Evaluating a plan amendment, which test is most commonly used to assess reasonableness?

• A. Economic profitability of the amendment.
• B. Public support for the amendment.
• C. Consistency with the comprehensive plan and alignment with adopted goals and policies.
• D. Environmental impact statement length.

Answer: (C)

Reasonableness of a plan amendment is judged by its consistency with the comprehensive plan and alignment with adopted goals and policies. The comprehensive plan expresses the community’s long-range vision and policy directions—how land should be used, where growth should occur, protection of resources, infrastructure priorities, and general public welfare. An amendment is considered reasonable when it fits within that policy framework and advances the plan’s stated objectives, rather than contradicting them.

That alignment matters because it shows a rational connection to the community’s stated priorities. If an amendment supports goals like protecting open space, guiding orderly growth, or ensuring compatibility with neighboring land uses, it’s viewed as reasonable. If it drifts away from those policies without solid justification, it’s harder to defend as reasonable.

Other factors like economic profitability, public support, or the length of an environmental impact statement aren’t the primary test for reasonableness. They may matter in broader analysis or in the political process, but the core standard remains whether the amendment coherently aligns with the comprehensive plan and its adopted goals and policies.