Martin County v. Yusem
1997 Fla. LEXIS 322, 690 So. 2d 1288, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 156 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local government's decision to approve or deny a proposed amendment to its comprehensive land use plan is a legislative action. Therefore, it is subject to the 'fairly debatable' standard of review, not the strict scrutiny standard applied to quasi-judicial actions.
Facts:
- Melvyn R. Yusem owned a 54-acre parcel of land in Martin County.
- Under Martin County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Yusem's property was designated as 'Rural Density,' allowing for development of 0.5 residential units per acre.
- Yusem requested an amendment to the future land use map for his property, seeking a change from 'Rural Density' to 'Estate Density' to allow for up to two units per acre.
- In conjunction with the plan amendment, Yusem also requested a rezoning of his property from 'A-1' (agricultural) to 'Planned Unit Development' (residential).
- The Martin County Board of County Commissioners (Board) initially voted to transmit the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (Department) for review.
- The Department analyzed the proposal and recommended that the County either abandon the amendment or provide more data to justify it as a logical extension of more intensive land use.
- After receiving the Department's report, the Board held a second hearing and voted to deny Yusem's requested plan amendment and rezoning.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvyn R. Yusem filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Martin County in the circuit court (trial court).
- The trial court, applying a strict scrutiny standard of review, found in favor of Yusem, concluding the County improperly denied the requested amendment.
- Martin County (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling on jurisdictional grounds but stated in its opinion that the County's decision was quasi-judicial and subject to strict scrutiny.
- On a motion for rehearing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a local government's decision on a proposed amendment to its comprehensive land use plan a quasi-judicial action subject to strict scrutiny review when the amendment applies to a single parcel of land?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, Justice
No. A local government's decision regarding an amendment to its comprehensive land use plan is a legislative action subject to the 'fairly debatable' standard of review. Unlike quasi-judicial rezonings that apply existing policy, amending a comprehensive plan is an act of policy reformulation. Such amendments require the government to consider broad impacts on services, capital expenditures, and the overall plan for community growth, making the decision legislative in nature, regardless of the size of the property involved. This 'bright-line' rule is supported by the extensive, multi-level review process for plan amendments outlined in chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, which underscores their policy-making character. Adopting this rule provides clarity and ensures that such challenges are brought as original actions in circuit court under the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical bright-line rule in Florida land use law, definitively classifying all comprehensive plan amendments as legislative actions. By rejecting a functional, case-by-case analysis based on the size or impact of the amendment, the Court simplified the legal framework for both local governments and landowners. This holding solidifies the deference given to local government policy-making and clarifies the proper standard of review ('fairly debatable') and the procedural path (an original action in circuit court) for challenging such decisions. Consequently, it is significantly more difficult for landowners to judicially challenge the denial of a plan amendment.
