SUMMARY OF CLASS ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS—STRAUSS INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING: STANDARD ACT, KINDS OF PLANS, ETC. “IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”—WOLF SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLAN—TWAIN HARTE

TWAIN HARTE “STATEMENT OF THE STANDARDS OF POPULATION DENSITY AND BUILDING INTENSITY” DEFINED? IF NOT: HOW INTERPRET? RELATE LAND USE TO POPULATION

TWAIN HARTE II CIRCULATION ELEMENT: “CORRELATED WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT” WHY WASN’T THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT CORRELATED? HOW ADVISE CLIENT ON REMAND?

APPLYING A CONSISTENCY STATUTE (HAINES): I THE APPROVAL: HEIGHT WAIVER 500 FOOT BUILDING IN 250 FOOT AREA THE STATUTE: “All zoning ordinances or regulations adopted under this article shall be consistent with the adopted general or specific plans of the community”

THE LOGIC OF HAINES 1.IS THERE A GENERAL OR SPECIFIC PLAN? 2.IS THE PLAN COMPLETE? 3. IF IT IS NOT COMPLETE, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

POSSIBLE RESULTS OF INCOMPLETE PLANS 1.REZONING CANNOT BE CONSISTENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 2.BECAUSE NO PLAN, CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY YET 3.REZONING MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NOW IN THE PLAN

APPLYING A CONSISTENCY STATUTE II TEST FOR CONSISTENCY: “BASIC HARMONY” APPLIED: CITY COULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE REZONING WAS CONSISTENT --OTHER GOALS --PRECATORY LANGUAGE

SOME CONSISTENCY QUESTIONS 1.NO CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT: MUST CITY FOLLOW PLAN? 2.IF PLAN IS REQUIRED: ADOPT VOLUNTARY CONSISTENCY ORDINANCE? 3.CONSISTENCY AND OUTDATED PLANS 4.NO CONSISTENCY: CAN CITY REJECT ON BASIS OF INCONSISTENCY? 5.“SPOT PLANNING” 6.PLANNING AND TAKING

MARTIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "A project immediately adjacent to lands used or designated for lower intensity use should be given lesser density. (1) For that portion of said project abutting the existing development or area of lesser density, a density transition zone of comparable density and compatible dwelling unit types shall be established [e.g.] in the new project for a depth from the shared property line that is equivalent to the depth of the first tier of the adjoining development's lower density (i.e. the depth of the first block of single-family lots)." Comprehensive Plan, S 4- 5(A)(2)(b).

TRIAL COURT’S FINDING ON CONSISTENCY I "The tiering policy required... a transition zone along the southern portion of Phase 10 equal to 'the depth of the first block of single-family lots' within the northern portion of Phase 1. The section requires that development in the first tier of Phase 10 be limited to construction 'of comparable density and compatible dwelling unit types.' The court finds that the appropriate measure is 225 feet, using the shortest average depth method of computation.

TRIAL COURT’S FINDING ON CONSISTENCY II "No transition zone was established for Phase 10. The buildings along the first tier of Phase 10 are multi-family, multi-story, and have balconies. The southern tier of Phase 10 has a density of 6.6[UPA]. The overall density of Phase 10 is 6.5[UPA]. There is no meaningful difference in density across the entire western portion of Phase 10. The northern tier of Phase 1, on the other hand, is comprised entirely of single-family homes on 0.75 acre to 1.2 acre lots, with a density of 0.94[UPA].

REMEDY FOR INCONSISTENCY (PINECREST LAKES) “Any aggrieved or adversely affected party may maintain an action for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent such local government from taking any action on a development order…which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan…”

DECIDING THE REMEDY: PINECREST 1. THE TRIAL COURT’S REMEDY 2. THE DEVELOPER’S ARGUMENT 3. THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 4. THE COURT’S REASONING 5. WHAT SHOULD THE REMEDY BE?

PART III: LIMITS OF CURRENT LAND USE REGULATION LIMITS: STATUTORY, CONSTITUTIONAL, THEORETICAL THE ISSUE: DISCRETION AND PUTTING LIMITS ON IT JUDICIAL REVIEW