, J, iv xr.
4s" e~C3';' -
Q .3' ..
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND MANAGEMENT
Financial Assistance was provided by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation through
the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of,1972,
administered by the Federal Office of Coastal
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................... ................ ... ........ 1
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IN
AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN............................ 5
Overview of the Critical Area Program................... 5
Need for Administrative Enforcement.................... 7
Need for Additional Funds and Personnel
For Agency Monitoring in Critical Areas.............. 11
New Role for Resource Planning and
Management Committees............................... 16
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT PROGRAM.................................18
Overview of the DRI Process.............................18
Need for Administrative Enforcement
of the DRI Program.................................. 21
Need for Additional Funds and Personnel
For Agency Monitoring of Developments
of Regional Impact...................................23
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 380..................................26
Definition of Development..............................26
Limitation of Additional Regional Agency
FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
ADOPTION OF MINIMUM STATE STANDARDS TO
PROTECT COASTAL ISLANDS AND BEACHES........................30
In 1972, Florida moved to the forefront of "The Quiet
Revolution"1 in state growth management. Based on recommen-
dations from Governor Askew's Task Force on Resource Manage-
ment, the Florida Legislature enacted some of the most pro-
gressive environmental protection and growth management
programs in the nation, including Chapter 380, the Florida
Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972. Before
these statutes were enacted, the power to regulate land
development rested largely with local governments. The
opening section of the Land and Water Management Act announced
Florida's new direction in growth management. The Legislature
declared that to protect the welfare and quality of life of
Florida's citizens, the state must "establish land and water
management policies to guide and coordinate local decisions
relating to growth and development." Section 380.021, Florida
F. Bosselman & D. Callies, The Quite Revolution in Land
Use Control (1971). The phrase "quiet revolution" refers to
the emergence of state and regional involvement in regulating
land development in the late 60's, after a long period during
which only local governments controlled land use through
Statutes. The Land and Water Management Act took the first
steps to guide local decisions by creating a role for state
and regional agencies in certain well-defined land use
decisions that involve important state or regional interests:
developments of regional impact and areas of critical state
concern. Under these programs, local governments continued to
exercise primary authority over land use. The primary role of
local governments was affirmed in 1975 by the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act ("LGCPA"). The LGCPA was based on
the recommendations of the first Environmental Land Management
Study Committee to strengthen the planning and regulatory
processes of local governments.
Most recently, on September 29, 1981, the Florida Coastal
Management program was approved under the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. Florida's program is based on exist-
ing state laws that regulate development and protect coastal
resources. The program has made federal funds available to
implement Florida's coastal management program. In addition,
federal permitting and related activities are subject to
review for consistency with state laws and regulations.
These programs were tested during the 1970's when
Florida's population grew by 43%, an increase of approximately
3 million persons. Flordia's rapid population growth produced
intense pressure for urbanization. Development expanded into
prime agricultural lands and sprawling settlement patterns
required local governments to extend roads, sewer lines and
other public services at great cost. In addition, Florida's
environmentally sensitive barrier islands and coastal areas
were subject to intense development pressure. Today approxi-
mately 80% of Florida's population live in the coastal regions
of the state. Current projections show that the rapid growth
of the last ten years can be expected to continue through the
year 2000 and that Florida's coastal counties can be expected
to receive 82% of the population growth that will occur in the
In 1983, after Florida had accumulated ten years of
experience in the "quiet revolution", Governor Graham
appointed the second Environmental Land Management Study
Committee (ELMS II). Governor Graham asked the Committee to
review Florida's growth management legislation, including
Chapter 380, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act,
Florida's Coastal Management Program, and related programs to
determine whether the promise of Chapter 380, "to guide and
coordinate local decisions relative to growth and development"
has been achieved. The Governor appointed representatives of
the business community, the Florida Legislature, state,
regional and local government, and persons who have long been
involved in developing Florida's growth management laws. A
list of the Committee members is included in Appendix A.
At the ELMS Committee's organizational meeting in
December 1983, Governor Graham set out both short and long-
term objectives for the Committee. For the long term,
Governor Graham challenged the Committee to "develop a working
plan to guide growth and development in Florida over the next
ten years," and to work in cooperation with legislative
committees that share the same concerns. The Committee was
directed to make a final report to the Governor by February
Governor Graham asked the ELMS Committee to immediately
review the adequacy of the state's monitoring and enforcement
efforts under Chapter 380 and make recommendations for the
1983 legislative session. In response to the Governor's
charge, the Committee held meetings in January, 1983, in
Tallahassee; February, 1983, in Tampa; and March, 1983, in
Miami. The Committee reviewed current monitoring and enforce-
ment practices, the underlying statutory authority, and the
resources available for that task. In addition, the Committee
considered other limited issues, certain amendments to Chapter
380, funding for regional policy plans and coastal protection
standards. Summaries of the meetings are included in Appendix
D. The specific issues and the Committee's recommen-
dations are reviewed in detail in the body of the report.
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IN
AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
Overview of the Critical Area Program
Under the critical area program, the Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the Administration Commission, may designate an
area containing environmental resources of regional or
statewide importance as an "area of critical state concern".
There are presently three critical areas: the Big Cypress,
including approximately 800,000 acres of wetlands located in
Collier County adjacent to the Everglades National Park; the
Green Swamp, a major area of wetlands for recharge of the
Floridan aquifer in Lake and Polk Counties; and the Florida
Keys, the most recently designated and the only area to
include rapidly developing urban communities. A map depicting
these areas, and other areas under study for possible
designation is included in Appendix B.
Once an area is designated, the state land planning
agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), supervises
and approves local government planning and management of the
area consistent with principles for guiding development that
are adopted by the Administration Commission as part of the
designation process. The local government is allowed the
opportunity to establish land development regulations that
satisfy the State's concerns. If it fails, the Administration
Commission may adopt regulations prepared by DCA (subject to
legislative review) that "shall be administered by the local
government as part of, or in absence of, the local land
development regulations," Section 380.05(8), Florida
Although nearly all of Florida's local governments now
have local government comprehensive plans, in addition to land
development regulations, the critical area statute does not
provide for state review and approval of comprehensive plans
that affect critical areas. The Department of Community
Affairs recently recommended to the Governor and Cabinet that
the department review and approve the comprehensive plans of
all local governments in critical areas. At the request of
the Governor and Cabinet The ELMS Committee has reviewed the
proposal. The Committee has concluded that Chapters 380 and
163 should be amended to require DCA to review and approve
comprehensive plans affecting critical areas. However, the
statutes should also require final approval by the Governor
and Cabinet if DCA recommends amendments or proposes a new
local comprehensive plan.
The need for this legislation arises from the
"consistency" requirement of Chapter 163. The Act specifi-
cally provides that the comprehensive plan shall control the
content of land development regulations:
All land development regulations enacted or amended
shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive
plan or element or portion therof. Section
163.3194(1), Florida Statutes.
Given the primary role of the comprehensive plan, it is
appropriate that a comprehensive plan that affects a critical
area should be subject to review and amendment. However, a
plan should be reviewed in the same manner that local land
development regulations are now subject to review and amend-
ment under Chapter 380. If DCA proposes amendments, or has
drafted a new plan or plan element for a local government that
has not adopted a plan, the Administration Commission should
be the final approving authority.
In order for the principles for guiding development in an area
of critical state concern to be fully implemented, the ELMS
Committee recommends that Chapters 163 and 380, Florida
Statutes, be amended to require that local government compre-
hensive plans applicable to a designated area of critical
state concern be reviewed, and if necessary, amended in the
same manner and to the same extent that local land develop-
ment regulations are presently reviewed and amended under
Section 380.05, Florida Statutes.
Need For Administrative Enforcement in Critical Areas
Once local regulations are in place, the Department of
Community Affairs monitors the local government's management
of the critical area. If the Department finds inadequate
administration, it must go to Circuit Court and ask the court
to issue an injunction ordering corrective action:
If the state land planning agency determines that
the administration of the local land development
regulations within the area is inadequate to protect
the state or regional interest prior to the repeal
of the critical state concern designation pursuant
to subsection (15), the state land planning agency
may institute appropriate judicial proceedings, as
provided in s. 380.11, to compel proper enforcement
of the land development regulations. Section 380.05
Under current law, this is the only enforcement authority
granted to DCA. Unlike other agencies administering statewide
regulatory programs, DCA is not authorized to make an adminis-
trative determination under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes,
(the Administrative Procedure Act) that a violation has
occurred and order corrective action. Rather, DCA must
convince a court that a violation has occurred, and request
the court to order corrective action.
As an enforcement tool, a judicial action for an
injunction has serious limitations. Courts have historically
viewed injunctions as extraordinary remedies that should be
granted sparingly. The party seeking an injunction must meet
a heavy burden of proof. In a proceeding for a preliminary
injunction, for example, if there is dispute as to any
material fact the injunction is rarely granted. Not surpris-
ingly the Department has sought only two injunctions.
The modern trend in Florida and in other states is to
entrust the initial decision that a violation has occurred to
the agency charged with administering the law. A circuit
court may see very few cases involving Chapter 380. The
Department of Community Affairs interprets and administers
Chapter 380 on a daily basis. It is better prepared than a
circuit court to make consistent, statewide applications of
the law. Due process of law is guaranteed by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, Chapter 120, which includes a right to
review by a district court of appeal.
By contrast with DCA, the Department of Environmental
Regulation has statutory authority to make an administrative
determination that a violation of an applicable law or rule
has occurred, and order corrective action. Section 403.121,
Florida Statutes. DER has authority to serve a written Notice
of Violation which sets out the nature of the violation and
orders corrective action. The violator has the'opportunity to
request an administrative hearing, but if none is requested
the order becomes final and the agency may seek immediate
judicial enforcement pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida
The ELMS Committee concluded that the Department of Com-
munity Affairs should have a similar remedy, including
provision for penalties for violations of the critical area
(1) The Environmental Land Management Study Committee voted
unanimously to recommend that in addition to any other
remedies, the Department of Community Affairs should be
authorized to make an administrative determination, consistent
with Chapter 120, that a developer has violated a provision of
the critical area program of Chapter 380, regulations or
orders implementing the law, or a development order. The
Department of Community Affairs should be authorized to order
corrective action, to serve a stop-work order pending the
outcome of administrative proceedings, and to assess
penalties, including revocation of a development order for
(2) The administrative proceeding should include the
1) the agency may determine that a violation of
Chapter 380 or any agency rule, regulation,
order or of a development order has occurred;
2) the agency may serve a written notice of viola-
tion upon the violator, specifying the provision
of a law, rule, or order it alleges has been
3) the alleged violator may file a request for a
Section 120.57 hearing within twenty (20) days
of service of the notice of violation to con-
test the agency's finding that a violation has
occurred. Failure to request a hearing would
constitute a waiver of the right to an adminis-
4) the agency could seek enforcement of its order
in circuit court pursuant to Section 120.69:
(a) after a hearing resulting in a finding of a
(b) after the right to a hearing on the notice
of violation was waived.
