Title: Local Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004275/00001
 Material Information
Title: Local Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Local Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations (JDV Box 89)
General Note: Box 19, Folder 6 ( Local Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations - - 1991 ), Item 4
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004275
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text









kke Varn
Working Copy






LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS





Jake Varn
Carlton, Fields, Ward,
Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.
215 South Monroe Street
Suite 410
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(904) 224-1585
Bill Ockunzzi
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.
1715 North Westshore Blvd.
Suite 500
Tampa, Florida 33607
(813) 289-5550
Bob Nave, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-2356











LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Instructors: Jake Varn, Bill Ockunzzi, Bob Nave

THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1985, CHAPTER 163, PART II, F.S.

I. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE;

In the decades that have followed the 1950s, Florida has
experienced phenomenal growth: in 1950 there were less than
three million people in the state, and by 1970 there were almost
seven million. In 1971 and 1972 a devastating drought
exacerbated these staggering growth management problems,
prompting the legislature, under Governor Askew's leadership, to
pass a sweeping package of bills that addressed water resource
management issues and established two statewide regulatory
systems to manage growth. These were the Areas of Critical State
Concern (ACSC) program which regulates local management of areas
designated by the state as having special environmental,
historical or other significance, and the Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) process which involves regional review of
developments that have greater than local impact.

In 1972 the Florida legislature recognized the need for
coordinated planning as well as regulation. Among the bills
passed during that session was the Comprehensive Planning Act,
which called for the development of a state plan to manage
growth. Although this plan was never successfully implemented,
the Florida legislature continued to take a planning approach to
growth management. Local comprehensive planning was mandated in
1975 (LGCPA) as well as the development of regional policy plans
in 1980.

Despite the state's commitment to the planning process, by
the early 1980s it was clear that this system was not working.
In 1982 the Environmental Land Management Study Committee
reviewed the state's planning system and assessed the status of
local comprehensive planning. This study indicated that local
planning processes were inconsistent in quality and
effectiveness. Weakness was attributed to the following
problems:

A primary reason for ineffective
local plans. was the absence of
strong state and regional plans.
Other significant factors were found
to contribute to the overall
ineffectiveness of local plans; the
absence of adequate funding for
preparation and implementation of
local plans; the lack of a state
requirement that local plans be
consistent with state and regional










plans; the failure of the LGCPA to
clearly require that local plans meet
some minimum standard; and the
absence of other effective
implementation requirements,
including an effective citizen
enforcement mechanism."

The 1984 and 1985 sessions of the legislature responded to
this litany of faults by enacting two bills which pulled together
pieces of the growth management system into an integrated
framework. The State and Regional Act of 1984 called for the
development of a state comprehensive plan, state agency plans,
and regional policy plans that comply with the state plan. In
1985, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act was amended
to integrate local planning with this system. This act has
become known as Florida's ambitious objective to align public
facilities demand with public facilities capacity.

By the passage of this act, we have finally come to
recognize that the most serious problem driving the growth
management process was infrastructure. Historically, we had
"mortgaged our future in the name of current growth and
prosperity." As a result we are experiencing facility deficits,
environmental degradation, and a deteriorating quality of life.
In essence, we have become, like the federal deficit, the "tail"
that wags the dog. Additionally, our state would have been
threatened with a precipitous decline in economic well-being due
to a loss of character and attractiveness of Florida as we know
it today.


II. INTENT OF THE ACT:

A. Confer statutory authority to local officials to plan
and regulate the use of land.
B. Confer broad standing on citizens and affected
parties.
C. Require procedures for assuring public participation
in the planning process.
D. Require adoption of local comprehensive plans and land
development regulations.








1Sinclair, Susan M. "Expectations and Opportunities: Growth
management in the late eighties," background paper submitted to
the Task Force on Rural Development National Governors'
Association, Washington, DC, 1989.


-2-










III. KEY CONCEPTS OF THE ACT:


A. Integration of Planning Activities
1. Vertical Integration (among levels of government)
a. State Comprehensive Plan
b. Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan
c. Local Government Comprehensive Plans
2. Horizontal Integration
Land development regulations must be adopted
which are consistent with and implement the
local comprehensive plan.

B. Public Participation
Local governments must adopt procedures designed to
provide effective public participation. These
procedures must provide methods for:
1. Notifying property owners of official actions
that will affect the use of their property.
2. Keeping the general public informed.
3. Assuring that the general public is provided
with the opportunities to provide written
comments.
4. Assuring that required public hearings are held
and noticed correctly.
5. Assuring the consideration of and response to
public comments.

