Village of Key Biscayne v. Department of Community Affairs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Village of Key Biscayne v. Department of Community Affairs

696 So. 2d 495, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7549, 1997 WL 362995

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 2, 1997·No. No. 96-2708·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The proposed amendment to the Master Plan approved by the County Commission to obviate Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So.2d 976 (Fla.1994) is invalid on its face because it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995) that any comprehensive plan or amendment include “specific standards for the density or intensity of use.” On this basis — whether or not the amendment complies with rules of the Department of Community Affairs, which to the extent that they permit non-compliance with the statutory requirement are themselves invalid, see § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973); Department of Natural Resources v. Wingfield Dev. Co., 581 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and pre-termitting discussion of the other objections to the amendment, at least some of which may also be very substantial — the Department erroneously declared the amendment “in compliance” under section 163.3184(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Its decision to that effect is therefore reversed with directions to disapprove the amendment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The proposed amendment to the Master Plan approved by the County Commission to obviate Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So.2d 976 (Fla.1994) is invalid on its face because it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995) that any comprehensive plan or amendment include “specific standards for the density or intensity of use.” On this basis — whether or not the amendment complies with rules of the Department of Community Affairs, which to the extent that they permit non-compliance with the statutory requirement are themselves invalid, see § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973); Department of Natural Resources v. Wingfield Dev. Co., 581 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and pre-termitting discussion of the other objections to the amendment, at least some of which may also be very substantial — the Department erroneously declared the amendment “in compliance” under section 163.3184(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Its decision to that effect is therefore reversed with directions to disapprove the amendment.

Village of Key Biscayne v. Department of Community Affairs, 696 So. 2d 495, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7549, 1997 WL 362995 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

696 So. 2d 495 (Village of Key Biscayne v. Department of Community Affairs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related