Need for Additional Funds and Personnel
for Agency Monitoring in Critical Areas
A review of Florida's critical areas shows striking
differences in the effectiveness of state supervision. The
State's efforts to monitor the first two critical areas, Big
Cypress and Green Swamp, have been sufficient because these
areas encompass largely undeveloped wetlands that are not sub-
ject to strong development pressure. The local governments in
these areas have become increasingly cooperative in enforcing
critical area regulations. Other state and federal regulatory
agencies also share a strong interest in controlling growth in
these largely wetland areas. The Florida Keys, however,
include a rapidly developing urban area in which the resources
the state seeks to protect are some of the factors that
strongly attract growth to the area. This was the state's
first effort to regulate an area subject to strong growth
pressure. The state's monitoring program in the Keys proved
inadequate to disclose numerous instances of inadequate
administration by local governments.
Overall the Bureau'a monitoring and enforcement efforts in
all critical areas have been limited by inadequate funding and
staff resources. Monitoring of Critical Areas is carried out
by the Critical Area section of the Bureau of Land and Water
Management. The Section is staffed by seven professional
planners, all of whom are located in Tallahassee. At the time
the ELMS Committee reviewed monitoring and enforcement in
critical areas DCA was proposing to open an office in the
Florida Keys. Subsequently, on March 14, 1983, DCA opened an
office in the Keys staffed by a full time Environmental
Specialist II. Three of the seven planners devote their time
to supporting Resource Planning and Management Committees.2
The remaining four planners divide responsibility for the
three Areas of Critical State Concern: Big Cypress, Green
Swamp, and the Florida Keys. Two of the planners are engaged
in intensive monitoring in the Florida Keys. DCA is now pro-
secuting four appeals of development orders from the Keys and
is assisting Monroe County in drafting revisions to the County
The other planners, with offices in Tallahassee,
subscribe to newspapers and other publications from their
assigned areas and keep in contact with the personnel of
regional planning councils, water management districts, DER
district offices and other local offices. They also
periodically visit their assigned areas when travel funds are
available. Planners also review all applications for
development permits that are forwarded from the local
governments. Due to limitations on travel funds, however,
they cannot regularly visit the areas to confirm the accuracy
These Committees are established pursuant to Section
380.045 to establish a volunteer growth management program in
an area being considered for designation as a critical area.
The Committees are composed of an elected official and a
planning official from each local government and representa-
tives from other agencies.
of these development plans and development orders, or to
observe the actions of the local government. In addition, DCA
has one attorney available for all legal functions in the DRI
and Critical Area programs. DCA needs additional staff,
including attorneys, and funding for enforcement actions to
improve its enforcement capability.
The ELMS Committee unanimously recommends that funds be bud-
geted to support additional staff and travel funds for the
Critical Area Section of the Division of Local Resource
Management of the Department of Community Affairs, and to
allow the Department to establish a field office in each
critical area to monitor local government administration and
developers' compliance with development orders.
For the 1983 legislative session, the Committee also made
a number of specific budget recommendations. These recommen-
dations were fowarded to Governor Graham in February, 1983,
for timely consideration in the budget process and are not
The Florida Keys Areas of Critical State Concern was
designated on April 15, 1975. The area was redesignated in
1979 as a result of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in
Askew v. Cross Key Waterways.3 It consists of unincor-
porated areas of Monroe County and four municipalities.
The designation was initially reported to be successful.
In March, 1976, the Governor and Cabinet adopted ordinances
prepared by the local governments with the assistance of the
Division of State Planning and a private consultant. In its
1975-76 Annual Progress Report, the DSP reported that twenty
development orders had been reviewed and one order was on
3372 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1978)
appeal. In the 1978-79 Annual Report, the DSP reported that
management of the critical area was successfully continuing as
a "cooperative, intergovernmental effort." Since then,
however, the deficiencies of the Florida Keys Critical Area
have been revealed in three in-depth studies. These studies
were conducted by the Florida Keys Resource Planning and
Management Committee, the South Florida Regional Planning
Council, and the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban
Problems of Florida Atlantic University and Florida
International University. These reports all confirm
inadequate administration of land development regulations,
including regulations adopted by the local governments to
satisfy the Critical Area requirements. These include
instances of zoning changes or "special exceptions" granted in
situations that clearly violate local regulations and compre-
hensive plans, and approval of major developments without
adequate assessment of development impacts. Until recently,
however, no enforcement action was taken.
One report summarizes the situation in the Keys as
"In conclusion, the ability of the Department of
Community Affairs and its various Bureaus to effectu-
ate critical area policy has been hindered for
several reason, including: (a) the intractability of
the problem itself; (b) inadequate funding which may
translate into insufficient staff resources and/or
ineffective application of those resources; (c) the
failure to utilize the regional planning council in
the monitoring and enforcement process and (d) an
apparent unwillingness to "blow the whistle" on local
governments or developments in the face of now
thoroughly documented failures of Keys' local govern-
ments and developers to conform to the critical area
principles for guiding development."
As noted above, the Department of Community Affairs is
presently increasing its monitoring efforts in the Florida
Keys. On March 14, 1983, the department opened an office in
the Keys staffed by a full-time Environmental Specialist II.
DCA is also prosecuting four appeals of development orders from
The assessments of the critical area program in the Florida
Keys confirm that long term protection of a critical area
subject to strong urban growth pressure requires detailed land
use plan development as well as intensive monitoring and
enforcement. Land Development regulations enacted in the Keys
to satisfy critical area requirements do not contain sufficient
enforceable standards to protect critical resources. In addi-
tion to the recommended increase in funding and personnel set
out above, the Committee makes the following recommendation in
regard to Monroe County.
The Committee unanimously recommends that the state land plan-
ning agency be directed to prepare all components of a compre-
hensive plan for Monroe County that are not now satisfactorily
completed. The cost of this effort should be deducted from
Monroe County's state revenue sharing funds in compliance with
the procedures in Chapter 380. However, if in the period of
time before the funds are needed, the County shows ample
progress in improving its own plan in compliance with state
law, the monies may be reallocated for other purposes.
4Florida Keys Critical Areas Designation Impact Analysis
Prepared by the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and
Urban Problems, pg. 192.
New Role for Resource Planning and Management Committees
Resource Planning and Management Committees may fill the
need for more extensive monitoring in critical areas. In the
first three critical areas local governments were initially
uncooperative and even antagonistic when the state adopted
regulations for the critical area. Recently, however,
cooperative relationships have evolved when state agencies and
local governments worked together on Resource Planning and
Management Committees to organize voluntary growth management
Resource Planning and Management Committees have been
formed pursuant to section 380.045, Florida Statutes, in areas
under study for designation as areas of critical state
concern. A map showing these areas is included in Appendix B.
The Committee's role is to organize a voluntary growth manage-
ment program that will make designation and state supervision
unnecessary. The Charlotte Harbor Committee completed a vol-
untary resource management plan that has been incorporated into
the comprehensive plans of the participating local govern-
ments. The Committee is monitoring the implementation of the
plan. The Suwanee River Basin Committee drafted a model flood
plain ordinance that has been adopted by all eleven affected
counties. The Hutchinson Island Committee was established in
1982 and is developing a voluntary resource management plan.
Resource Planning and Management Committees have also been
established by statute in the Florida Keys and in the Green
Swamp. In the Florida Keys, Governor Graham charged the
Resource Planning and Management Committee to review
government regulations and the manner in which Monroe County
and the four Keys municipalities have implemented their land
use regulations. The Keys Committee has effectively performed
that task, and is currently evaluating the City of Key West
for possible redesignation.
(1) Resource Planning and Management Committees have shown
the capability to play a more important role in critical area
administration. The ELMS Committee unanimously recommends
that Resource Planning and Management Committees provide
continuing monitoring functions in designated areas of criti-
cal state concern, which functions should include, but not be
limited to the following:
A. review and comment upon the consistency of
local government actions with critical
B. review and comment upon the effectiveness of
local government monitoring of all develop-
ment order conditions;
C. offer recommendations for improved monitor-
ing and enforcement procedures, and,
D. offer recommendations for new or amended
critical area regulations.
(2) The Committee unanimously recommends that in those cases
where a Resource Planning and Management Committee studies an
area proposed for designation as an area of critical state
concern, and recommends a series of policies, regulations and
standards that are then adopted by the local governments so
that no formal critical area designation is necessary, the
Resource Planning and Management Committee should recommend a
plan for state and local monitoring and enforcement of those
regulations to assure that all goals are reached. This
recommendation should be implemented immediately.
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT PROGRAM
Overview of the DRI Process
The Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program, set out
in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, provides a process for in-
depth review by one of Florida's eleven Regional Planning
Councils of developments that will have multi-county impacts.
Rules adopted by the Administration Commission and approved by
the legislature identify projects that are presumed to be
developments of regional impact based on the type and size of
the project. For example, shopping centers that will occupy
more than forty acres of land or 400,000 square feet of gross
floor area, or will provide parking for more than 2500 cars are
presumed to be developments of regional impact. The rules
provide similar standards for other categories of development.5
A summary of DRI's by category is provided in Appendix C.
Under the present interpretation of the statute, the DRI
Chapter 27F-2, Florida Administrative Code, contains
standards for airports, attraction and recreation facilities,
electrical generating facilities and industrial parks, mining
operations, office parks, petroleum storage facilities, port
facilities, residential developments, schools, and shopping
centers. The threshold for residential development varies
according to the population of the county where the development
rules do not determine whether a project is a DRI. If a pro-
ject exceeds the thresholds it is presumed to be a DRI. The
presumption can be confirmed or overcome only when the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs reviews the project and evaluates
potential multi-county impacts. DCA may find that a project
that is below the numerical threshold will have multi-county
impacts, and therefore is a DRI. Conversely, DCA may determine
that a project that is above the threshold is not a DRI.
This preliminary project review by the Department of Com-
munity Affairs is know as "binding letter" review. The steps
in binding letter review are set out in Appendix D. The
statute does not require binding letter review, even if the
development is over the presumptive threshold. The statute
allows the developer to request a binding letter if he is in
doubt as to whether his project is a DRI, or as to whether his
right to develop is "vested" under the statute.
