FRANKLIN COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
S.G.I. LIMITED, A LIMITED FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Franklin County denied S.G.I.'s site plan application for a golf course based on inconsistency with the county's comprehensive plan objectives protecting water quality and shellfish harvesting in Apalachicola Bay. The circuit court reversed the denial, but the appellate court quashed that decision, holding that counties have statutory authority to deny development applications when inconsistent with comprehensive plan objectives.
Franklin County has statutory authority to disapprove a site plan application if the proposed development is inconsistent with objectives in a lawfully adopted comprehensive plan. The circuit court erred in determining that the county lacked discretion to deny the application based on comprehensive plan objectives and water quality concerns.
[1] A local government may deny an application for site plan approval if the proposed development is inconsistent with its lawfully adopted comprehensive plan.
[2] Development actions must be consistent with a comprehensive plan or element thereof once adopted in conformity with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land D…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for consistency with comprehensive plans under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.G.I. Limited applied to Franklin County for site plan approval to construct a golf course, clubhouse, and driving range. Franklin County denied the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Land Development Regulation Act cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1211] WOLF, J.
Respondent, S.G.I. Limited (S.G.I.) made application to Franklin County for site plan approval for the construction of a golf course, a club house, and a driving range. Petitioner, Franklin County, denied the request as to the golf course. S.G.I. challenged the denial by petition for -writ of certiorari in the circuit court. The circuit court granted the petition determining that any evidence of any prospect of damage to the water quality in Apalachicola Bay would be “irrelevant since no lawfully adopted ordinance gives [the county] the right or discretion to deny any application for site plan approval based on such evidence or concerns.” Based on this assumption, the circuit court concluded, “Franklin County does not have discretion to deny the application for [S.G.I.’s] plan based upon general objectives and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.” We find that these determinations constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law as outlined in Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla.1995). We, therefore, grant the petition and quash the decision of the circuit court.
Section 163.3194(l)(a), Florida Statutes, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires,
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.
Franklin County’s comprehensive plan is a lawfully adopted ordinance. As such, the county is empowered by statute to disapprove an application for site approval if it finds that a proposed development is inconsistent with any of the objectives in the comprehensive plan. The circuit court’s statement that the county commission could not deny S.G.I.’s site plan approval based on “general objectives and policies” in the comprehensive plan is in direct opposition to the language and requirements of the Comprehensive Planning Act, and is not supported by relevant law applying the act. See, e.g., City of Jacksonville Beach v. Marisol Land Dev., Inc., 706 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
The comprehensive plan applicable to Franklin County contains objectives which mandate the county to “support the conservation and protection of ecological communities ... to the extent that ... [the county] will prohibit development which can be proved to damage natural resources” and to “maintain the estuarine water quality surrounding coastal resources so that there shall be no loss of any approved shellfish harvesting classifications through the year 2000.” These objectives are specific enough that they may be taken into consideration and utilized in reviewing applications for site plan approval.
There was also competent substantial evidence in the record that the proposed golf course development could harm the most productive oyster bed in Apalachicola Bay and was, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Where there is competent substantial evidence to support the local government’s determination that a proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, that determination should be upheld. See id. We, therefore, direct the circuit court to deny S.G.I.’s petition for writ of certiorari.
MINER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buck Lake Alliance, Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Leon Cnty., 765 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…“the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities and intensities in the comprehensive plan,” itself; and not by reference to ordinances purportedly adopted to implement the plan. We have previously held as much. Franklin County v. S.G.I. Limited, 728 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (concluding that a county properly denied an application for site-plan approval based upon a determination that the proposed development would be inconsistent with “general objectives and policies” in the comprehensive plan). It…
-
Windward Marina, L.L.C. v. City OF Destin & The Destin City Council, 743 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). While a local government may deny a development order based on a determination that a proposed development would be inconsistent with the stated goals of the locality’s comprehensive plan, see Franklin County v. S.G.I. Ltd., 728 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999),3 a local government may not deny a development order based on criteria which are not specifically enumerated in its land use regulations. See Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, 64 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1953). See also Effie, Inc. v. City…
-
Mann v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 830 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ordinance. “As such, the county is empowered by statute to disapprove an application for site approval if it finds that a proposed development is inconsistent with any of the objectives in the comprehensive plan.” Franklin County v. S.G.I. Limited, 728 So. 2d 1210,1211 (Fla. 1st DCA1999). One of the findings of fact made by the Board was that the zoning request was inconsistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.1.14, regarding timing of zoning and adequate facilities. Pertinent parts of this policy provide that…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- The City OF Jacksonville Beach v. Marisol Land Dev., Inc., 706 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)