LDR that Deviates or Departs from Comprehensive Plan is not Consistent
In Gateway et al v. Town of Medley, et al, the 3d District overruled a summary DOAH decision holding that an ordinance of the Town was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The court's only characterization was that "Ordinance C-306 permits expansion of a non-conforming use, which the Comprehensive Plan destined to be phased out. " The Court went on to find that
The court does not bless us with the particulars of the plan policy involved, nor the actual provisions of the ordinance.
What remains to be seen is whether the courts would apply this analysis to a land development regulation that was more restrictive than the plan permitted.
This violates the Florida Growth Management Act’s dictates that local plans be
"implemented through the adoption of land development regulations that are
consistent with the plan." Bd. of County Comm’rs of Brevard County v. Snyder,
627 So. 2d 469, 473 (Fla. 1993)(emphasis added); §163.3202, Fla. Stat. (2006).
Here, as the Ordinance unequivocally "deviates or departs" from the parameters
of the Plan, Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we
cannot hold that it is consistent.
The court does not bless us with the particulars of the plan policy involved, nor the actual provisions of the ordinance.
What remains to be seen is whether the courts would apply this analysis to a land development regulation that was more restrictive than the plan permitted.