If a project is determined to be a DRI, or the developer
treats his project as a DRI without binding letter review, the
developer must submit an Application for Development Approval
on a form prescribed by the Department of Community Affairs to
the local government, the regional planning council, and to the
state. The statute provides specialized procedures for an
optional, coordinated review for projects to be developed over
an extended period of time, and for an areawide downtown
development DRI. The regional agency reviews the project
within time periods prescribed by the statute (see Chart in
Appendix C) and submits to the local government a report and
recommendations on the regional impacts of the proposed
development. The local government is required to consider the
recommendations of the regional planning council in determining
whether to approve or deny a development order. Within 45 days
after the local government reaches its decision, the state land
planning agency, the regional planning agency, or the owner or
developer of the property affected, may appeal the decision to
the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Florida Land and Water
The Department of Community Affairs is charged by statute
to exercise general supervision of the administration and
enforcement of the DRI process. However, the Department has
not been provided sufficient resources, in terms of personnel
and funds, or the statutory authority needed for effective
state-wide monitoring and enforcement.
Need for Administrative Enforcement of the DRI Program
As noted earlier in the discussion of the critical area
program, DCA must bring an action for injunctive relief in
circuit court to redress any violation of Chapter 380, or the
rules and orders issued to implement the Act. DCA is not
authorized to make an administrative determination that a
violation has occurred and order corrective action. The dis-
cussion of the limitations of injunctive relief set out at
pages 7-10 in the proceeding section of this report applies
equally to the development of regional impact process. The
ELMS Committee recommends that DCA be authorized to use an
administration remedy. However, pending its further review of
the DRI process, the Committee recommends that the Department's
administrative remedy should be limited to allow a finding that
a violation has occurred, subject to the opportunity for an
administrative hearing, and to allow enforcement of a final
agency order through a circuit court injunction proceeding.
Amend Section 380.11, Florida Statutes, to authorize the
Department of Community Affairs to make an administrative
determination that a developer has violated a provision of
Chapter 380 relating to a development of regional impact,
regulations or orders implementing the law, or a development
order. The procedure should allow the following steps:
1. The agency may determine that a violation of
Chapter 380 or any agency rule, order, or
development of regional impact development order
2. The agency may serve a written notice of
violation upon the violator, specifying the
provision of the law, rule, or order, that is
alleged to have been violated.
3. The alleged violator may file a request for a
Section 120.57 hearing within 20 days of service
of the notice of violation to contest the
agency's finding that a violation has occurred.
Failure to request a hearing would constitute a
waiver of the right to seek an administrative
4. The agency may seek enforcement of its final
order by injunction in circuit court: (a) after
a hearing resulting in a finding of a violation,
or (b) after the right to a hearing on the
Notice of Violation was waived.
The vote on this issue was 7 in favor and 6 opposed. The
Committee agreed to further consider administrative penalties,
standing, and attorney's fees in later meetings.
Need for Additional Funds and Personnel to Improve
Agency Monitoring of Developments of Regional Impact
The Department of Community Affairs has not developed an
effective administrative program for monitoring the activity of
developers or local governments in the DRI program. The prob-
lem arises because of the structure of the DRI program and
DCA's lack of resources. Chapter 380 does not require a
developer to apply to the department for a binding letter, or
to submit an Application for Development Approval. The
developer may proceed at the risk of being enjoined by the
Department to confirm the development's status. Reportedly,
some local governments and regional planning councils regularly
advise DCA of projects that may be DRI's. In addition, some
local governments and other permitting agencies refuse to issue
permits until developers obtain a binding letter or complete
DRI review. Otherwise, however, the Department relies upon
monitoring by agency planners from Tallahassee.
The DRI section of the Bureau of Land and Water Management
is staffed by six planners who share responsibility for all
DRI functions. The planners spend 60 to 70% of their time
processing requests for binding letters. Chapter 380 requires
that the state respond to an application for a binding letter
within 30 days of receipt of a completed application. The
planners spend most of their remaining time reviewing develop-
ment orders to determine whether DCA should appeal the order to
the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Pursuant to
Section 380.07, the appeal decision must be made within 45 days
after the development order is rendered.
If a planner discovers a project that may be a DRI, he or
she sends a "monitoring letter" to inform the owner or
developer that a project may require DRI review. In some
instances, developers voluntarily come forward upon receipt of
the monitoring letter to request a binding letter or submit an
Application for Development Approval. However, the DCA has no
authority to require a developer to submit an application.
As noted above, DCA presently has no authority for
enforcement other than through a judicial proceeding for an
injunction. The Bureau presently has only one attorney avail-
able to perform all necessary legal work, including appeals
from development orders. With this staff limitation, is is
clearly impossible for DCA to make effective use of injunc-
tions for enforcement.
Before 1980, the Act did not provide for monitoring
projects for which a development order had been issued to
assure compliance with conditions of the order, or to assure
land in each instance. Many activities are presently regulated
under Chapter 380 that do not require dividing land into three
or more parcels. For example, shopping centers, office parks
and airports are classified as "developments presumed to be of
regional impact" under Chapter 27F-2 of the Rules of the Depar-
ment of Community Affairs.
In a recent opinion, however, the Florida Fifth District
Court of Appeal reviewed the statutory definition and held that
"a better reading of the definition is that the division of
three or more is fundamental to the finding of a develop-
ment". Seminole County v. Mertz, 415 So. 2d 1286, 1290 (Fla.
5th DCA 1982). The implication of this decision is that many
projects that are now regularly reviewed by the DCA could be
excluded from DCA's jurisdiction.
The ELMS Committee recommends that Chapter 380 be amended to
make it clear that a development need not include dividing land
into three or more parcels. The Committee reviewed Senate Bill
266 by Senator Jennings, amending Section 380.064(1), and
substantially concurred with the language of the bill. The
full text of the recommendation as re-stated by the Committee
is as follows:
"Development" means the carrying out of any
building activity or mining operation, eo
the making of any material change in the
use or appearance of any structure or land,
or and the dividing of land into three or
Limitation of Additional Regional
The ELMS Committee also considered an amendment to Section
380.06(9) to limit the scope of subsequent regional planning
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 380
For its short term agenda the Environmental Land Management
Study Committee considered two proposed amendments to Chapter
380 that deserve immediate consideration. These amendments
concern the definition of the term "development" and the
requirement for a developer to furnish additional information
to a regional agency after submitting an application for
Definition of Development
The term "development" is broadly defined in Section
380.04(1) as follows:
"Development" means the carrying out of any building
or mining operation or the making of any material
change in the use or appearance of any structure or
land and the dividing of land into three or more
The use of the word "and" at the end of the definition
makes it possible to read the statute to require that there be
a division of land into three or more parcels, in addition to
any other activity, before a project can be considered a
development within the meaning of Chapter 380. Until recently,
the statute has not been interpreted as requiring a division of
council requests for additional information after an initial
request for information. The regional council should only be
allowed to request information needed to clarify information
already provided. In addition, an applicant should be
required to provide requested information within a specified
time. The ELMS committee unanimously agreed to recommend the
Subsection 380.06(9)(b) Florida Statutes should be amended to
read as follows: If a regional planning agency determines
that the application for development approval is insufficient
for the agency to discharge its responsibilities under subsec-
tion (11), it shall provide in writing to the appropriate
local government and the applicant a statement of any addi-
tional information desired within 30 days of the receipt of
the application by the regional planning agency. The appli-
cant may supply the information requested by the regional
planning agency and shall communicate its intention to do so
in writing to the appropriate local government and the
regional planning agency within 5 working days of the receipt
of the statement requesting such information, or the applicant
shall notify the appropriate local government and the regional
planning agency in writing that the requested information will
not be supplied. Within 30 days after receipt of such
additional information, the regional planning agency shall
review it and may request only that information needed to
clarify such additional information or to answer new questions
raised by or directly related to such additional information.
If an applicant does not provide the information requested by
a regional planning agency within 120 days of its request, or
within a time agreed upon by the applicant and the regional
planning agency, then the application for development approval
shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL POLICY PLANS
The ELMS Committee reviewed Governor Graham's current
budget request for funds to support the development of
regional policy plans. The Legislature amended Chapter
160, Florida Statutes, in 1980 to require preparation of
regional policy plans by Florida's eleven Regional Plan-
ning Councils. However, no funds have been appropriated
to support the development of plans. Governor Graham's
current budget recommendations include funds for the first
two years (FY 83-84 and FY 84-85) of a three-year program
for development of regional policy plans.
The ELMS Committee supports the concept of regional
planning. The Committee feels, however, that regional
plans should reflect overall state policy plans and
The Committee voted to support the Governor's budget request
for funds to support the development of regional plans, con-
tingent upon the adoption of approved state policy plans and
guidelines which will be the source for review, approval,
adoption and modification of regional policy plans. The vote
on this issue was 14 in favor and 1 opposed.
ADOPTION OF MINIMUM STATE STANDARDS
TO PROTECT COASTAL ISLANDS AND BEACHES
The ELMS Committee was advised that the Coastal Barriers
Subcommittee of the Coastal Management Citizen's Advisory
Committee is presently drafting proposed development standards
for coastal barrier islands, beaches, dunes and coastal wet-
lands to establish by statute a set of minimum statewide
development standards for sensitive coastal areas. The stan-
dards are intended to be enacted by the legislature for imple-
mentation by local governments in their building codes and in
local government comprehensive plans.
Chapter 163 presently provides that the state and other
government agencies shall review and comment on proposed local
government comprehensive plans, but the Act does not require
that any agency approve a local government plan. The ELMS
Committee unanimously adopted a recommendation to place on its
long term agenda an amendment to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
to provide for state.approval of elements or portions of
elements of comprehensive land use plans that affect areas or
resources identified as of special value to the public, and
that are subject to established minimum state standards, such
as the coastal standards described above.
For the present, the Committee unanimously agreed to
express its support for, and urge the continuation of, the
Select Committee on Growth Management and the House and Senate
Natural Resources Committees' efforts to explore ways in which
reasonable standards may be considered and adopted to protect
the state's interest in coastal islands and beaches.
The ELMS Committee has heard presentations by persons
experienced in Florida's growth management programs from the
private sector and all levels of government. In addition,
members of the ELMS Committee have added their comments based
on personal experience. The information presented raises
questions about whether these programs can fulfill the promise
of Chapter 380, "to guide and coordinate local decisions
relating to growth and development". The Committee has
reached a consensus on the following conclusion: the lack of
overall policy guidance and coordination at the state and
regional level hampers the effectiveness of Florida's growth
This concern has prompted the ELMS Committee to broaden its
focus. In the coming months, the Committee will consider an
integrated policy framework for planning and growth management
in Florida at the state, regional and local level. The Com-
mittee will consider whether land and water management and
planning can be integrated, how the functions of state agen-
cies related to growth management and protection of coastal
resources can be integrated, and what the role of the state
land planning agency should be. The Committee will then
return to Chapter 380, review its goals and purposes within
the desirable state-wide planning and regulatory framework,
and consider specific issues such as: changes to the
guidelines and standards, methods to add incentives to undergo
DRI review and ways to achieve a coordinated review process,
integrating DRI and other permitting processes.
