## Facts

- A developer planned and built a multi-phase residential project on roughly 500 acres in Martin County, Florida, under the county’s comprehensive plan.
- Early phases (including Phase One) consisted of low-density single-family homes; Phase One was “Residential Estate” with a maximum of 2 units per acre.
- The comprehensive plan required that where single-family structures predominate, new development on undeveloped abutting land must include compatible structure types immediately adjacent to the single-family development.
- Phase Ten (about 21 acres abutting Phase One) was designated “Medium Density Residential” with a maximum of 8 units per acre.
- The county approved a revised site plan for Phase Ten allowing 19 two-story apartment buildings at about 6.5 units per acre, over homeowner objections that the design violated the plan’s compatibility requirement.
- A homeowner filed suit under Fla. Stat. § 163.3215 challenging the development order as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because it materially altered density or intensity of use.
- The circuit court found the development order inconsistent early in the litigation, but the developer continued construction and leasing; by final judgment many units were completed and occupied.
- The circuit court entered final judgment declaring the order inconsistent and issued injunctive relief requiring removal/demolition of the Phase Ten apartment buildings, without balancing comparative economic harms.
- Evidence indicated demolition would cost the developer about $3.3 million, while the homeowner’s alleged loss in property value if the apartments remained was about $26,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the development order approving Phase Ten’s apartment configuration was inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan compatibility requirement for abutting single-family areas.
2. Whether Fla. Stat. § 163.3215 authorizes injunctive relief requiring demolition/removal of completed (and occupied) buildings built under an inconsistent development order.
3. Whether the trial court was required to apply traditional equitable balancing of hardships before ordering demolition under § 163.3215.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The development order was properly found inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because the Phase Ten design failed to provide compatible structure types adjacent to the existing single-family development.
- Section 163.3215 authorized injunctive relief sufficient to remedy the inconsistency, including demolition/removal of the nonconforming buildings.
- The trial court was not required to conduct a traditional balancing of equities before granting injunctive relief in this statutory enforcement action.
- The developer’s continued construction and leasing during the litigation, despite an early inconsistency ruling, supported treating resulting losses as assumed risk.

## Legal Principles

- Development orders must be consistent with the governing comprehensive plan; courts in § 163.3215 actions independently assess plan consistency rather than deferring to local government approval.
- Under Fla. Stat. § 163.3215, when a development order that materially alters use, density, or intensity is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the court must grant injunctive or other appropriate relief.
- Injunctive relief under § 163.3215 may include removal or demolition of completed structures to restore compliance with the comprehensive plan.
- In the § 163.3215 context, a court may grant injunctive relief without applying traditional hardship balancing to excuse an established plan violation, particularly where the violator proceeded during ongoing litigation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a development order inconsistent with a comprehensive plan’s compatibility requirements could be invalidated under § 163.3215 and remedied through mandatory injunctive relief, including demolition of completed and occupied apartments, without traditional balancing of economic hardship where the developer built at its own risk during the challenge.


Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)