New comprehensive planning legislation that may interest my readers has been filed. For those who are not as familiar with comprehensive plans, the legislative staff analysis of one the bills that have been filed explains them briefly
The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act), also known as Florida’s Growth Management Act, was adopted by the 1985 Legislature. The Act requires all of Florida’s counties and municipalities to adopt local government comprehensive plans that guide future growth and development. Comprehensive plans contain chapters or “elements” that address future land use, housing, transportation, water supply, drainage, potable water, natural groundwater recharge, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, capital improvements, and public schools. The state land planning agency that administers these provisions is the Department of Economic Opportunity.
A local government may choose to amend its comprehensive plan for a host of reasons. It may wish to: expand, contract, accommodate proposed job creation projects or housing developments, or change the direction and character of growth. Some comprehensive plan amendments are initiated by landowners or developers, but all must be approved by the local government. The first step in the process is for the local government to develop a comprehensive plan amendment proposal. Public participation is a critical part of the comprehensive planning process. Citizens often want to be a part of planning their communities and landowners need to be aware of changes that could affect their property. A local government considering a plan amendment must hold at least two advertised public hearings on the proposed comprehensive plan or plan amendment. Notice must be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the jurisdiction of interest. The procedure for transmittal of a proposed or adopted comprehensive plan amendment requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the governing body present at the hearing.
As you may recall, as a part of last year's landmark growth management legislation
, the Community Planning Act, ch. 2011-139, Laws of Fla. (HB 7207), prohibited referenda requirements
. Yankeetown's charter requires it to hold a referendum for approval of any comprehensive plan changes, and Yankeetown wanted to keep the requirement. Consequently, Yankeetown filed a lawsuit
alleging that the Community Planning Act was unconstitutional. St. Pete Beach later intervened in the case
to protect its own referendum that had eliminated
its referendum requirement (after years of court battles), and the state moved to dismiss Yankeetown's complaint
On November 9, while the state's motion to dismiss was still pending, the parties filed a joint motion and settlement
. The motion, which was approved by the court, holds the litigation while all parties use their best efforts to pass legislation to amend section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes. The proposed legislation would allow Yankeetown's referendum requirement to stand, while banning other local governments from taking it up. If the required legislation is not passed, the litigation will likely continue.
Senator Mike Bennett has already filed the implementing legislation
, SB 842. He was one of the principal authors of the Community Planning Act. The relevant language in the bill, with additions underlined, reads:
163.3167(8) An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment is prohibited. However, any local government charter provision that was in effect as of June 1, 2011, for an initiative or referendum process in regard to development orders or in regard to local comprehensive plan amendments or map amendments, may be retained and implemented.
Note that the language is quite strict: not only must local governments have already adopted their referendum requirements, but the requirements must also have adopted them as part of their charters. Charters are generally much more difficult to amend than simply passing an ordinance.
, also filed by Senator Bennett, contains the same language and appears to be moving through the committee structure even faster than SB 842. There is not yet a House companion bill.