The Elms Committee's final report on these issues will be
submitted to Governor Graham in February 1984.
- Members of the Environmental
Land Management Study Committee
- Map Depicting
Designated Areas of Critical State
Concern and Areas Under Study for
- Binding Letter Process
DRI Process Flow Chart
Actions Taken on DRI's By
DRI's By Type
S Summaries of ELMS Committee
The members of the ELMS Committee include:
Robert M. Rhodes, (Chairman) of Tallahassee,
an attorney specializing in land use, envi-
ronmental and administrative law with the
firm of Messer, Rhodes & Vickers.
Jean Beem, of Tampa, former Director of the
Hillsborogh County Extension Office.
Jack Chambers, of Plantation, President of
Gulfstream Development Corporation.
John M. DeGrove, Ph.D., of Boca Raton, newly
appointed Secretary of the Department of
Community Affairs; Vice-chair of the South
Florida Water Management District.
Honorable Edgar M. Dunn, Jr., of Daytona
Beach, Senator, District 10; former General
Counsel to Governor Askew.
Alan S. Gold, of Miami, an attorney special-
izing in environmental litigation with the
firm of Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman,
Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, P.A.; member of
the Overall Economic Development Program
Honorable Porter J. Goss, of Sanibel, acting
Commissioner of Lee County; former Mayor of
Honorable Bill Gunter, of Tallahassee, State
Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer.
John H. Hankinson, Jr., of Tallahassee, attorney
and Director of Florida Defenders of the Environ-
ment's Environmental Service Center.
Joan M. Heggen, of Tallahassee, former Secretary
of the Department of Community Affairs from
January, 1979 to March, 1983.
Stanley W. Hole, of Naples, engineer with the
firm of Hole, Montes & Associates; Chairman of
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council;
South Florida Water Management District Board
Wade L. Hopping, of Tallahassee, attorney special-
izing in administrative, governmental and environ-
mental law with the firm of Hopping Boyd Green & Sams.
Honorable Ray Liberti, of West Palm Beach, Represen-
tative, 82nd District, Chairman of the House Select
Committee on Growth Management and the House Advisory
Committee on the Future.
Bobby F. McKown, of Lakeland, Executive Vice President
of Florida Citrus Mutual.
Honorable Jon Mills, of Gainesville, Representative,
24th District, Chairman of the House Natural Resources
Honorable Patrick K. Neal, of Bradenton, Senator,
24th District, Chairman of the Senate Natural
Robert L. Parks, of Miami, attorney specializing in
civil litigation with the firm of Podhurst, Orseck,
Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A.; Chair-
man of the Environmental Regulation Commission.
Honorable Nathaniel P. Reed, of Hobe Sound, Executive
Vice President of Hobe Sound Company; former Assistant
Secretary of the Interior, Fish, Wildlife & Parks;
member of the South Florida Water Management District.
Sam Shannon, of Stuart, Executive Director of Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council; former Chairman of
the Florida Regional Councils Association.
Honorable Gerald F. Thompson, of Ft. Lauderdale,
Broward County Commissioner; President of the
State Association of County Commissioners.
Robert C. Apgar, Executive Director
Lynne Willson, Staff Assistant
DESIGNATED AREAS OF
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
1 Big Cypress
2 Green Swamp
3 Florida Keys
RESOURCE PLANNING AND
4 Charlotte Harbor. Area
5 .,Suwannee River Basin.
__ __ _~__IL
BI;IDI:!G LETTER OF DRI STATUS
information from the
developer or notice
by developer that no
will be provided.
by RPA, local govern
aent. and DVCA and
notified in the
ICGUI.AR nevEU DPHBENrs P r GI(ONAL IMPACT (DRI)
5 uork days maximum
RPA and Dept. of
ACTION TAKEN ON D.R.I.'s BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
(as of June 30,1981)
, FY 73-74
FY 74-75 FY 75-76
I t 3 Total 7 I
I total ii
light Year Toteal*
S Does not include DRlI' that were
* iithdrawn, 90 day notice expired
"..'.i. are'no longer DRlIs.
DR.I's BY TYPE
(as of June 30,1981)
FIRST MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND MANAGEMENT
December 1, 1982
The first meeting of the ELMS Committee convened on
December 1, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. at the Florida State Conference
Center in Tallahassee, Florida. The following members attended:
Robert M. Rhodes (Chairman), Jean Beem, Jack Chambers, John M.
DeGrove, Edgar M. Dunn, Jr., Alan S. Gold, Porter J. Goss, John
H. Hankinson, Jr., Joan M. Heggen, Stanley W. Hole, Wade L.
Hopping, Robert L. Parks, Nathaniel P. Reed, Sam Shannon and
Gerald F. Thompson.
Address by Michael C. Garretson
The first speaker to address the Committee was Michael
C. Garretson, Director, Division of Local Resource Management.
Mr. Garretson recommended that the Committee do the following:
(1) Clarify the role of the State Land Planning Agency.
The Department of Community Affairs is the desig-
nated State Land Planning Agency, but in 1979
responsibility for planning was shifted to the
Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting.
Florida does not yet have a policy framework to
guide growth management at the state or regional
(2) Revise the "binding letter" process. It has become
an extensive, cumbersome process, characterized as
a "mini-DRI." Thresholds could be set on a regional
basis. Hotels and oil well fields might be added
and agricultural impacts must be considered. DCA
has noted a need to allow participation by affected
adjacent local governments.
(3) Recommend amendments to the Local Government Comp-
rehensive Planning Act (LGCPA) to improve the quality
of plans. DCA has no rulemaking authority to set
standards for comprehensive plans. Recommend changes
to improve enforcement of plans. Almost all local
governments now have plans and they will soon come
due for 5 year review. Coordinate planning with
December 1, 1982
(4) Improve the enforcement provisions of Chapter
(5) Recommend increased funding for State and
regional agencies. DCA has 6 planners reviewing
DRI's and one planner reviewing local government
comprehensive plans. Less than 4% of the State
budget goes to DER, DNR and DCA.
(6) Formulate a clear statement of the purpose of
Address by Fred P. Bosselman
The second speaker, Fred P. Bosselman, advised the
Committee that the drafters of 380 were addressing the
(1) That a development could have substantial impacts
beyond the Loundaries of the local government that
regulated the development.
(2) That regulators and developers were not reviewing
the right issues.
(3) That the process should allow all affected interest
groups to have some "clout" in the permitting
(4) That significant, sensitive areas or areas with
unique characteristics should be treated differ-
Mr. Bosselman advised that other states with "critical
area" or similar designations have found that the process does
not work without a local supervisory authority with jurisdic-
tion over the entire area.
He further stated that the drafters anticipated that
the binding letter process might become a "mini-DRI" review
and, in his opinion, such a process does not benefit anyone.
The standards used to determine whether a project is a DRI
should be more certain and predictable.
He indicated 380 has been successful. Development in
Florida is of much better quality than it was 10 years ago.
Experience in all states confirms that government
regulation is necessary to enforce minimum planning standards.
December 1, 1982
Address by Allan Milledge
The third speaker, Allan Milledge, told the Committee
that Chapter 380 was intended to be a "value neutral" process.
The Act was part of a "package" that included legislation re-
quiringa statewide comprehensive plan, establishing Water
Management Districts and establishing a program for the pur-
chase of environmentally sensitive lands.
Mr. Milledge stated that the most improtant aspect
of Chapter 380 is that it vests the Governor and Cabinet with
power to make final land use decisions.
Mr. Milledge recommended that the ELMS Committee do
(1) Determine whether an appropriate DRI review can
be made at less expense.
(2) Review the role of regional agencies; these agencies
have not been adequately funded and have not devel-
oped the capability to deal with regional problems.
(3) Do not spend time refining the guidelines and
standards that.are based on magnitude; experience
has shown some to be irrelevant, e.g., hospitals
and post secondary schools, and that others should
be added, e.g., hotels and prisons. Add standards
that consider the location and character, as well
as the magnitude, of development.
(4) Clarify the critical area program to make it use-
able for more discrete, sensitive areas. Address
the lack of funding for enforcement.
(5) Evlauate the effect of the LGCPA: The first ELMS
Committee proposed the LGCPA in response to the
lack of growth controls in many areas of the state.
Its impact should be investigated.
Questions for Speakers
During a question period after their presentations, the
speakers listed the foll-wing as primary issues for the Committee's
(1) Enforcement and monitoring of the DRI and Critical
December 1, 1982
(2) Role and funding of regional agencies.
(3) Evaluation of the LGCPA.
(4) Effectiveness of the Critical Area process.
(5) Establishment of State and regional growth
Address by Governor Bob Graham
Governor Graham recalled the background of the enact-
ment of Chapter 380 in 1972. He stated that the growth Florida
has experienced confirms the need for continued state overview
of development. He asked the Committee to view its role broadly
and to review growth management policies at every level to develop
a "working plan" for the next ten years in Florida.
In the short term, for the 1983 legislative session,
Governor Graham directed the Committee to review the adequacy
of State resources devoted to monitoring and enforcement.
For the long term, Governor Graham asked the Committee
to concentrate on coordination and long term policy guidance
in growth management programs; to seek programs that will pro-
tect the environment without unnecessary expense or delay; and
to deal with diverse, but interrelated problems of growth manage-
Letter from Commissioner Gunter
Chairman Bob Rhodes presented a letter to the Committee
from Comrnissioner Gunter, who was unable to attend, expressing
his concerns and suggestions for the Committee agenda. A copy
of the letter is attached.
Short Term Agenda
Staff was directed to prepare an in-depth review of the
monitoring and enforcement efforts in Areas of Critical State
Concern and in regard to DRI's. The report will include a dis-
cussion of what enforcement tools are available and the resources
allocated for enforcement.
December 1, 1982
Other proposed short term issues include:
1. Amending the definition of development in Section
380.04(1) to make it clear that a development
need not include "the dividing of land into three
or more parcels."
2. Desirability of including hotel, motel and interval-
ownership facilities in the definition of residen-
3. Desirability of a statutory amendment to allow
Regional Planning Councils to participate in the
binding letter process and other phases of DRI
4. Review of funding of Regional Planning Councils.
5. Review of funding for the development of Compre-
hensive Regional Policy Plans under Chapter 160.
Long Term Agenda Issues
Issues raised by Committee members for further discus-
sion at the January 24-25 meeting are:
1. Desirability of establishing integrated state,
regional and local growth management policies,
including urban and agricultural uses.
