LIMONAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL.
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ET AL.
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.
Limonar Development challenged Miami-Dade County's final agency action regarding comprehensive plan amendments. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, applying the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard of review to legislative planning decisions.
The court affirmed the agency action. Amendments to a local government's comprehensive plan are legislative in nature and subject to the 'fairly debatable' standard of review, whereby an agency action should be affirmed if reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the planning action. Interpretation of the comprehensive plan is a question of law subject to de novo review, but the overall legislative decision is reviewed under the fairly debatable standard.
“amendments to local government's comprehensive plan are legislative in nature and, therefore, are subject to fairly debatable standard of review; where reasonable persons could differ as to propriety of planning action, it should be affirmed”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applicable to comprehensive plan amendments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between Limonar Development, LLC and Miami-Dade County regarding comprehensive plan amendments. The specific factual detai…
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 De Novo Review Of Legal Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 120.68(7)(b),(8), Fla. Stat. (2018) (limiting court’s review of final agency action and requiring court to affirm unless it finds one
*Judge Bokor did not participate in oral argument.
of grounds listed therein); Nassau County v. Willis, 41 So. 3d 270, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding interpretation of comprehensive plan is question of law subject to de novo review); Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997) (holding amendments to local government’s comprehensive plan are legislative in nature and, therefore, are subject to fairly debatable standard of review; where reasonable persons could differ as to propriety of planning action, it should be affirmed); Campbell v. Dep’t. of Transp., 267 So. 3d 541, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding in appeal from final administrative action, court reviews agency’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by competent, substantial evidence in record).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin Cnty. v. Melvyn R. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997)
- Nassau Cnty. v. Lynwood G. Willis and Jane T. Willis, 41 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)