Results of the Substantial Deviation Workgroup

Material Information

Results of the Substantial Deviation Workgroup


Subjects / Keywords:
Land development ( jstor )
Local governments ( jstor )
Business orders ( jstor )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida


Jake Varn Collection - Results of the Substantial Deviation Workgroup (JDV Box 70)
General Note:
Box 24, Folder 4 ( Water Supply Issues - Linking Water Supply Planning and Land Use Planning - 1992-1996 ), Item 4
Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text



Gove r Secretary

TO: Secretary Sh ll

FROM: Alex Magee

SUBJECT: Substantial Deviation Workgroup

DATE: December 6, 1993

Attached for your review and consideration are the results
of the Substantial Deviation Workgroup. The workgroup spent a
considerable amount of time and effort revising the existing
substantial deviation review process.

I personally would like to thank all the members for their
help and patience. Jake Varn, Dave Mechanik, and Randi
Fitzgerald were kind enough to offer their offices as meeting
places, which was much appreciated. Additionally, special thanks
should go to Jake Varn for drafting statutory language.

The attached document represents general consensus between
the workgroup members. As such, I believe that it is fair to say
that everyone has certain things in it that they like and certain
things that they were on the minority side. However, I think
that all the members would agree that the proposed changes are an
improvement over the current process.

Additionally, subsequent to the workgroup's meetings, staff
reviewed the existing statute to see if any major existing
provisions appeared to be left out of the revised process. The
attached Exhibit 1 outlines provisions which staff believes
should be carried forward. Also attached is a memo from Kathy
Castor outlining some further thinking on her part regarding some
issues raised in the workgroup discussions.

I would just like to highlight some issues within the
proposed process which cause staff some concern. These issues
may make more sense after you have had a chance to review the
revised process; however, I will summarize them as follows:


Page Two
December 6, 1993

the revised process maintains the existing review of
a buildout or phase extensions of less than five years at
5-15 the local level; staff felt that this shou-d apply to
extensions of less than three years.

the revised process creates three categories of
changes: Category I (Local review only); Category
II(mitigation allowed to mitigate impacts without
requiring full DRI review); and Category III( full DRI
review). In Category II, the revised process requires
a local government to approve or deny the change; it
can no longer find that the change requires DRI review.
Staff believes that this option of requiring a Category
II change to undergo DRI review should be maintained.

- kr A sAWv ZI
D JT uao Po

'. cOi4WtlvAQ1' -.


- the revised process requires full DRI review for
changes involving buildout or phase extensions of
greater than fifteen years, and for changes to timing
of transportation improvements greater than ten years.
Staff believes that these time frames should be
shorter, perhaps 10 and five years respectively.

- the revised process allows limited simultaneous
increases and decreases (not exceeding a total
equivalent of 200,000 square feet). This will require
factors to turn various uses into equivalent square
feet to be adopted by rule. If this proves difficult
to do, staff believes that these types of changes
should not be allowed as Category I changes.

A meeting between you and the workgroup has been set for
December 7th at 2:00pm. At that time, we will be prepared to
brief you on the results and answer any questions you may have.
If you have any questions before that meeting, please let me


LlMWk \xJ$S A)OOL VAU1*Jl$o -

I, U
AJMft; J k w iScIe PIpi Afluuut




Listed below are provisions of Subsection 380.06(19),
Florida Statutes, which are not captured in our subsection,

14. A proposed increase to an approved multi-use
development of regional impact where the sum of the
4, increases of each land use as a percentage'-of the
applicable substantial deviation criteria is equal to
or exceeds 100 percent. The percentage of any decrease
in the amount of open space shall be treated as an
increase for purposes of determining when 100 percent
has been reached or exceeded.