2. Review the concept and function of the developments
of regional impact.
a. Review definition of DRI.
b. Should the term DRI be redefined in terms of
multi-jurisdictional rather than multi-county
c. Should "sub-threshold" cumulative impacts be
addressed in DRI review?
3. Review DRI guidelines and standards.
a. Develop more predictable standards.
b. Repeal the "presumption" language.
c. Review existing standards and determine if all
of these standards are needed.
d. Determine if additional standards are desirable.
1. Character and location standards.
2. Hard-to-site projects.
December 1, 1982
e. Review method of adopting DRI guidelines and
1. Should Governor and Cabinet and legislative
approval be retained?
f. Should State establish DRI project types and
maximum identification criteria and allow
local governments and/or RPC's to more speci-
fically define DRI's within a particular region?
1. Should local government/RPC action be subject
to Governor and Cabinet/legislative approval?
4. Determine the desirability of delegating DRI review
to capable local governments.
5. Determine the desirability of allowing greater local
government and citizen involvement in DRI review.
6. Can DRI review be better coordinated with other
state and regional permitting programs?
7. Should incentives be established to encourage
compliance with DRI process?
a. Longer permit time periods.
b. Establish a presumption in favor of an approved
DRI for subsequent required state and regional
c. Tax incentives.
8. Review the existing Coastal Zone Management program.
a. How effective is it?
9. State and regional agency role in developing planning
methodology and data base for DRI evaluation; possible
continuing State role through a "growth management
Committee members are requested to submit any issues
that may have been omitted from the above list by January 10,
The following are possible subjects of background
research raised in discussion:
December 1, 1982
1. What types of development are reviewed under the
2. What applications for development are pending?
3. What is the cost of the program in terms of
time and money?
4. What kind of growth does the program encourage?
5. Compare Florida's program to other states and to
6. Research the "success story" of the DRI program.
Staff was directed to have the remarks of the speakers
and the Governor transcribed for the record and for use of the
Committee. The Secretary of State's office has agreed to trans-
cribe the speaker's remarks.
A motion was made by Gerald F. Thompson to schedule the
next ELMS Committee meeting on January 24 & 25 at the Florida
State Conference Center. This motion was seconded and carried.**
Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
**It has since been determined that the Florida State Conference
Center is unavailable for the dates of January 24 & 25. The
meeting will be held at Morris Hall, Lower Level, House Office
Building, Tallahassee, Florida.
November 30, 1982
Mr. Robert M. Rhodes
-Post Office Box 1876
Tallahassee, FL 32302
I deeply regret that I will not be able to attend the first meeting of the
ELMS II Committee due to a scheduling conflict with the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners meeting in Dallas.
I have carefully reviewed the agenda and background materials for the
December 1 meeting. Given the tremendous challenges we will collectively face
in the coming months, I agree that it is vital for us to "hit the ground running,"
and I believe the program you have organized for the December 1 meeting will
provide a solid basis for commencing our comprehensive review of Florida's land
and water management policies.
Unprecedented population growth and development pressures compel us to
devise or refine comprehensive, consistent, effective and equitable public
policies to manage growth and to protect Florida's limited natural resources and
fragile environment. Therefore, the primary objective of the ELMS II Committee
should be to recommend to the Governor and Cabinet and to the Legislature
necessary reforms to the DRI and ACSC processes that will make these programs
more comprehensive, more consistent and more effective. Meeting this objective
will require a systematic review not only of Section 380, F.S., but also of the
entire realm of growth and environmental management policies, including the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, the Water Resources Act, the
Environmental Reorganization Act and the Uniform Community Development District
I would suggest that the ELMS II Committee begin by formulating a meaning-
ful definition of what constitutes a development of regional impact. As you
know, DRIs currently are defined in terms of their location and in terms of
certain presumptive thresholds. This definition promotes neither consistency
nor comprehensive effectiveness. The "regional impact" of one or more develop-
ment projects, in the context of cumulative effects on the resources and
environment of a region, cannot be ascertained simply in terms of proximity
to a county line. Nor can it be ascertained directly from numerical thresh-
olds, because defined thresholds open the door for numerous sub-threshold
developments which may have a greater cumulative impact than one well-planned
Letter to Mr. Rhodes
November 30, 1982
Therefore, I suggest that the January meeting be devoted exclusivelyto
developing a working dafinW0 of ihat actually cons-t-tutes a DRI and to
defining how the DRI review process should be integrated with th l Govern-
ment Comprehensivp Planning praes. After we agree on a working definition,
we then should be able to move directly to other issues such as strengthening
the consistency and effectiveness of review procedures, avoiding unnecessary
and costly duplication and procedural delays, and improving monitoring and
enforcement procedures. Finally, after we have determined the scope and
ultimate objectives of a comprehensive, consistentand-effective and equitable
development management procedure, we will.be in a position to address the
remaining procedural and jurisdictional questions about how the DRI review
process should be structured.
Again, I apologize for my absence from the December 1 meeting. I look
forward to working closely with you and with the other ELMS II Committee
members in the coming months.
State Treasurer and
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND MANAGEMENT
STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
January 24 & 25, 1983
Chairman Robert M. Rhodes called the January meeting of the ELMS
Committee to order at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was held at Morris Hall,
House Office Building, Tallahassee, Florida. The following members were
present: Jean Beem, Jack Chambers, John M. DeGrove, Edgar M. Dunn, Jr.,
Alan S. Gold, Porter J. Goss, Bill Gunter, John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Stanley W. Hole, Wade L. Hopping, Robert L. Parks, Sam Shannon, and
Gerald F. Thompson. Members not present were Joan M. Heggen, Nathaniel
P. Reed and James Harold Thompson.
Robert C. Apgar, Executive Director of the ELMS Committee, made
a short presentation of his staff report on monitoring and enforcement
under Chapter 380. Discussion and questions followed regarding the
report and recommendations.
Michael C. Garretson, Director of the Division of Local Resource
Management, Department of Community Affairs, submitted a report to the
Committee on monitoring and enforcement of Chapter 380. Mr. Garretson
answered questions by the Committee members relating to areas of critical
state concern presently designated and currently under study for designa-
tion, the make-up and role of Resource Planning and Management Committees
and Technical Advisory Committees, and developments of regional impact.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
The second day of the meeting was called to order by the
Chairman at 9:00 a.m. Attendance was as as above, except that Porter
Goss was unable to attend.
Discussion of monitoring and enforcement resumed. Mr. Gold moved
that the Committee adopt recommendation Number 14 on page 29 of the
ELMS Committee monitoring and'enforcement staff report as written. The
motion was seconded by Dr. DeGrove.
The motion is set out as follows:
"Budget funds to support additional planners and travel funds for
the Critical Area Section of the Department of Community Affairs, and
allow the Department to establish a field office in each critical area
to monitor local government administration and developers' compliance."
The motion carried.
January 24 & 25, 1983
Point of Order by Senator Dunn: In order to encourage support for
these recommendations in the legislature, the record should show not only
a voice vote, but that the motion carried unanimously, with substantial
concurrence of this body for these interim recommendations.
There being no objection, the record will show the motion carried
Mr. Gold further moved that the Committee amend and adopt recom-
mendation Number 11 on page 29. A further amendment was submitted by
Mr. Shannon and accepted by Mr. Gold. The motion was seconded by Dr.
DeGrove. The amended motion is as follows:
"Resource Planning and Management Committees should provide con-
tinuing monitoring functions in designated areas of,critical state concern,
which functions should include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Review and comment upon the consistency of local government's
actions with critical area regulations.
2. Review and comment upon compliance by local government with
monitoring and enforcing of all development order conditions.
3. Offer recommendations for improved monitoring and enforcement
4. Offer recommendations for new or amended critical area regulations."
The motion was adopted unanimously.
Mr. Gold offered a further motion that the term of the Resource
Planning and Management Committee be for the duration of the designation
in designated areas of critical state concern. The motion was seconded
by Dr. DeGrove. After discussion, the motion and second were withdrawn
and deferred to the long term agenda.
Mr. Hopping made the motion that "The Committee support the
previously adopted recommendation regarding funding for monitoring
and enforcement in critical areas by specifically recommending that
the Governor request that the legislature appropriate the following
funds to the Bureau of Land and Water Management:
"Establishment of an office in Monroe County $35,000
with 1.0 FTE professional
Hiring Expert Witnesses $10,000
Trust Fund (Contingency Fund) $10,000
Attorney to ACSC Section of DCA Staff $31,808
Legal Secretary $14,527
Travel Budget S10,000
January 24 & 25, 1983
The motion was seconded by Dr. DeGrove.
The motion was adopted unanimously.
Dr. DeGrove moved that "The Committee recommend to the Governor
that the state land planning agency prepare all components of a compre-
hensive plan for Monroe County that are not now satisfactorily completed
and that the cost of that effort be deducted from Monroe County's state
revenue sharing fund in compliance with those procedures in the statutes
(reference to Chapter 163) and that the reason for this motion is that the
plan does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 380."
Mr. Gold requested the following amendment: "If, in the period
of time before the funds are needed, the county shows ample progress
in improving its own plan to comply with state law, the monies will
be re-allocated for other purposes."
Dr. DeGrove accepted the amendment. Senator Dunn seconded the
The amended motion was adopted unanimously.
Dr. DeGrove made another motion as follows: "In those cases
where a Resource Planning and Management Committee, in the course
of its studies, recommends a series of policies and regulations and
standards that are then adopted by the local governments so that no
formal critical area designation is necessary, that before the Resource
Planning and Management Committee goes out of business, it make recom-
mendations and outline a plan for monitoring and enforcement of those
regulations to assure that all goals are reached and further, that
these recommendations be implemented immediately."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gunter.
The motion was adopted unanimously.
Senator Dunn moved for adoption of Item 1 of the recommendations
of the ELMS Committee staff report and the motion was seconded by Mr.
Shannon. The item reads as follows:
"Amend Section 380.11 to authorize DCA to make an administrative
determination that a developer or local government has violated a pro-
vision of Chapter 380, regulations implementing the law, or of a devel-
opment order, and initiate an administrative proceeding and order
corrective action. Allow DCA to serve a stop work order pending the
outcome of administrative proceedings; provide penalties for violations
of development order, including revocation of the development order for
After discussion, Commissioner Gunter offered a substitute motion
to create a subcommittee to study the issues raised by this item. Senator
Dunn concurred. The motion was adopted unanimously. Chairman Rhodes
appointed the following members to the subcommittee:
January 24 & 25, 1983
Robert L. Parks (Chairman)
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Edgar M. Dunn, Jr.
Alan S. Gold
Wade L. Hopping
The Chairman asked the subcommittee to make its first report
at the February meeting.
Mr. Shannon raised additional issues for short term consideration.
