How to Obtain Free Permit Extensions Under the State Emergency Management Act
Developers have since 2011 been able to obtain extensions of the expiration dates of certain environmental permits and development orders under the “State Emergency Management Act,” Sections 252.31-252.60, Florida Statutes, whenever the governor declares a state of emergency under the act.
November 07, 2017 at 10:15 AM
8 minute read
Developers have since 2011 been able to obtain extensions of the expiration dates of certain environmental permits and development orders under the “State Emergency Management Act,” Sections 252.31-252.60, Florida Statutes, whenever the governor declares a state of emergency under the act. Using executive orders, Gov. Rick Scott has issued many such declarations since then. Collectively, these gubernatorial declarations have created opportunities to obtain multiple extensions that can piggyback on each other. There is no filing fee for requesting an extension—it just takes a letter.
Under Section 252.363 of the act, a developer can use each declaration to extend, for the length of the declaration (the “tolling period,” often 60 days) plus six months, the expiration dates for a development order, a building permit, an environmental resource permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district, and the buildout of a development of regional impact, provided:
- The developer has applied within 90 days prior to the end of the tolling period;
- The permit has not otherwise expired by the time the application is filed; and
- The emergency declaration includes the county for which the extension is being sought.
The declaration need not have any apparent relationship to the activity authorized by the permit or order, as long as the declaration covers the same county. The extension can apply, for example, whether the emergency is based upon actual damage from a hurricane, fears over Zika mosquito bites, or concerns that Puerto Ricans escaping impacts from Hurricane Maria will overwhelm Florida.
The act covers “any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural, technological, or man-made, in war or in peace, which results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial damage to or loss of property.” To determine whether a declaration is for an emergency covered by the act, it is sufficient that it state that it is issued under the authority of the act. This can be shown, for example, in a “NOW, THEREFORE,” clause in a declaration stating, “by virtue of the authority vested in me … by the Florida Emergency Management Act, as amended …”
Gov. Scott's executive orders can be accessed through the website of the Executive Office of the Governor at http://www.flgov.com/all-executive-orders/. Piggybacking potential can be shown by reviewing the following executive orders issued during 2017 through the beginning of October: 2017-259, 2017-236, 2017-235, 2017-211, 2017-204, and 2017-174. Some cover all. Florida counties, others fewer, and a few extend prior declarations issued in 2017 or previously.
This review shows that extensions have been available anywhere in Florida for at least two years plus cumulative (but not overlapping) tolling periods, more so for some counties. In Miami-Dade County, the availability may total three and one-half years plus tolling periods. Assuming piggybacking can be used to extend existing declarations, and considering extension declarations issued this year alone, extensions in Miami-Dade County could have totaled four and one half years plus tollings.
This is only a rough survey of the piggybacking opportunities, not an effort to quantify how many extensions a developer could have obtained this year or since 2011. Given the frequency with which Gov. Scott has issued and renewed of emergency declarations, and the reasonable expectation that future governors may follow suit, there will likely still be plenty of additional opportunities for developers to jump on the piggybacking bandwagon.
This analysis is subject to (at least) the following caveats:
- There has been no definitive litigation on piggybacking. Though some agencies recognize and allow it, others may resist.
- Resistance may be more successful for declarations extending existing ones.
- Extension calculations are based upon combining days, months, and potentially overlapping tolling periods, and can be complicated.
- To sort this all out, it is usually best to work with appropriate agency staff. Or, if that does not work, bring in the lawyers.
Daniel Thompson is a partner at Berger Singerman in Tallahassee and board certified by the Florida Bar as an expert in state and federal government and administrative practice.
Developers have since 2011 been able to obtain extensions of the expiration dates of certain environmental permits and development orders under the “State Emergency Management Act,” Sections 252.31-252.60, Florida Statutes, whenever the governor declares a state of emergency under the act. Using executive orders, Gov. Rick Scott has issued many such declarations since then. Collectively, these gubernatorial declarations have created opportunities to obtain multiple extensions that can piggyback on each other. There is no filing fee for requesting an extension—it just takes a letter.
Under Section 252.363 of the act, a developer can use each declaration to extend, for the length of the declaration (the “tolling period,” often 60 days) plus six months, the expiration dates for a development order, a building permit, an environmental resource permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district, and the buildout of a development of regional impact, provided:
- The developer has applied within 90 days prior to the end of the tolling period;
- The permit has not otherwise expired by the time the application is filed; and
- The emergency declaration includes the county for which the extension is being sought.
The declaration need not have any apparent relationship to the activity authorized by the permit or order, as long as the declaration covers the same county. The extension can apply, for example, whether the emergency is based upon actual damage from a hurricane, fears over Zika mosquito bites, or concerns that Puerto Ricans escaping impacts from Hurricane Maria will overwhelm Florida.
The act covers “any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural, technological, or man-made, in war or in peace, which results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial damage to or loss of property.” To determine whether a declaration is for an emergency covered by the act, it is sufficient that it state that it is issued under the authority of the act. This can be shown, for example, in a “NOW, THEREFORE,” clause in a declaration stating, “by virtue of the authority vested in me … by the Florida Emergency Management Act, as amended …”
Gov. Scott's executive orders can be accessed through the website of the Executive Office of the Governor at http://www.flgov.com/all-executive-orders/. Piggybacking potential can be shown by reviewing the following executive orders issued during 2017 through the beginning of October: 2017-259, 2017-236, 2017-235, 2017-211, 2017-204, and 2017-174. Some cover all. Florida counties, others fewer, and a few extend prior declarations issued in 2017 or previously.
This review shows that extensions have been available anywhere in Florida for at least two years plus cumulative (but not overlapping) tolling periods, more so for some counties. In Miami-Dade County, the availability may total three and one-half years plus tolling periods. Assuming piggybacking can be used to extend existing declarations, and considering extension declarations issued this year alone, extensions in Miami-Dade County could have totaled four and one half years plus tollings.
This is only a rough survey of the piggybacking opportunities, not an effort to quantify how many extensions a developer could have obtained this year or since 2011. Given the frequency with which Gov. Scott has issued and renewed of emergency declarations, and the reasonable expectation that future governors may follow suit, there will likely still be plenty of additional opportunities for developers to jump on the piggybacking bandwagon.
This analysis is subject to (at least) the following caveats:
- There has been no definitive litigation on piggybacking. Though some agencies recognize and allow it, others may resist.
- Resistance may be more successful for declarations extending existing ones.
- Extension calculations are based upon combining days, months, and potentially overlapping tolling periods, and can be complicated.
- To sort this all out, it is usually best to work with appropriate agency staff. Or, if that does not work, bring in the lawyers.
Daniel Thompson is a partner at
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250