(c) [F]or the purpose of calculating when a buildout date
has been exceeded, the time shall be tolled during the
pendency of administrative or judicial proceedings
relating to development permits. Any extension of the
buildout date of a project or a phase thereof shall
automatically extend the commencement date of the
proje t and the phases thereof by a like period of

4. Any submittal of a proposed change to a previously
/ approved development shall include a description of
individual changes previously made to the development,
including changes previously approved by the local

(f)6. ... The state land planning agency may not appeal a
change to a development order made pursuant to
subparagraph (e)2. for developments of regional impact
approved after January 1, 19980, unless the change
would result in a significant impact to a regionally
significant archeological, historical, or natural
S/ resource not previously identified in the original
development-of-regional-impact review.

(904)488-0410 SUNCOM 278-0410
FAX (904)922-2679

TO: Subsection 380.06(19), F.S. Workgroup

FROM: Kathy Castor, Assistant General Counsel

DATE: December 3, 1993

SUBJ: Proposals for 380.06(15)(f) and (26), F.S.

Besides the revision of 380.06(19), F.S., our committee
discussions often focused on nouveau DRI problems including
multiple owners of DRIs and old DRIs where little or no development
has occurred. Two proposals to address these problems are set out

Most committee members seemed to feel that there needs to be
a clear statement in 380.06, F.S. that DRI development orders "run
with the land" or some other statement that puts subsequent owners
of a DRI or a portion of a DRI on notice that they are subject to
the development order's terms and conditions when they purchase
certain property governed by a DRI development order.

Subsection 380.06(15)(f), F.S. is amended to read:

Notice of the adoption of a development order o And
subsequent medifieatien of amendments to an adopted development
order shall be recorded by the developer, in accordance with s.
28.222, with the clerk of the circuit court for each county in
which the development is located. The notice shall include a legal
description of the property covered by the order and shall state
which unit of local government adopted the development order, the
date of adoption, the date of adoption of any modifications to the
development order, the location where the adopted development or.
with any modifications may be examined, and that the de y ment
order constitutes a land development regulation, ap 0 able to the
property, which runs with the land until the deelopment order is
abandoned in accordance with s. 380.06(26)-.The recording of this
notice shall not constitute a lien, cloud, or encumbrance on real
property, or actual or constructive notice of any such lien, cloud,
or encumbrance. This paragraph applies only to developments
initially approved under this section after July 1, 1980.

The intent of the following revision is to provide local
governments with the authority to initiate a DRI abandonment. Some
DRIs are inactive and have been inactive since their doiginal
approval. The owner or developer of one of these DRI dinosaurs has
the right to object early on to the local government's proposal
(which would probably stop the abandonment dead in its tracks) and
the right to appeal any abandonment order pursuant to-380.07, F.S.

Subsection 380.06(26), F.S. is amended to read:

There is hereby established a process to abandon a development
of regional impact and its development orders. A development of
regional impact and its development orders may be proposed to be
abandoned by the owner, developer. or the local government in which
the development of regional impact is located. The otate land
planning agcney is authorloed t- and shall ozmmcnee rule
promulgation no later than July 1, 1909, to establish the prcozoo
for local governments to follow in the event a developer proposeo
o -abandon- it development of regional impact. The state land
Planning aaencv is authorized to promulgate iueh rules which shall
include, but not be limited to, provisions to ensure that the
developer satisfies all applicable conditions of the development
order and adequately mitigates for the impacts of the development.
If there is no existing development within the development of
regional impact at the time of abandonment and no development
within the development of regional impact is proposed by the owner
or developer after such abandonment, an abandonment order shall not
require the owner or developer to contribute any land, funds, or
public facilities as a condition of such abandonment order. The
rules shall also provide a procedure for filing notice of the
abandonment pursuant to s. 28.222 with the clerk of the circuit
court for each county in which the development of regional impact
land covered by the trmo o. f the d v.lopment order is located. Any
decision by a local government concerning the abandonment of a
development of regional impact shall be subject to an appeal
pursuant to s. 380.07. The issues in any such appeal shall be
confined to whether the provisions of this subsection or any rules
promulgated thereunder have been satisfied.