After discussion those issues were deferred for the long term agenda.
The Committee discussed the long term agenda. The following are
broad statements of the issues the Committee agreed to address:
1. The definition of DRI and the effectiveness of the guide-
lines and standards.
(The Committee will take up this issue at the February meeting.)
2. The desirability of establishing state, regional and local
growth management policies; renewed state role in planning;
top-down consistency in growth management policies.
3. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act's relation-
ship to the DRI process, to regional planning and to state
4. Review of Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program; financial
resources necessary to support the program.
5. Monitoring and enforcement of Chapter 380.
6. Possible changes to the DRI process to provide incentives
to developers to use the process, and to streamline the
7. The role of the regional agency in the 80's.
Mr. Chambers asked the staff to prepare a list of approved
DRI's for the last few years and to submit the budgets of the RPC's.
Mr. Shannon indicated he will provide the information on the RPC's
for the Committee.
Mr. Gunter requested updates of the other committees whose work
complements the ELMS Committee in order to avoid duplication of efforts.
Mr. Hole requested that the Committee consider the possibility
of requiring enforcement of a coordinated review in the processing of
ADA's and to determine if it is feasible to require the RPC staffs to
utilize staffs of other agencies in this respect.
January 24 & 25, 1983
Chairman Rhodes announced that the Committee recieved a
communication from Representative James Harold Thompson,
that he is not able to serve on the ELMS Committee because of other
pressing commitments. The Governor is asking Representatives
Liberti and Mills, and Senator Neal to join the Committee.
Mr. Apgar stated that the Committee had received a draft
opinion from the Ethics Commission which recommended that the
members of the ELMS Committee be required to comply with financial
disclosure (short form) because the budget equals the $100,000
statutory budget limit. The Ethics Commission will consider the
recommendation in the near future.
The next meeting of the ELMS Committee is scheduled for
February 23 & 24 at the Causeway Inn Resort in Tampa.
The Committee adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
February 23 & 24, 1983
Chairman Robert M. Rhodes called the third meeting of the ELMS
Committee to order at 10:00 a.m. on February 23, 1983. The meeting was held at
the Causeway Inn Resort in Tampa, Florida. The members present on Wednesday
were: Jean Beem, Jack Chambers, John M. DeGrove, John H. Hankinson Jr., Joan
M. Heggen, Stanley W. Hole, Wade L. Hopping, Ray Liberti, Jon Mills, Patrick K.
Neal, Robert L. Parks, Nathaniel P. Reed, Sam Shannon and Gerald F. Thompson.
Members not present were: Edgar M. Dunn, Jr., Alan S. Gold, Porter J. Goss,
Bill Gunter and Bobby F. McKown. Roll call on Thursday was as above with the
addition of Porter J. Goss and Bill Gunter and the absence of Ray Liberti, Jon
Mills, Patrick K. Neal, Robert L. Parks and Nathaniel P. Reed.
A number of persons addressed the Comnittee as to the role of the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process in Florida's total growth manage-
ment program, the definition of DRI, and the effectiveness of the guidelines
Address by Jack Osterholt
The first speaker was Jack Osterholt, Policy Coordinator, Planning and
Evaluation Unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. He summarized
Florida's projected growth over the next ten years. Mr. Osterholt stated that
Florida is the fastest growing large state in the country; 81% of Florida's
growth will occur in coastal areas; Florida is an "urbanizing" state; and the
fastest growing age population is that of 75 years and over. He also indicated
Florida is changing from a tourist/service based economy to manufacturing. In
closing Mr. Osterholt noted that Governor Graham has declared that growth
management is an absolute necessity in Florida.
Mr. Osterholt also reported on the status of the Policy Guides
Workshop Draft which contains a number of state-wide policies and explanations
of each policy statement. He indicated that the draft is now complete and is
being circulated to legislators and state agencies. Four workshops are
scheduled across the state between March 17 April 15, to aive interested
parties an opportunity to comment. The draft will be revised based on recom-
mendations from the workshops, then presented to the Governor for final review
Address by Dr. Earl Starnes
The second speaker was Dr. Earl Starnes, Chairman and Professor, Urban
and Regional Planning Program, College of Architecture, University of Florida.
Dr. Starnes was Director of the Division of State Planning from 1972 to 1975.
Dr. Starnes described how the original guidelines and standards were developed.
He stated that there were no "cookbook" approaches or tested methods for
analyzing the impacts of developments. His office adopted the following
1. Develop a baseline of the extent of development in Florida.
2. Test types of development against the baseline.
3. Determine what magnitude most impacted the state and determine a
4. Develop a cross matrix.
5. Develop a model to indicate the number of projects of varying
categories that would have to be reviewed annually against certain
thresholds and sizes, accounting for location.
Out of this process came several reports to the original ELMS Cocmit-
tee which were debated at length. The final report sent to the Administration
Ccamisssion included twelve recommendations. The Governor and Cabinet adopted
the EIMS Comnittee's recommendations without modification. The guidelines and
standards were also approved by the legislature without modification.
Address by Thomas G. Pelham
The final speaker of the morning was Tom Pelham, of the Tallahassee
law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson. Mr. Pelham focused on the role of
Chapter 380 in managing Florida's growth. He noted that in the early 1970's
there existed a need for state participation in growth management. The DRI
process was a response to that need, but it appeared an inadequate response:
the thresholds were too high, the categories were not comprehensive and
multi-jurisdictional impacts were not subject to review. He recalled that he
and others urged flexible guidelines and standards as part of a broader role
for the DRI process.
Today, however, local governments are more sophisticated in growth
management. Nearly all local governments have comprehensive plans, and other
mechanisms for growth management have been adopted at all levels of government.
Mr. Pelham stated that in view of these developments, a broad role for the DRI
process is no longer appropriate or desirable.
Mr. Pelham suggested that DRI review should be confined to large
projects of truly state-wide, or broad, regional significance. We should
define those projects with as much specificity as possible. Mr. Pelham
suggested that thresholds should be conclusive, not presumptive. He stated
that other levels of government could and must deal with multi-jurisdictional
impacts outside the DRI process. To accomplish this the state could:
1. Amend zoning acts to require regional impacts of any projects to
be looked at by local government.
2. Amend the LGCPA to build in and require greater consideration of
regional impacts at the local level.
3. Require local governments to establish their own DRI processes at
the local level.
4. Develop different classes of development which would require
different levels of DRI review. The largest developments would be
subject to full review and smaller developments would be subject
to lesser review. The state can prescribe the standards for these
Mr. Pelham stated that the issue is not if growth management and
regional problems will be dealt with, but at what levels these problems will be
addressed. We cannot load all of these tasks on Chapter 380. There is in
place a local and regional framework outside of the DRI process which can be
made more effective in handling regional impacts of all development. He sug-
gests that after the Committee reviews Chapter 380 and makes recommendations
regarding the DRI process, it should move on to other acts such as the LGCPA
and Chapter 160 (which deals with Regional Planning Councils) to see how they
can be strengthened, amended, or altered to deal more effectively with all
growth management issues. Many issues of regional significance that do not
require participation by state agencies, including the Governor and Cabinet.
When the Committee reconvened after lunch, Robert L. Parks, Chairman
of the Subcommittee on administrative enforcement, reported that the sub-
committee met briefly at lunch and would meet again on the second day of the
March meeting. The subcommittee is reviewing a synopsis of various state
agencies' enforcement proceedings and will ask the Bureau of Land and Water
Management to provide further information for the March meeting.
Address by Nancy Stroud
Nancy Stroud, Associate with the law firm of Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe,
Babcock and Parsons, and former Staff Coordinator of the Governor's Resource
Management Task Force, began her presentation by reviewing the Task Force's
work on the DRI process. The Task Force concluded that the DRI process is
valuable and should not be abandoned, but should be improved. She noted that
the Task Force left an unfinished agenda in a number of areas:
1. Restructuring of Regional Planning Councils.
2. Administrative and structural reforms of the DRI process.
3. Changes to the guidelines and standards.
Ms. Stroud stated that the ALI model code which was the model for Chapter 380
sets out three components of a growth management structure:
1. A system of comprehensive planning (state and local).
2. The development of regional impact process.
3. The area of critical state concern process.
Each process addresses different growth management problems and each
complements the others. 'The planning process forces broad development
decisions, particularly by government agencies. The DRI system forces major
private developers to do better planning than they might otherwise do. The
area of critical state concern program focuses on special geographic areas.
Ms. Stroud stated that Florida needs each component of the package as
described above. The DRI component is the most important in Florida because
growth is more rapid here than in other states, and Development proposals tend
to be larger and encompass more development and land. In addition, the plan-
ning system in Florida is weak and the permitting system, by itself, does not
accomplish the balancing of interests of a planning or DRI process.
Ms. Stroud recalled that the Task Force concluded that the guidelines
and standards should be qualitative, instead of being firm
rules of decision, and should be expanded to include locational charac-
teristics. The Task Force did not feel it had the expertise to deal with the
guidelines and standards, so it made no recommendations in that area. Later,
the Bureau of Land and Water Management conducted a study of multi-county
impacts and developed criteria to identify impacts. These criteria, however,
are too broad. It is Ms. Stroud's opinion that the Task Force and the Bureau
of Land and Water Management studies were moving in the wrong direction. The
guidelines and standards should be firm rules of decision that give the process
predictability and certainty. Making the guidelines firm rules would decrease
the burden on the state to issue binding letters of interpretation. That
burden has prevented the state from doing other tasks such as more closely
monitoring the critical areas, the DRI process and the local government compre-
hensive plans. A change to definitive standards would free state resources for
other growth management programs. Ms. Stroud also recommended that standing be
broadened so that affected parties, particularly adjacent communities, are
allowed to participate in the DRI program.
Ms. Stroud suggested that since regional planning councils have been
given major responsibilities, they should be further strengthened, particularly
in their relationship to the water management districts. She offered the
1. The Governor presently appoints an RPC member to the WMD board and
vice versa. This dual membership should be required by law.
2. An optional concurrent DRI review process has been set up, but is
voluntary. The Committee should consider mandatory concurrent
3. Regional policy plans are linked to water management district
plans by the requirement that water management districts review
regional plans for consistency, with a possible appeal to the Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission. However, the incentives for
regional planning have not been effective and should be
Another recommendation of the Task Force was that the state should
develop a state policy framework. Ms. Stroud feels this should be the ELMS
Committee's number one priority. However, such a system could not take the
place of the DRI process, which she contends has forced some kinds of policy
making (e.g., relating to wetlands) that would not have occurred in the absence
of a state policy framework.
Address by William A. Ockunzzi
Bill Ockunzzi, Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, suggested that the binding letter process requires too much time and
information. Developers try to avoid the process. He offered the following
Require local governments to require developers to get binding letters for
proposed projects within 80% of thresholds. Revise the guidelines and
standards to include hotels and mixed-use projects, R-V Parks, and large
government projects. Allow for more area-wide DRI's, for major government
centers, airports, and major activity centers. Downtown DRI's should be models
for area-wide DRI's.
Mr. Ockunzzi does not think thresholds should be self-executing.
Instead, they should be set by RPC's within minimum and maximum thresholds set
by the state. The state should delegate the binding letter process to the
RPC's who are more familiar with all aspects of local development. The
statutory definition of a DRI should change from multi-county to multi-
juridictional. The DRI process should encourage coordinated review by
providing that DRI review establishes a presumption that the project is in the
Mr. Ockunzzi made the following additional observations: the definition
of the regional policy plan in the statutes is inadequate. Regional plans
should be as well-defined as local government plans and regions should review
local government plans. We should provide incentives in the process, such as
no DRI review when there is an adequate, approved local government compre-
Mr. Ockunzzi stated that there is insufficient monitoring of developers'
compliance with development orders. The annual report is not an adequate
monitoring device. There are no sanctions currently available if a developer
is not implementing the development order. Another problem is that the state
does not review the actions of regional planning councils. He recommends that
the state have a representative on each council. Finally, Mr. Ockunzzi noted
that regional planning councils have little statutory authority for their
Address by Harlan Hanson
The final speaker of the day was Harlan Hanson, Senior Vice President
of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., of Orlando. He stated that Florida
is in the forefront of growth management in the U.S. Mr. Hanson contends that
there is very high quality, large scale development going on in Florida. He
has found local governments to be increasingly capable of good growth manage-
ment. The DRI process is well supplemented by Planned Unit Development pro-
Mr. Hanson feels it is important to develop incentives to make
developers want to go through the DRI process. He indicated that the current
statutory definition of DRI is appropriate and that amending the definition to
refer to multi-jurisdictional impacts would be a mistake. The current thres-
hold for office parks is too low and we should raise the thresholds to
encourage large scale, high quality office parks. He submits that the binding
letter process is working well. Adjacent property owners should definitely not
be allowed to participate in the binding letter process.
Mr. Hanson suggested that the DRI process should become a coordinated
review process. The key to improvement of the DRI process is to streamline
and coordinate it with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, which
should also be improved and streamlined. He would like to see the DRI process
coordinated so that only the expert agency can raise questions related to
issues within that agency's area of responsibility. For example, water quality
issues should only be addressed by the agency regulating water quality.
Address by Mayor Bob Martinez
The meeting on Thursday began with an address by Mayor Bob Martinez of
Tampa. He advocated better coordination at the state level and a linkage
between state, regional and local efforts. He indicated that a local compre-
hensive plan cannot be effective until a state comprehensive plan is in place.
Mayor Martinez observed that the DRI process has not directed growth, but has
only followed development. Florida must make a basic decision to guide and
manage growth at a state and regional level. Too much development escapes DRI
review. Local governments need broad, state regulation and a state plan to set
parameters for local governments. Cities and counties can no longer handle the
costs of growth. Money is needed to handle the cumulative effects of smaller
develoanents which are not DRI's. In closing, Mayor Martinez stated that the
DRI process has not cured growth problems, or changed growth patterns. The
present growth management system wastes tax dollars because it encourages "leap
frogging" development. Improved, statewide growth management is essential.
Address by Lee Menzies
Lee Menzies, Executive Director, Downtown Development Authority, City
of Tampa, stated that growth management is going to be the key social, poli-
tical and economic issue of the 1980's. Rapid suburbanization of America
during the 1950's 1970's decimated our cities and made the public infra-
structure system inefficient. Mr. Menzies contends that downtown living is
efficient and that there is renewed interest in compact, urban growth. The DRI
process, however, does not encourage downtown development. In Tampa, for
example, builders were limiting the size of office buildings to stay below the
current DRI threshold for office development to avoid the loss of time, the
uncertainty, and the cost of the process.
Tampa is now completing the first "downtown DRI" under recent amend-
ments to Chapter 380. In this process, Mr. Menzies and his staff discovered
that downtown development is a significantly more efficient user of infra-
structure and municipal services compared to surburan development, particularly
in terms of transportation impacts. For the following reasons, Mr. Menzies
proposes a significant increase (to 750,000 sq.ft.) in the DRI threshold
requirement for an office project in Florida's central business districts:
1. The efficiency of downtown in the overall growth management
2. To offset the increasing cost of downtown developments relative to
suburban office locations.
3. The precendent of residential DRI's having differing thresholds
dependent upon the population in specific regions.
Mr. Menzies indicated that it is better growth management to have one
600,000 sq. ft. office park downtown, as opposed to 3 (three) 200,000 sq. ft.
sub-threshold office parks spread randomly throughout an area. Since high rise
construction is by nature more expensive than building smaller office parks,
raising the square footage threshold for office parks would be an incentive for
developers to build downtown.
Address by Carl Gosline
The last speaker to address the Committee was Carl Gosline, Master
Planner, Stottler Stagg and Associates, Architects, Engineers and Planners,
Inc., of Orlando, who suggested several amendments to Section 380.06. He re-
quests that Section 380.06(9) be amended so that once sufficiency is deter-
mined, RPC's cannot continue to ask for additional information; that 380.06(11)
be changed to allow 75 days for RPC's to complete their reports; and that
380.06(14) be amended to require a decision within 150 days after the ADA is
found to be sufficient, unless waived by the applicant. A few of Mr. Gosline's
suggestions for revisions of the guidelines and standards are: to delete the
"presumption" language; to delete the hospital category entirely; and to add a
mixed-use development category. He recommended that the guidelines and
standards be based on the magnitude of development impacts rather than on the
size of development. Mr. Gosline submitted several detailed changes to the
guidelines and standards in written form.
After considerable discussion, the Committee determined that it should
review the state-wide framework of growth management before recommending
extensive changes to Chapter 380. The Committee adopted a short term agenda to
be addressed at the March meeting in Miami, the points of which were agreed
1. Whether the Cammittee should endorse the Governor's budget recom-
mendations for funds to support the DRI program.
2. Whether the Committee should endorse the Governor's budget
recommendations for funds to support the development of regional
3. Whether the Ccnmittee should support DCA's recommendations to the
Governor and Cabinet relating to state approval of comprehensive
plans in critical areas.
4. A proposal to amend Chapter 380, F.S., to give DCA an adminis-
trative remedy (this issue has been referred to a Subcommittee)
5. A proposal to amend the definition of "development" to make clear
that a development need not include dividing land into three or
6. A proposal to amend Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to require
state approval of certain local government comprehensive plan
elements, with specific reference to draft legislation regarding
coastal zone elements.
7. A proposal to amend portions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
indicating that the guidelines and standards establish a
"presumption" that certain projects are DRI's.
8. A proposal to amend Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to state that
the first request for information establishes the breadth of the
information which can be required by a Regional Planning Council
from a developer.
As the final item of business at the March meeting, the Committee will
review a work program regarding the following long term agenda items which were
unanimously adopted by the Committee:
1. What should be the state-wide framework for planning and growth
management, including the relationship of state, regional and local
A. How do we establish a "state concept"?
B. What institutions should be part of the system?
C. What policies should be adopted and implemented by the state-
2. What should be the role of Chapter 380's programs (the DRI and
Area of Critical State Concern) in that framework?
3. What should be the role of Florida's coastal management program in
Following this discussion, the Committee heard a brief presentation by
Michael C. Garretson, Director of the Division of Local Resource Managment of
the Department of Community Affairs, on Item 1 of the short term agenda. The
Committee adjourned without taking action on that issue.
The next meeting of the ELMS Committee will be held on March 22 and
23 at the Miami Marriott Hotel, in Miami, Florida.
The Ccmmittee adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND MANAGEMENT
March 22 & 23, 1983
Chairman Robert M. Rhodes called the fourth meeting of
the ELMS Committee to order at 10:15 a.m. on March 22, 1983.
The meeting was held at the Marriott Airport Hotel in Miami,
Florida. The members present on the 22nd were: Jack Chambers,
John DeGrove, Edgar M. Dunn, Jr., Alan S. Gold, Porter J. Goss,
Bill Gunter, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Stanley W. Hole, Wade L.
Hopping, Ray Liberti, Robert L. Parks, Nathaniel P. Reed,
Robert M. Rhodes, Sam Shannon, and Gerald F. Thompson. Members
not present were: Jean Beem, Joan Heggen, Bobby F. McKown, Jon
Mills, and Patrick K. Neal. Roll call on the 23rd was as above
with the addition of Patrick K. Neal and the absence of Porter
J. Goss, Bill Gunter and Nathaniel P. Reed.
The Committee took up Agenda Item #1 as its first item
of business. Mike Garretson, Director of the Division of Local
Resource Management of the Department of Community Affairs,
presented this item to the Committee. The motion to adopt this
item was made by Representative Liberti and seconded by Nat
Reed. The Committee voted unanimously to support the Governor's
budget request for funds to support the development of regional
Agenda Item #2 was also presented by Mike Garretson. The
motion to adopt this item was moved by Wade Hopping and seconded
by Nat Reed. The Committee voted to support the Governor's
budget request for funds to support the development of regional
plans, contingent upon the adoption of approved state policy
plans and guidelines which will be the source for review,
approval, adoption and modification of regional policy plans.
The vote on this issue was 14 in favor, I opposed. Alan
Gold opposed the motion on the grounds that the Committee should
not impose conditions on an item which has not been fully ex-
plored by the Committee.
Porter Goss moved that the Committee consider Agenda
Item #4 next, as Items #3 and #5 appear to go together.
The Executive Director presented Agenda Item #4. The
The Committee reviewed Senate Bill 266 by Senator Jennings
and concurred with the language of the bill, except for a
minor change in wording on line 13 which would strike oper-
ation and insert activity. Following a motion from Repre-
sentative Liberti, which was seconded by Nat Reed, the Com-
mittee voted unanimously to recommend an amendment to the
definition of "development" in Section 380.064(1) to make
clear that a development need not include the dividing of
land into three or more parcels. The full text is as follows:
380.04 Definition of Development.--
(1) "Development" means the carrying out of any
building activity or mining operation, er the
making of any material change in the use or
appearance of any structure or land, or and the
dividing of land into three or more parcels.
Agenda Item #3 was introduced by Commissioner Gunter and
reviewed by the Executive Director. The recommendation of the
Department of Community Affairs to the Governor and Cabinet
dated February 1, 1983 is as follows:
In order for the principles for guiding development
to be fully implemented in an Area of Critical State
Concern it is recommended that Chapter 163, F.S., be
amended to require that the comprehensive plans for
any local government within a designated Area of
Critical State Concern be approved by the State Land
Commissioner Gunter moved that the Committee adopt the
Department of Community Affairs' recommendation, but change the
wording "be approved by the State Land Planning Agency" to read
"be reviewed and approved by the Administration Commission".
