Case ID: so2d_696/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Metropolitan Dade and Marine Exhibition Corporation, Appellees.
    No. 96-2708.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 2, 1997.
    Weiss, Serota & Helfman and Joseph H. Serota and Daniel A. Weiss, Miami, for appellant.
    Karen Brodeen, Tallahassee, for the Department of Community Affairs.
    Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney and Craig H. Coller and Joni Armstrong Coffey, Assistant County Attorneys, for Metropolitan Dade County.
    Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Ro-sen & Quentel and Kerri L. Barsh, Miami, for Marine Exhibition Corporation.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
   SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The proposed amendment to the Master Plan approved by the County Commission to obviate Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So.2d 976 (Fla.1994) is invalid on its face because it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995) that any comprehensive plan or amendment include “specific standards for the density or intensity of use.” On this basis — whether or not the amendment complies with rules of the Department of Community Affairs, which to the extent that they permit non-compliance with the statutory requirement are themselves invalid, see § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Yarborough, 275 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973); Department of Natural Resources v. Wingfield Dev. Co., 581 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and pre-termitting discussion of the other objections to the amendment, at least some of which may also be very substantial — the Department erroneously declared the amendment “in compliance” under section 163.3184(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). Its decision to that effect is therefore reversed with directions to disapprove the amendment.