C. Concurrency
1. Each local government must adopt level of
service standards (LOS) which are adequate and
realistic for public services and facilities
located within its jurisdiction. These are:
a. sanitary sewer
b. solid waste
c. drainage
d. potable water
e. parks and recreation
f. mass transit (if applicable)
2. Prior to issuing a building permit the local
government must ensure that the adopted LOS is
maintained. The local government shall not
issue a building permit that results in a
reduction of the adopted LOS standard.
3. The capital improvements element must establish
a financially feasible plan, with a five year
schedule, which clearly demonstrates that the
local government can achieve and maintain its
adopted LOS standards.


-3-










IV. ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN


A. Required Plan Elements
1. Future Land Use
2. Traffic Circulation
3. Conservation
4. Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable
Water, Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
5. Housing
6. Recreation and open space
7. Intergovernmental Coordination
8. Capital Improvements
9. Coastal management (for communities to which this
applies)

B. Optional Plan Elements
1. Historic and Scenic Preservation
2. Economic Development
3. Community Design
4. General Area Redevelopment
5. Safety
6. Public Buildings and Related Facilities
7. Recreational Traffic Circulation
8. Off-street Parking
9. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities (required
for populations >50,000)
10. Mass Transit (required for populations >50,000)











V. LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS


If DCA finds plan
in compliance


Affected parties have
to challenge finding


Local government submits plan/or
amendment & support documents


Local government notified that
submittal is complete


DCA sends copies to review agencies
within 5 working days


Reviewing agencies send comments to
DCA within 45 days


DCA issues written comments
within 45 days (ORC Report)


Local government adopts, or
adopts with changes proposed
plan/amendment within 60 Days


Within 5 days local
government submits adopted
plan/amendments to DCA

1
DCA issues notice of intent
Within 15 Days


If DCA find plan
not in compliance


DCA requests hearing
from DOAH; affected
parties may intervene
I


Administrative
proceeding
pursuant to
S.120.57, F.S.


i
Administrative OR
proceeding
pursuant to
S.120.57, F.S.





Remedial actions specified
Sanctions may be imposed


Stipulated settlement
agreement local govnt.
may negotiate with DCA
to bring plan/amendment
into compliance (deadline
for entering negotiations
30 days prior to hearing


ref:ReviewChrt/12/90


-5-










VI.


-6-


AMENDMENT OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 163.3187, F.S.

A. Adopted comprehensive plans may not be amended more
than twice per calendar year. Listed below are
exceptions:

1. Emergency amendments may be made more often than
twice per calendar year. An emergency is
defined as: any occurrence or threat thereof
whether accidental or natural, caused by man, in
war or peace, which results or may result in
substantial injury or harm to the population or
substantial damage to or loss of property or
public funds

2. Any local government comprehensive plan
amendments directly related to a proposed
development of regional impact, including
changes which have been determined to be
substantial deviations, and including Florida
Quality Developments pursuant to S. 380.061,
F.S., may be initiated by a local planning
agency and considered by the local governing
body at the same time as the application for
development approval using the procedures
provided for local plan amendment in this
section and applicable local ordinances. This
is without regard to statutory or local
ordinance limits on the frequency of
consideration of amendments to the local
comprehensive plan. Nothing in this subsection
shall be deemed to require favorable
consideration of a plan amendment solely because
it is related to a development of regional
impact

3. Local government comprehensive plan amendments
directly related to proposed small scale
development activities may be approved without
regard to statutory limits on the frequency of
consideration of amendments to the local
comprehensive plan under the following
conditions;

The proposed amendment is a residential land
use of 5 acres or less and a density of 5
units per acre or less or involves other
land use categories, singularly or in
combination with residential use, of 3 acres
or less and:

a. The cumulative effect of the above
condition shall not exceed 30 acres
annually;










b. The proposed amendment does not involve
the same property more than once a year;
and
c. The proposed amendment does not involve
the same owner's property within 200
feet of property granted a change within
a period of 12 months.
The local government shall provide a
semiannual report to the state land planning
agency by July 1 and by December 31 of each
calendar year summarizing the type and
frequency of use of the exemptions and the
action taken on each by the local
government; and

A local government is not required to comply
with the requirements of S. 163.3184(15)(c),
F.S. for plan amendments pursuant to this
paragraph if the local government
substantially complies with the provisions
in S. 163.3184(15)(c) in a legal
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation within the local government's
jurisdiction.

B. The procedure for adoption of a plan amendment is the
same as for the original adoption of the comprehensive
plan or element set forth in S. 163.3184, F.S..
Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way
as to preserve the internal integrity of the adopted
plan. Corrections, updates, or modifications of
current costs which were set out as part of the
comprehensive plan are not deemed to be amendments.