Nat Reed seconded the motion.
Following a lengthy discussion by the Committee, a sub-
stitute motion was offered by Nat Reed to which Commissioner
Gunter concurred. The motion was seconded by Wade Hopping.
The Committee unanimously adopted the following modification
of the Department of Community Affairs' recommendation to the
Governor and Cabinet:
In order for the principles for guiding development
to be fully implemented in an Area of Critical State
Concern, it is recommended that Chapters 163 and 380,
Florida Statutes, be amended to require that Local
Government Comprehensive Plans applicable to a desig-
nated area of critical state concern be reviewed, and
if necessary, amended in the same manner and to the
same extent that local land development regulations are
presently reviewed under Section 380.05, Florida
Kathleen S. Abrams, Chairperson of the Coastal Barriers
Subcommittee of the Coastal Management Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee, addressed the Committee regarding Agenda Item #5. Ms.
Abrams informed the Committee that the Coastal Areas Subcom-
mittee will propose that the state adopt, by statute, a set of
minimum state-wide development and construction standards for
all coastal islands and associated beaches, dunes and wetlands.
She indicated that the state lacks a comprehensive policy for
coastal islands and that although the state has acknowledged
the important functions served by coastal islands as storm
buffers to protect the mainland, as recreational areas for
public use, and as habitat for fish and wildlife, it has not
yet provided sufficient resources or direction to preserve
those values. It is the Subcommittee's thesis that the state
should make policy to protect the state's interest, but leave
implementation and enforcement to local governments. Further,
standards should be established statutorily to provide clear
guidance to local governments. Local governments should im-
plement the standards and state agencies should monitor local
compliance. Ms. Abrams ended her presentation by indicating
that staff members of the House Select Committee on Growth
Management are presently drafting the Subcommittee's proposed
standards in bill form.
After considerable discussion of Agenda Item #5, the Com-
mittee unanimously adopted a recommendation to place on its
long term agenda an amendment to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
to provide for state approval of elements or portions of ele-
ments of comprehensive land use plans that affect areas or
resources identified as of special value to the public and
that are subject to established minimum state standards.
The Committee further unanimously agreed to express its
support for, and urge the continuation of, the Select Committee
on Growth Management and the House and Senate Natural Resources
Committees' efforts to explore ways in which reasonable stan-
dards may be considered and adopted to protect the state's in-
terest in coastal islands and beaches.
The Chairman suggested that the Committee hold Items #6
and #7 and move on to Item #8.
Agenda Item #8 was presented by the Executive Director.
Following a limited discussion, the Committee unanimously
agreed to carry the "presumption" issue over to the long term
agenda, so that the Committee will have time to review the
guidelines and standards prior to addressing this issue.
Agenda Item #9 was presented by Wade Hopping. Following
discussion, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend an
amendment to Chapter 380.06(9) (b) to add the following lan-
Within 30 days after receipt of such additional
information, the regional planning agency shall
review it and may request only that information
needed to clarify such additional information
or to answer new questions raised by or directly
related to such additional information. If an
applicant does not provide the information re-
quested by a Regional Planning Council within
120 days of its request, or within a time agreed
upon by the applicant and the Regional Planning
Council, then the application shall be considered
In reference to Agenda Item #10, the report on efforts to
compile statistical information on projects approved by DRI
review, the Chairman appointed a Subcommittee to determine what
additional information should be compiled. The members of the
subcommittee are: Jack Chambers, John DeGrove and Sam Shannon.
In response to Agenda Item #6, Senator Dunn related that
the Senate is in an exploratory stage and will begin the session
in earnest on the 15th of April. The Natural Resources Committee
proposed a bill at the request of the President of the Senate
to address reorganization of the environmental process as it
relates to water management and to the relationship of water
quality and water quantity regulations. Several other proposals
are being developed by subcommittees of the Natural Resources
Committee, addressing hazardous waste management siting, salt-
water fisheries, and goundwater protection. Senator Dunn in-
dicated that none of the subcommittees to date have reported
back with legislation. He stated that a bill dealing with
eminent domain and the acquisition of environmentally endangered
lands is being considered. Senator Neal is working on a major
piece of legislation which deals with the land acquisition
program. In addition, there is proposed legislation addres-
sing the grants program, and the Committee on Governmental
Operations is working in the area of infrastructure funding.
Representative Liberti, Chairman of the House Select
Committee on Growth, indicated that his committee is trying
to coordinate as well as create. He reported that House
Committees are looking into the following issues: Advisory
Council on Intergovernmental Relations/annexation; Finance
and Tax/impact fees; Natural Resources/hazardous waste and
eminent domain; Growth Management/dune lines and coastal
Representative Liberti stated that the Growth Management
Committee has spent several months determining key issues,
that, once addressed, will result in providing the type of
environment and quality of life we want for the future of
Florida. They have held several seminars and meetings with
the heads of lead agencies in the state, including Governor
Graham. He listed the following 10 issues, 5 environmental
and 5 social, as the most crucial growth management problems
facing Florida in this decade:
Water quantity, quality and Quality education
management Improved health care
Waste disposal and treatment Criminal Justice system
Coordination of environmental Jobs and economic development
management regulations and Children and youth
service delivery systems
It is Representative Liberti's contention that 75% of the
environmental problems facing Florida today could be solved if
the state could enforce the existing statutes and implement the
mechanisms currently in place.
Steve Paikowsky, staff member of the House Committee on
Community Affairs, reported that his Committee is currently
analyzing Florida's planning process and determining the
changes which need to be made. He also indicated that haz-
ardous waste is a major issue and that the Committee is ex-
ploring local government's role in that area.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
The Committee reconvened at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
March 23. Robert L. Parks, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Administrative Enforcement, presented Agenda Item #11. He
reported that he and Subcommittee members Edgar Dunn, Wade
Hopping and John Hankinson met that morning. Alan Gold was
unable to attend. The Subcommittee considered the earlier
staff recommendation regarding administrative authority in
reference to the Area of Critical State Concern and DRI pro-
grams, and a memorandum from DCA describing the proposed
procedural steps of the administrative process, and situations
in which it would be useful to DCA.
The Subcommittee voted unanimously to adopt the entire
staff recommendation in regard to the Area of Critical State
Concern program, as follows:
Amend Section 380.11, F.S., to authorize DCA
to make an administrative determination, in
addition to any other remedies, that a de-
veloper or local government has violated a
provision of Chapter 380, regulations imple-
menting the law or a development order. Allow
DCA to order corrective actions, to serve a
stop work order pending the outcome of admin-
istrative proceedings and provide penalties,
including revocation of the development order
In reference to the DRI program, the Subcommittee voted
3-1 (dissenting vote by Wade Hopping) to recommend that the
full committee adopt sentence one of the staff recommendation
allowing administrative proceedings and enforcement by in-
junction. The Subcommittee further recommended that the Com-
mittee move consideration of the remaining issues regarding
administrative penalties, to the long term agenda. This
would allow time for further review and study of questions
raised by the second sentence of the recommendation, and
others, including standing, damages, attorney's fees, etc.
Sam Shannon moved to divide the question between consid-
eration of the critical area program and the DRI program. The
motion passed without opposition.
Wade Hopping moved, with a second by Robert Parks, that
the Committee accept the Subcommittee's recommendation to
adopt the entire staff recommendation authorizing administrative
proceeding and penalties, for the critical area program. This
motion was unanimously adopted by the Committee, with no dis-
Discussion of the Subcommittee's recommendation in
reference to the DRI program was extensive.
Alan Gold moved, seconded by Gerald Thompson, to narrow
the staff recommendation to say that administrative remedies
should be available only for threshold issues, but not to en-
force the provisions of a development order. Mr. Gold,
Senator Neal and Mr. Hopping emphasized the importance of the
development order and the potential damage to the developer if
the validity of the order is threatened. In response, Mr. Parks
stressed the extreme difficulty of obtaining an injunction
under current law and the need for a more effective remedy.
Following discussion, Senator Dunn offered a substitute
to Mr. Gold's motion to state that administrative remedies
would be available in all cases, but where there is an existing
development order, standing to initiate or intervene in a pro-
ceeding would be limited to those persons presently authorized
to appeal the granting of a development order.
The substitute amendment failed by a vote of 3 in favor
to 6 opposed.
Alan Gold moved his amendment, with clarification that DCA
would be authorized to use administrative proceeding only to
determine whether a development is a DRI and to determine the
issue of vested rights, but not to enforce the provisions of
a development order.
This amendment failed by a vote of 4 in favor to 8 opposed.
Robert Parks then moved his Subcommittee's recommendation
that the first sentence of the staff recommendation, with
appropriate changes, plus the four points recommended by the
Department of Community Affairs to describe a statutory pro-
vision for an administrative remedy, be adopted. The text of
the amendment is as follows:
Amend Section 380.11, F.S., to authorize DCA to
make an administrative determination, in addition
to any other remedies, that a developer has violated
a provision of Chapter 380, relating to a develop-
ment of regional impact, regulations implementing
the law, or a development order. The procedure
should allow the following steps:
1. The agency may determine that a violation of
Chapter 380 or any agency rule, regulation, or of
a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) development
2. The agency may serve a written Notice of
Violation upon the violator, specifying the
provision of the law, rule, order, or devel-
opment order that is alleged to have been
3. The alleged violator could file a request
for a 120.57 hearing within 20 days of service
of the Notice of Violation to contest the agency's
finding that a violation has occurred. Failure
to request a hearing would constitute a waiver
of the right to seek an administrative hearing.
4. The agency would seek enforcement by in-
junction in Circuit Court: (a) after a hearing
resulting in a finding of violation, or (b)
after the right to a hearing on the Notice of
Violation was waived.
The question of administrative penalties, standing, and
attorney's fees are reserved for further consideration.
The amendment passed by a vote of 7 in favor and 6 opposed,
with the Chairman breaking the tie.
Discussion of Agenda Item #7 was chaired by Representative
Liberti. Each Committee member listed issues of concern for
the long term agenda. The issues were grouped into categories.
The members then "voted" by assigning a numerical value to
the five most important issues. From this exercise, the
Executive Director will prepare a priority list.
The Committee was asked to inform the Administrative
Assistant of any conflicts he has with the proposed meeting
dates for July to December, 1983. The dates will be refined
and mailed out again before the next meeting.
The next meeting of the ELMS Committee will be held on
April 26 and 27 at the Florida State Conference Center in
The Committee adjourned at 1:00 p.m.