In Katherine's Bay, LLC v. Fagan and Citrus County, the 1st DCA overturned the Administration Commission Final Order, adopting a Recommended Order issued by a DOAH ALJ, that found a small-scale plan amendment permitting an RV park to be "not in compliance."
The Court found that the ALJ violated the applicable rules of statutory interpretation (that the specific governs over the general) by finding that the amendment violated a general coastal/environmental policy when a more specific policy addressed the location of RV parks. Again, we see the 1st DCA limiting the strict scrutiny language of Machado, which states the over broad position that every development order must comply strictly with each and every provision of the comprehensive plan.
The Court also found that the ALJ make a determination that the amendment was not "compatible" without competent substantial evidence. This is another important aspect of the case: the Court rejected the ALJ's acceptance of the lay opinion of the challengers that a mobile home park would have adverse impacts on the area including light pollution, traffic, and negative impact on housing values. The Court is, in effect, setting forth fairly stringent requirements for evidence regarding compatibility that requires expert testimony on most aspects commonly used to claim that uses are not compatible. The Court specifically rejected any analysis that the RV use was "inherently" incompatible with existing residential uses simply because it was different and more intense.
Important reading for future cases.
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
I don't know, I feel like we're getting a little Frank Jimenez chronic here, and yet more news keeps breaking. Now it's this , i...
-
stucomplaint I'm still on a high from last night's Bar thingy, so...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
Here is the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda (there was a live webcast too). From a well-placed source: He finished – no hard questions- ...
-
In the very long saga of Fort Lauderdale attorney Robert Ingham 's doomed representation of MCS against Essent Healthcare, Judge Seitz ...
-
Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today. First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle. Just ...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét