MacHado v. Musgrove
1987 WL 494, 519 So. 2d 629 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a zoning action is challenged as being inconsistent with a comprehensive land use plan, the standard of judicial review is strict scrutiny, not the deferential 'fairly debatable' test. The party seeking the zoning change bears the burden of proving by competent and substantial evidence that the proposed change conforms strictly to the plan and all its elements.
Facts:
- Jose L. Machado and other petitioners owned an 8.5-acre property in Dade County that was zoned for interim use (GU).
- The county's comprehensive land use plan designated the area as 'estate residential,' permitting up to two units per gross acre.
- A specific neighborhood study, the 'West Dade Ranch Area Study,' was adopted by ordinance as an element of the comprehensive plan and limited the area to ranchlands, nurseries, and croplands.
- Petitioners sought to rezone the property to RU-5A to build a 140,000 square foot professional office complex, a commercial use.
- The Dade County Planning Director consistently recommended denial of the application, citing its incompatibility with the neighborhood study and the risk of setting a precedent for further commercial development.
- Local residents, including farmers and homeowners, testified in opposition, expressing concerns about increased traffic and the changing character of the area.
- The Dade County Commission ultimately approved the rezoning request in a 3-2 vote.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Machado and others applied to the Dade County Commission for a rezoning of their property.
- The Dade County Commission granted the zoning change.
- Barbara Musgrove, other residents, and the Bird-Kendall Homeowners' Association challenged the Commission's decision in the Florida circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court, acting in an appellate capacity, reversed the County Commission's grant of the requested zoning change.
- Machado and Dade County (as petitioners) sought a writ of certiorari in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, to review the circuit court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard of review apply when a court reviews a local government's determination that a zoning change is consistent with its comprehensive land use plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (adopted en banc)
No. When a zoning action is challenged on grounds of inconsistency with the comprehensive land use plan, the correct standard of judicial review is strict scrutiny, not the deferential 'fairly debatable' test. The court reasoned that land use planning and zoning are distinct functions. The comprehensive plan acts as a 'constitution' for all future development, while zoning is the mechanism to implement that plan. A zoning action that is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan is ultra vires, or beyond the government's legal authority. Therefore, determining whether a zoning action conforms to the plan is a question of legal compliance that demands non-deferential, strict judicial scrutiny. The burden is on the party seeking the rezoning to prove with competent and substantial evidence that the proposed use conforms strictly to every element of the plan, including neighborhood studies adopted by ordinance. Here, the proposed office complex was inconsistent with the West Dade Ranch Area Study, a mandatory element of the plan, so the rezoning was invalid.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the legal authority of comprehensive land use plans, transforming them from general policy guides into legally binding documents. By rejecting the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard for consistency reviews, the court created a higher hurdle for developers and local governments seeking to approve projects that deviate from a plan. This ruling empowers citizens and community groups to more effectively challenge zoning changes by holding local governments strictly accountable to their own adopted plans. The case establishes a bifurcated review process where the 'fairly debatable' standard may still apply to the wisdom of a zoning choice within a plan's parameters, but strict scrutiny applies to the threshold question of whether the choice conforms to the plan at all.
