Payne v. City of Miami

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a challenge to Miami's approval of a comprehensive-plan future land-use-map amendment allowing a residential condominium development on Miami River waterfront property. The court held that the administrative law judge failed to consider relevant policies in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and Miami River Master Plan and made material findings unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The court therefore reversed the agency decision, concluding that the amendment was inconsistent with the applicable planning documents.

Holdings

1. The Port of Miami River subelement was applicable to Riverside's property and Future Land Use Map amendment. The term 'Port of Miami River' was not limited to the fourteen shipping companies identified in the original 1989 plan; it encompassed the water-dependent and water-related marine activity and supporting industries along the Miami River.
2. The amendment was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Miami River Master Plan because it converted waterfront-industrial land reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses into a designation permitting residential development, resulting in an incompatible use and a loss of land available for the working waterfront.
3. The agency's material findings were unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, including findings concerning the property's location, neighborhood character, housing needs, economic effects, concurrency, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The ALJ materially erred by precluding the appellants from presenting evidence and argument concerning the amendment's inconsistency with the Port of Miami subelement and by failing to consider relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Miami River Master Plan.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ and Department erred by failing to consider the Port of Miami River subelement of the City's Comprehensive Plan in evaluating the Future Land Use Map amendment.
2. Whether the Future Land Use Map amendment was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Miami River Master Plan because it permitted a non-water-dependent residential use on land reserved for waterfront industrial purposes.
3. Whether the agency's material findings were unsupported by competent, substantial evidence.
4. Whether the proceedings were materially impaired when the ALJ precluded relevant evidence and argument concerning the amendment's inconsistency with the City's planning documents.

Disposition

reversed