Lazaro Aleman
news@greenepublishing.com
A bill currently working its way through the legislative process has the potential to open agricultural land in Florida to high-density cluster housing and multi-family apartments development, regardless of the local comprehensive plan.
Senate Bill 1118, sponsored by Republican Senator Stan McClain, relates to land use and development regulations. The bill proposes to amend parts of Section 125.022 of Florida Statutes.
Critics of the bill say it will allow all agricultural land in Florida to become high-density cluster housing and multi-family apartments.
The critics say that while the lack of housing poses a crisis in the state, SB-1118 goes too far and will allow high intensity development in rural counties such as Jefferson and Madison that lack the necessary public transportation, jobs, medical services and infrastructure and community public services to meet the demands that such growth would bring.
Opponents of the bill urge residents to contact Senator Corey Simon at (850) 487-5004 (Simon.Corey@flsenate.gov) and Representative Allison Tant at (850) 717-5009 (allison.tant@myfloridahouse.gov) and voice their opposition to the measure.
Among the several changes that the bill proposes, one appears arcane. This is that a county may not, as a condition of processing or issuing a development order, require an applicant to install a work of art, pay a fee for a work of art, or reimburse the county for any costs that a county may incur related to a work of art.
Beyond the statute’s stated purpose of wanting to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farmlands from duplicative regulation, the amendment adds the purpose of protecting the property rights of agricultural landowners.
The proposed language states that the owner of land defined as an agricultural enclave under Section 163.3164 may apply for administrative approval of a development regardless of the future land use map designation of the parcel or any conflicting comprehensive plan goals or objectives of policies, provided that the owner’s request includes land uses and densities and intensities of use that are consistent with the approved uses and densities and intensities of use of the industrial, commercial or residential areas that surround the parcel.
The bill deletes current language stating that the foregoing language may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. It states that each application for administrative approval, as opposed to a comprehensive plan amendment, that is larger than 700 acres must include appropriate new urbanism concepts such as clustering, mixed-use developments, the creation of rural village and city centers, and the transfer of development rights in order to discourage urban sprawl while protecting the landowner rights.
“A development authorized under this subsection must be treated as conforming use, notwithstanding the local government’s comprehensive plan, future land use designations or zoning,” states the proposed new language.
It further states that a development authorized under the new rule must be administratively approved within 120 days of the local government receipt of a complete application, and that no further action by the governing body of the local government will be required.
“A local government may not enact or enforce any regulation or law for an agricultural enclave that is more burdensome than for other types of applications for comparable densities or intensities of use,” states the amended language. “Notwithstanding the future land use designation of the agricultural enclave or whether it is included in an urban service district, a local government must approve the application if it otherwise complies with this subsection and proposes only single-family residential, community gather, and recreational uses at density that does not exceed the average density allowed by a future land use designation on any adjacent parcel that allows a density of at least one dwelling unit per acre.”
A local government, the bill states, must treat an agricultural enclave that is adjacent to an urban service district as if it were within the urban service district.
An agricultural enclave is defined as a parcel or parcels owned or controlled by a single person or entity; that has been in continuous use for bona fide agricultural purposes for a period of five years prior to the date of any comprehensive plan amendment or development application; and that is surrounded on at least 75 percent of the perimeter by a parcel or parcels that have existing industrial, commercial or residential development or property that the local government has somehow designated as land that is to be developed for industrial, commercial or residential purposes and 75 percent of which parcel or parcels are already in such uses.
Added to the definition by the new language, an agricultural enclave cannot exceed 700 acres and provided the acreage is surrounded on at least 50 percent of its perimeter by a parcel or parcels that the local government has designated for industrial commercial or residential development, among other factors.
Per the new language, the adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment must be done by ordinance via a majority vote of the governing body, and it requires a supermajority vote if the plan or amendment includes a future land-use category amendment for a parcel(s) less dense or intense, or that include restrictive or burdensome procedures regarding development.
“An owner of real property subject to a comprehensive plan amendment or a person applying for a comprehensive plan amendment that is not adopted by the local government or who is not provided the opportunity for a hearing within 180 days after the filing of the application may file a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, or other relief, which must be reviewed de novo,” states the bill. “The local government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the application is inconsistent with the local government’s comprehensive plan and that the existing comprehensive plan is in compliance and supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The court may not use a deferential standard for the benefit of the local government. Before initiating such an action, the owner or applicant may use the dispute resolution procedures.”
The proposed legislation also addresses annexations, municipalities, fuel terminals and recreational covenants, among other land-use related issues.