extension had to file written notice with the authorizing agency, in Maitland's case the municipality, by the December 31, 2009 deadline.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was Florida's 2009 two-year permit extension automatic?
A: No. The opinion concluded that a permit holder had to notify the authorizing agency in writing by December 31, 2009, to be eligible for the extension under the amended section 380.06.

Q: What did the required notice have to say?
A: Under the statute, the written notice had to identify the specific authorization the holder intended to extend and the anticipated timeframe for acting on it.

Q: Which permits did the 2009 extension cover?
A: As written, it reached permits issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district under Part IV of Chapter 373, and it expressly included local government development orders and building permits, for permits expiring between September 1, 2008, and January 1, 2012.

Q: Were any permits left out of the extension?
A: Yes. The statute excluded certain Army Corps general permits, permits held by owners in significant noncompliance, and extensions that would delay or prevent compliance with a court order.

Background and statutory framework

The extension lived in section 380.06, the statute governing developments of regional impact, amended by section 14 of Chapter 2009-96. Subsection (1) granted the two-year extension for qualifying permits, including local development orders and building permits, and tied eligibility to permits under Part IV of Chapter 373 with expiration dates in the specified window. Subsection (3) carried the catch: the holder of an eligible permit had to notify the authorizing agency in writing no later than December 31, 2009. Subsection (4) listed the exclusions, and subsection (6) preserved a local government's authority to require an owner who claimed the extension to keep the property safe and sanitary.

The opinion rested on the principle that statutes should be read in harmony, giving effect to every provision. It cited cases applying that canon, including T.R. v. State and R.F.R. v. State on construing related provisions together, and Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands and Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control District on reading all parts of a statute as a consistent whole.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (developments of regional impact; 2009 permit extension)
• Ch. 2009-96, Laws of Fla. (creating the 2-year permit extension)
• Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (DEP and water management district permits)

Cases:

• T.R. v. State, 677 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1996), construing related statutory provisions in harmony
• R.F.R. v. State, 558 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), laws in the same field presumed harmonious
• Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1944), reading all parts of a statute together
• Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control District, 604 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1992), consistent-whole construction

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/building-permit-extension-notice-required
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1730

Original opinion text

Mr. Clifford B. Shepard

City Attorney

City of Maitland

111 South Maitland Avenue

Maitland, Florida 32751

RE: MUNICIPALITIES – COUNTIES – BUILDING PERMITS – permit holder must notify local government to be eligible for extension of permit. s. 380.06, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. Shepard:

On behalf of the City of Maitland, you ask substantially the following question:

Does section 380.06, Florida Statutes, require a permit holder to provide timely notice to be eligible for extension of the permit authorized under the act?

In sum:

Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, requires a permit holder to notify the agency authorizing the permit no later than December 31, 2009, to be eligible to extend the permit.

During the 2009 legislative session, it was recognized that conditions in the real estate market warranted the extension of any permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district, as well as local government-issued development orders or building permits. Section 14, Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, amended section 380.06, Florida Statutes, to provide:

"(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), and in recognition of 2009 real estate market conditions, any permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district pursuant to part IV of chapter 373, Florida Statutes, that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008, through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of 2 years following its date of expiration. This extension includes any local government-issued development order or building permit. The 2-year extension also applies to build out dates including any build out date extension previously granted under s. 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes. This section shall not be construed to prohibit conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase upon completion of construction.

(2) The commencement and completion dates for any required mitigation associated with a phased construction project shall be extended such that mitigation takes place in the same timeframe relative to the phase as originally permitted.

(3) The holder of a valid permit or other authorization that is eligible for the 2-year extension shall notify the authorizing agency in writing no later than December 31, 2009, identifying the specific authorization for which the holder intends to use the extension and the anticipated timeframe for acting on the authorization.

(4) The extension provided for in subsection (1) does not apply to:

(a) A permit or other authorization under any programmatic or regional general permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.

(b) A permit or other authorization held by an owner or operator determined to be in significant noncompliance with the conditions of the permit or authorization as established through the issuance of a warning letter or notice of violation, the initiation of formal enforcement, or other equivalent action by the authorizing agency.

(c) A permit or other authorization, if granted an extension, that would delay or prevent compliance with a court order.

(5) Permits extended under this section shall continue to be governed by rules in effect at the time the permit was issued, except when it can be demonstrated that the rules in effect at the time the permit was issued would create an immediate threat to public safety or health. This provision shall apply to any modification of the plans, terms, and conditions of the permit that lessens the environmental impact, except that any such modification shall not extend the time limit beyond 2 additional years.

(6) Nothing in this section shall impair the authority of a county or municipality to require the owner of a property, that has notified the county or municipality of the owner’s intention to receive the extension of time granted by this section, to maintain and secure the property in a safe and sanitary condition in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances."[1] (e.s.)

It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes are to be read in harmony whenever possible.[2] While the language of the act authorizes the extension of permits for two years beyond the date of their expiration, it also requires the permit holder to notify the authorizing agency (in this case the municipality) of his or her intention to receive the extension of time. Reading these parts together and giving effect to each does not appear to alter the Legislature’s intent to provide relief to permit holders affected by recent real estate market conditions who may require additional time to complete projects that have been permitted.[3]

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the amendments to section 380.06, Florida Statutes, by section 14, Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, require a permit holder to notify the authorizing agency no later than December 31, 2009, to be eligible for extending the permit pursuant to the act.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum

Attorney General

BM/tals

[1] Section 14, Ch. 2009-96, Laws of Fla., appears in n. 3, s. 380.06, Fla. Stat.

[2] See generally T.R. v. State, 677 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1996) (whenever possible courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another); R.F.R. v. State, 558 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (laws applying to same general field are presumed to be harmonious).

[3] See Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1944); Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control District, 604 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1992) (all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole); State ex rel. Ashby v. Haddock, 140 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).