VI. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTER 163.3202, F.S.

A. Within one year after submission of the revised
comprehensive plan (scheduled submission date), each
municipality shall adopt or amend and enforce land
development regulations that are consistent with and
implement their adopted comprehensive plan.

Local land development regulations shall contain
specific and detailed provisions necessary or
desirable to implement the adopted comprehensive
plan. At a minimum, the Land Development Regulations
must include:

1. Regulate subdivision of land;
2. Regulate use of land and water for those land use
categories included in the Land Use Element and
assure the compatibility for adjacent uses and
provide for open space;


-7-










3. Protect potable water wellfields;
4. Regulate areas prone to flooding;
5. Provide for drainage and stormwater management;
6. Protect environmentally sensitive lands designated
in the comprehensive plan;
7. Regulate signage;
8. Provide that public facilities and services meet
or exceed Level of Service standards established
in the Capital Improvements Elements and are
available when needed;
9. Ensure safe and convenient on-site traffic flow
considering needed vehicle parking.

B. Innovative land development regulations which include
provisions for transfer of development rights,
incentive and inclusionary zoning, planned unit
development, impact fees, and performance zoning are
encouraged under this section of the statute.

C. If the state land planning agency has reasonable
grounds to believe that a local government has totally
failed to adopt any one of the land development
regulations required by this section it may require
the local government to submit one or more land
development regulations for its review.

D. Citizen challenges to Land Development Regulations:
1. Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. v.
Lee County

2. The Citizen's Political Action Committee, v.
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County


VII. CITIZEN STANDING AND APPEAL

A. Must meet the definition of an "affected person" as
defined under S. 163.3184, F.S.
B. Must have submitted written comments during the review
process


VIII. KEY LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

A. Florida League of Cities v. DCA; DOAH 89-6203R (DCA)
-B.- Charlotte County v. DCA; 12 FALR 79 (DCA December 11,
1989)
SC. Austin v. DCA; DOAH 88-6338GM (DCA)
D. City of Islandia v. DCA; 12 FALR 3132 (DCA June 20,
1990)
E. Sunshine Ranches Homeowners Association v. Broward
County; 12 FALR 3545 (DCA June 25, 1990)
F. Falk v. City of Miami Beach; 12 FALR 3548 (DCA August
le, 1990)










G. Frame v. DCA; DOAH 89-3931GM (DCA)
H. DCA v. Lee County; 12 FALR 3755 (DCA June 27, 1990).



SPECIAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO PLANNING

I. URBAN SPRAWL AND URBAN SERVICE AREAS

Development considerations should be directed toward:
A. Water Resources ensure compatibility with existing
water supply
B. Natural Systems and Recreational Land discourage the
effects of piecemeal encroachment by low scale, low
density development and associated contamination
C. Land Use create attractive, functional urban areas,
consider impacts on air and water reserves, protect
highway capacity
D. Downtown Revitalization
E. Public Facilities provide for timely, efficient, and
orderly growth. Maximize existing facilities
F. Transportation encourage coordinated transportation
patterns compatible with housing, jobs ... public
transit options
G. Housing promote regulatory practices that would
increase the supply of safe, affordable housing
alternatives.
H. Air Quality
I. Energy protect finite resources
J. Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials and Waste --
eliminate systems that are associated with high
environmental risks, i.e., septic tanks, small package
plants
K. Governmental Efficiency -- fiscal responsibility
L. Employment Factors


II. RURAL ISSUES

Slow growing areas provide opportunities for development
that is well planned and should be directed to:
A. Preserving viable agricultural lands;
B. Providing direction for desired growth;
C. Designing support systems for economic development;
C. Eliminating non conforming uses; and
D. Provisions that allow for the conveyance of land for
family members.


SIII./ AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The requirements of the housing element both permit and
encourage local government to be innovative and flexible
in designing strategies to meet a local government's










