Laserfiche WebLink
lands which are separated from community <br />regions or rural centers by the rural residential <br />land-use designation...." Community <br /> <br />by town in the county's plan. <br /> A final example is the Florida Court <br /> <br />Shidel, 795 $0. =d t9t (Fla, App. :~oot). The <br />case in Martin County involved a [36-unit <br />tifam[iy development proposal on es acres, <br />with a densiW of 6.5 units per acre. The Martin <br />County comprehensive plan designated the <br />area a5 "rnedium-densiW residential" with a <br /> <br />determined that the proposed deve~oprnent <br /> <br />sire plan. The adiacent land owners--and ulti- <br />rnatety the courts--disagreed. The adiacent <br />[and was developed at a density of o.9/~ units <br />per acre. The Martin Count,/comprehensive <br />plan had a Uedng poUcy to address how new <br />development would be added to existing sin- <br />glo-Family residential communities. The tiering <br />policy of the p(an required that the new devel- <br />oprnent include a transition zone equal in <br />depth to the first block of lots [n Ihe existin§ <br />development of "cornparabie density and <br />compatible density un(t types." The court <br /> <br />sistent with the county's comprehensive plan <br />because the two-story apartment buildin§s <br />were not "comparable and compatible" to the <br />existing 5in~{eJamily homes. Since the plan <br /> <br />not a discretiona~ guide. <br /> The nature of the policy (discretionary <br /> <br />tency determinations. Using "may" in cornpre- <br />hensNe plans can ~3rovide ~reater discretion <br />in consistency determinations whereas "shall" <br />can provide greater [esal wei§ht to the direc- <br />tive of the policy. <br /> <br />of OId Town v. Oirnou/as, 2oaz ME ~33. 803 <br />A.zd tot8. the Supreme Judida[ Court of <br /> <br />prehensive plan that it contended the rezoning <br />violated. The court noted that these provisions <br />did not prohibit commercial development. The <br />city also ar§ued that the absence of a state- <br />ment a~rmativel¥ allowing commercial deve[- <br />opment shouid be interpreted to mean that no <br />commercial deve(opment is permitted. The <br />court disagreed, citing general descriptive tan- <br />guage in the plan ~hat referenced cornrnercJa[ <br />activity in the area where the store was <br />located. <br /> Another example is No Oil, Inc. v. C/t/ of <br />LOS Angeles, t96 Cal. App. 3d ~23 (t988). [n <br />that case. the California Court of Appea(s <br />Found oil drilling to be consistent with the des- <br />ignation "open space For the mona§ed produc- <br /> <br />absence of specific contradictory tangua~'e in <br />oil drilling was not the "managed production" <br /> <br />150 ZONING . ~..o5 <br /> <br /> <br />