Laserfiche WebLink
The idea that local land-use decisions shouJd be consistent with an independently <br />adopted [ocaJ comprehensive pJan is a fundamenta[ concept of ptannin§ practice. <br /> <br />An increasing number of states have adopted <br />IegisJation requiring consistency between cer- <br />tain land-use regulations, such as zoning and <br />subdivision ordinances, and a local compre- <br />hensive ptan. Many states also have adapted <br />legis(ation that requires other decisions <br />(including sewer extensions, the creation of <br />tax increment finance districts or redevelop- <br />ment districts, etc.) to be consistent with a <br />comprehensive plan. In California, for exam- <br />pie, the State Office of Ptannin~ and Research <br />identifies 38 statuto~ or administrative code <br />provisions that require consistency between a <br />certain action and the comprehensive plan (or <br />"general plan" as defined under California <br />law). <br /> The state legislation that requires con- <br />sistency often uses terms such as "consistent <br />with," "in conformity with,' pt "not in conflict <br />with" interchangeabJy. However, the statutes <br />requiring consistency usually o/let Little guid* <br /> <br />plan. The state pJannin~ office also developed <br />the foflowin~ general rule for consistency <br />determinations, which the CaSfarnia courts <br /> <br /> More specific §uidance for how to apply <br /> the legisiative requirement for consistency is <br /> often left to the determination of the courts. <br /> This issue of Zoning P,actice explores <br /> <br />ing in CaEfomia, Maine It,.vo pioneers with <br />legislative requirements for zonin§/plannin§ <br />consistency since the early tgTos), Florida, <br />and Washington. <br /> What is striking is the re(ative paud~ of <br />reported court decisions in some states with <br />consistency requirements. However, states <br />such as California and Florida, which expressly <br />provide for citizen enforcement of consistency <br /> <br />can be important. A zonin~ ordinance that is <br />inconsistent with the comprehensive plan at <br /> <br />passed" as determined by Lasher Communi- <br />cations v. City of Walnut Creek, se Ca[. 3d <br />(t99o); see the similar conclusion in Price v. <br />Payette County Board of Commis$ioner~. <br />Idaho 4z6; 958 Rzd 583 (tR98). T~e following <br />are some ~eneraI niles developed by state <br />counts to ~uide consistency determinations. <br /> <br />148 ZONING <br /> <br /> <br />