affordable housing needs. Approaches to the provision of
affordable housing fall into the following categories:
A. Establish public private partnerships by
bridging the resources and expertise of business,
government, community development organizations, and
private philanthropists.
1. Coordinate available resources through a central
source, i.e. a housing authority.
2. Develop a housing trust fund.
3. Establish local land banks that will provide
publicly owned land at reduced or no cost for
affordable housing.
4. Cooperate with local financial institutions to
develop revolving loan pools.
5. Develop volunteer repair programs to
maintain current housing stock in a safe
condition.
6. Coordinate efforts with DCA, Farmers Home
Administration, and HUD.
B. Provide incentives to the private sector.
1. Balance employment opportunities with the
provision of affordable housing.
2. Establish flexible site improvement and
subdivision standards which can reduce the cost of
streets, parking, and other infrastructure costs.
3. Allow clustering on smaller lots that may
not otherwise be considered developable.
4. Where appropriate, encourage infill development
and density bonuses.
5. Establish incentives (design competition)
for blighted areas which are still functionally
related to employment centers.
C. Reduce the cost of housing through regulatory reform.
1. Develop a fair housing ordinance.
2. Design regulations that foster development that
employs clustering techniques, mixed use projects,
and planned unit development.
3. Institute a "fast track" permitting system for
projects with affordable housing.
4. Reserve infrastructure capacity for affordable
housing.
5. Design standards that allow for the placement of
mobile homes in residential areas while protecting
the integrity of neighborhoods.
6. Address the housing needs of displaced, homeless,
elderly and other special groups.
7. Develop a housing code.

IV. HABITAT PROTECTION

A. Requirements under Chapter 163 for Habitat Protection
include:
1. Protection of native vegetative communities from
destruction by development activities


-10-










2. Restriction of activities known to adversely
affect the survival of endangered and threatened
wildlife
3. Protection and conservation of natural functions
of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitat,
rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, wetlands
including estuarine marshes, freshwater beaches
and shores, and marine habitats
4. Protection of existing natural reservations
identified in the recreation and open space
element


-11-












SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PLAN SUBMISSION DATES


LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Alachua County

Alachua County
Alachua (City)
Archer
Gainesville
Hawthorne
Lacrosse
Micanopy
Newberry
Waldo

Bradford County

Bradford County
Brooker
Hampton
Lawtey
Starke

Calhoun County

Altha
Blountstown
Calhoun County


DATE


May 1, 1991
June 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
June 1, 1991
June 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
June 1, 1991
May 1, 1991


July 1,
July 1,
July 1,
July 1,
July 1,


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


March 1, 1991
March 1, 1991
March 1, 1991


Clay County


Clay County
Green Cove Springs
Keystone Heights
Orange Park
Penney Farms

Columbia County

Columbia County
Fort White
Lake City


Gadsden County

Chattachoochee
Gadsden County
Greensboro
Gretna
Havana
Midway


February 1,
February 1,
February 1,
February 1,
February 1,
February 1,


July 1,
July 1,
July 1,
July 1,
July 1,



January
January
January


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


1, 1991
1, 1991
1, 1991


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991











Gilchrist County

Bell
Fanning Springs
Gilchrist County
Trenton

Hamilton County

Hamilton County
Jasper
Jennings
White Springs

Lafayette County

Lafayette County
Mayo


June 1,
June 1,
June 1,
June 1,


January
January
January
January


April 1,
April 1,


Lake County


Astatula
Clermont
Eustis
Fruitland Park
Groveland
Howey-In-The-Hills
Lady Lake
Lake County
Leesburg
Mascotte
Minneola
Montverde
Mount Dora
Tavares
Umatilla


February
March 1,
March 1,
March 1,
March 1,
February
February
February
March 1,
February
February
February
March 1,
March 1,
March 1,


Liberty County

Bristol
Liberty County

Madison County

Greenville
Lee
Madison (City)
Madison County


1, 1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1, 1991
1, 1991
1, 1991
1991
1, 1991
1, 1991
1, 1991
1991
1991
1991


January 1, 1991
January 1, 1991


April 1,
April 1,
April 1,
April 1,


1991
1991
1991
1991


1991
1991"
1991
1991


1, 1991
1, 1991
1, 1991
1, 1991


1991
1991










Marion County

Belleview
Dunnellon
Marion County
McIntosh
Ocala
Reddick

Orange County

Apopka
Belle Isle
Maitland
Ocoee
Orlando
Winter Garden
Winter Park

Putnam County

Crescent City
Interlachen
Palatka
Pomona Park
Putnam County
Welaka

Seminole County

Altamonte Springs
Casselberry
Lake Mary
Longwood
Oviedo
Sanford
Seminole County
Winter Springs

Sumter County

Bushnell
Center Hill
Coleman
Sumter County
Webster
Wildwood

Suwannee County

Branford
Live Oak
Suwannee County


May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991


January
January
January
January
January
January
January



June 1,
June 1,
June 1,
June 1,
June 1,
June 1,


April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April


March
March
March
March
March
March


April
April
April


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991


1991
1991
1991











Union County


Lake Butler
Raiford
Union County
Worthington Springs


May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991
May 1, 1991


ref:LocGovDtes/12/90




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs