Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 25,-2011 Volume 5-I-No 1-0 <br />Residents had failed to meet all of the other factors that would indi- <br />cate they had a sufficient, definite interest to confer standing. Accord- <br />ingly, the court concluded that the Town failed to demonstrate that <br />the trial court's decision —finding the Residents lacked standing to <br />challenge the planning board's grant of the subdivision application to <br />GCI—was unsupported by evidence or legally erroneous. <br />See also: Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, <br />404 A.2d 294 (1979). <br />See also: Johnson v. Town of Wolfeboro Planning Bd., 157 N.H. <br />94, 945 A.2d 13 (2008). <br />Decisions Reviewable —Residents Challenge <br />City's Approval Of Developer's Plat <br />City and developer argue residents can not challenge plat <br />because it is not a "development order" <br />Citation: Graves v. City of Pompano Beach ex rel. City Com'n, <br />2011 WL 1376617 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2011) <br />FLORIDA (04/13/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether, <br />under Florida law, municipal approval of a plat can be challenged <br />as inconsistent with a city's comprehensive plan. <br />The Background/Facts: PPI, Inc. ("PPI") sought to expand an <br />existing racetrack and casino in the City of Pompano Beach (the <br />"City"). As required by the City's Land Development Code, PPI <br />first filed an application for a plat approval for the "Pompano Park <br />Racino" (the "Park"). The City approved the plat. <br />Thereafter, City residents (the "Residents") who lived around or <br />near the Park brought a legal action in court against the City and <br />PPI. The Residents challenged the approval of PPI's plat as inconsis- <br />tent with the City's comprehensive plan. <br />The trial court dismissed the Residents complaint. It found that a <br />plat approval was not a "development order" under the state stat- <br />ute that allowed challenges to consistency of a development order <br />with a comprehensive plan (Fla. Stat. % 163.3215(3)). <br />DECISION: Judgment of circuit court approved. <br />The District Court of Appeal of Florida agreed with the trial <br />court's conclusion. It upheld the dismissal of the Residents' corn - <br />plaint. It held that approval of PPI's plat was not a development or- <br />der that, under state statute, could be challenged by the Residents. <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />