1. Agricultural Land Preservation & Urban Sprawl

FLUE 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.5

• How does this rezoning avoid premature conversion of agricultural land in conflict with FLUE 1.4.1?
• Does this proposal constitute urban sprawl or rural fragmentation under FLUE 1.4.3?
• What evidence supports maintaining rural character as required by FLUE 1.4.5?

Legal Standard:

Under Martin County v. Yusem, the Board cannot approve a rezoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, even if there is other supporting testimony.

2. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses

FLUE 1.1.5, 1.1.6

• What competent, substantial evidence demonstrates compatibility with surrounding agricultural and residential uses?
• What mitigation measures ensure compliance with FLUE 1.1.6?

Legal Standard:

Under Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, generalized statements or opinions are not sufficient—approval must be based on objective evidence in the record.

3. Public Facilities & Concurrency

FLUE 2.2.1, 2.2.3

• Will roadway Level of Service standards be maintained?
• Are emergency services adequate to support this development?
• What enforceable mitigation is required if deficiencies exist?

Legal Standard:

A failure to demonstrate adequate infrastructure can result in a finding that the decision lacks competent, substantial evidence, making it legally vulnerable.

4. Environmental Protection

FLUE 1.5.1, 1.5.3

• What environmental studies support compliance with wetland and habitat protections?
• How will stormwater impacts be prevented from affecting adjacent properties?

Legal Standard:

Unsupported assurances or incomplete studies do not meet the evidentiary threshold required under quasi-judicial review.

5. Development Pattern & Spot Zoning Concerns

FLUE 1.1.2, 1.1.3

• Does this rezoning create an isolated or incompatible use?
• How does this proposal fit within an orderly development pattern?

Legal Standard:

Rezoning that benefits a single property while conflicting with surrounding uses may be challenged as arbitrary or spot zoning, particularly if not supported by substantial evidence.

6. Public Interest Requirement (LDC Chapter 34)

• What evidence demonstrates that this request serves a legitimate public interest?
• How does this rezoning provide a public benefit that outweighs impacts?

Legal Standard:

Under Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, the Board must base its decision on record evidence, not generalized claims of benefit.

Can staff identify, on the record, the competent, substantial evidence that demonstrates this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically FLUE Policies 1.4.1, 1.4.3, and 1.1.5?