90 likes | 230 Views
Consistency. What you heard is not what you think I said!. SSZEA. Section 3 Purposes . . . "[s]uch regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Bove.
E N D
Consistency What you heard is not what you think I said!
SSZEA • Section 3 Purposes . . . • "[s]uch regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan . . ..
Bove . . . • “After years of study and agitation, it has been found that development in conformity with some well-considered and comprehensive plan is necessary to the welfare of any growing municipality.”
Udell • “We have concluded that the rezoning was discriminatory and that is was not done ‘in accordance with [the] comprehensive plan . . ..” • “[S]ound zoning principles were not followed in this case, and the root cause of this failure was a misunderstanding of the nature of zoning and, even more importantly, of its relationship to the statutory requirement that it be ‘in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”
Charles Haar, “In Accordance with a Comprehensive Plan” • The Plan as a land use “constitution” • Setting general policies • To be implemented by ordinance/resolution • All such ordinances/resolutions and actions to be evaluated for consistency with the land use constitution. • When actions are in accordance with . . . • Presumptively valid • Protected by deferential fairly debatable standard
What if actions are not . . . • In Haar’s world • Presumptively arbitrary • But . . .
Most courts did not see the “plan” as a substantive document; one that would direct subsequent implementing legislation. • The usual judicial interpretation given to the “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” was that the particular regulation be “comprehensive” or “uniform” in scope and coverage.
Florida Statutes, 163.3194(1)(a). • “After a … plan … has been adopted, all development shall be consistent with such plan.”