163.3194
Legal status of comprehensive plan.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
163.3194 Legal status of comprehensive plan.—
(1)(a) After a comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted.
(b) All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and any land development regulations existing at the time of adoption which are not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be consistent. If a local government allows an existing land development regulation which is inconsistent with the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, to remain in effect, the local government shall adopt a schedule for bringing the land development regulation into conformity with the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof. During the interim period when the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and the land development regulations are inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall govern any action taken in regard to an application for a development order.
(2) After a comprehensive plan for the area, or element or portion thereof, is adopted by the governing body, no land development regulation, land development code, or amendment thereto shall be adopted by the governing body until such regulation, code, or amendment has been referred either to the local planning agency or to a separate land development regulation commission created pursuant to local ordinance, or to both, for review and recommendation as to the relationship of such proposal to the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof. Said recommendation shall be made within a reasonable time, but no later than within 2 months after the time of reference. If a recommendation is not made within the time provided, then the governing body may act on the adoption.
(3)(a) A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
(b) A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
(4)(a) A court, in reviewing local governmental action or development regulations under this act, may consider, among other things, the reasonableness of the comprehensive plan, or element or elements thereof, relating to the issue justiciably raised or the appropriateness and completeness of the comprehensive plan, or element or elements thereof, in relation to the governmental action or development regulation under consideration. The court may consider the relationship of the comprehensive plan, or element or elements thereof, to the governmental action taken or the development regulation involved in litigation, but private property shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation.
(b) It is the intent of this act that the comprehensive plan set general guidelines and principles concerning its purposes and contents and that this act shall be construed broadly to accomplish its stated purposes and objectives.
(5) The tax-exempt status of lands classified as agricultural under s. 193.461 shall not be affected by any comprehensive plan adopted under this act as long as the land meets the criteria set forth in s. 193.461.
(6) If a proposed solid waste management facility is permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection to receive materials from the construction or demolition of a road or other transportation facility, a local government may not deny an application for a development approval for a requested land use that would accommodate such a facility, provided the local government previously approved a land use classification change to a local comprehensive plan or approved a rezoning to a category allowing such land use on the parcel, and the requested land use was disclosed during the previous comprehensive plan or rezoning hearing as being an express purpose of the land use changes.
History.—s. 12, ch. 75-257; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 2, ch. 77-223; s. 12, ch. 80-358; s. 69, ch. 81-259; s. 11, ch. 85-55; s. 33, ch. 2002-296.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: MacHado v. Musgrove
MacHado v. Musgrove (1988)
“Even where there is some basis for consideration by the court pursuant to section 163.3194, its actions must be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the Act as expressed in section 163.”
Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc. (2009)
“See § 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (2005). In 1989, the Board of County Commissioners (“the Commission”) adopted the County’s Comprehensive Plan (“the Plan”) *416 in compliance with Chapter 163, after a series of public meetings.”
Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel (2001)
“[10] Section 163.3194 requires that all development conform to the approved Comprehensive Plan, and that development orders be consistent with that Plan.”
BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF BREVARD v. Snyder (1993)
“, § 163.3194(1)(a). Section 163.3194(3), Florida Statutes (1991), explains consistency as follows: (a) A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development…”
City of Jacksonville v. Wynn (1995)
“Our reading of section 163.3194 convinces us that this section was not intended to broadly justify a judicial challenge to the validity of a comprehensive plan.”
Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton County (2002)
“The Association and the Attorney General cite section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), for the proposition that the 1995 resolution must comply with the County's 1993 comprehensive plan.”
City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher (1985)
“[4] *471 Section 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes, defines the legal status of a comprehensive zoning plan to be such that after its adoption all land development regulations enacted or amended must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.”
Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay County (2004)
“See § 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Stated more clearly: DRIs previously authorized may be completed, but changes must obtain approval, and must comply with the comprehensive plan.”
Snyder v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS (1991)
“The landowners filed in the circuit court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleging that the zoning classification sought by the landowners was consistent with the county Comprehensive Zoning Plan as required by section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that its denial was…”
Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland (1988)
“[10] § 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (1985). [11] While staff recommendations by the planning department of a zoning entity are not binding on the zoning authority, they are due great weight, particularly when the Comprehensive Planning Act is involved.”
Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus County (2008)
“§ 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also § 163.”
Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v. Broward County (1987)
“§ 163.3194(1). Initially, we reject the County's assertion that the land use element of its comprehensive plan alone should be considered in determining consistency.”
— 163.3194(1) — 10 cases
City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher (1985)
“[4] *471 Section 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes, defines the legal status of a comprehensive zoning plan to be such that after its adoption all land development regulations enacted or amended must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.”
MacHado v. Musgrove (1988)
“Even where there is some basis for consideration by the court pursuant to section 163.3194, its actions must be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the Act as expressed in section 163.”
Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v. Broward County (1987)
“§ 163.3194(1). Initially, we reject the County's assertion that the land use element of its comprehensive plan alone should be considered in determining consistency.”
City of Jacksonville v. Wynn (1995)
“Our reading of section 163.3194 convinces us that this section was not intended to broadly justify a judicial challenge to the validity of a comprehensive plan.”
— 163.3194(1)(a) — 21 cases
Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton County (2002)
“The Association and the Attorney General cite section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), for the proposition that the 1995 resolution must comply with the County's 1993 comprehensive plan.”
Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay County (2004)
“See § 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Stated more clearly: DRIs previously authorized may be completed, but changes must obtain approval, and must comply with the comprehensive plan.”
Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel (2001)
“[10] Section 163.3194 requires that all development conform to the approved Comprehensive Plan, and that development orders be consistent with that Plan.”
BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF BREVARD v. Snyder (1993)
“, § 163.3194(1)(a). Section 163.3194(3), Florida Statutes (1991), explains consistency as follows: (a) A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development…”
— 163.3194(1)(b) — 4 cases
Gilmore v. Hernando County (1991)
— 163.3194(2) — 5 cases
— 163.3194(3) — 4 cases
BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF BREVARD v. Snyder (1993)
“, § 163.3194(1)(a). Section 163.3194(3), Florida Statutes (1991), explains consistency as follows: (a) A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development…”
Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v. Broward County (1987)
“§ 163.3194(1). Initially, we reject the County's assertion that the land use element of its comprehensive plan alone should be considered in determining consistency.”
Howell v. Pasco County (2015)
— 163.3194(3)(a) — 15 cases
MacHado v. Musgrove (1988)
“Even where there is some basis for consideration by the court pursuant to section 163.3194, its actions must be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the Act as expressed in section 163.”
Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel (2001)
“[10] Section 163.3194 requires that all development conform to the approved Comprehensive Plan, and that development orders be consistent with that Plan.”
— 163.3194(3)(b) — 1 case
— 163.3194(4) — 1 case
— 163.3194(4)(a) — 9 cases
MacHado v. Musgrove (1988)
“Even where there is some basis for consideration by the court pursuant to section 163.3194, its actions must be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the Act as expressed in section 163.”
City of Jacksonville v. Wynn (1995)
“Our reading of section 163.3194 convinces us that this section was not intended to broadly justify a judicial challenge to the validity of a comprehensive plan.”
Snyder v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS (1991)
“The landowners filed in the circuit court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleging that the zoning classification sought by the landowners was consistent with the county Comprehensive Zoning Plan as required by section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that its denial was…”
Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland (1988)
“[10] § 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (1985). [11] While staff recommendations by the planning department of a zoning entity are not binding on the zoning authority, they are due great weight, particularly when the Comprehensive Planning Act is involved.”
— 163.3194(4)(b) — 3 cases
— 163.3194(5) — 1 case
— 163.3194(l)(a) — 12 cases
Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc. (2009)
“See § 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (2005). In 1989, the Board of County Commissioners (“the Commission”) adopted the County’s Comprehensive Plan (“the Plan”) *416 in compliance with Chapter 163, after a series of public meetings.”
Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus County (2008)
“§ 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also § 163.”
Heine v. Lee County (2017)
Bay County v. Harrison (2009)
— 163.3194(l)(b) — 1 case
Gilmore v. Hernando County (1991)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.