April 7, 2023 | Legislative Reporter
There are four weeks remaining before the 2023 legislative session is scheduled to end on May 5. Bills continue to move through the committee process. Over the past week, the following bill of interest was passed by both chambers:
• CS/SB 106 – Florida Shared Use Nonmotorized Trail Network (Recap on pp. 6)
Every bill passed by the legislature is presented to the governor for approval and becomes a law if the governor approves and signs it, or fails to veto it within seven consecutive days after presentation. If during that period or on the seventh day the legislature adjourns sine die or takes a recess of more than 30 days, the governor has 15 consecutive days from the date of presentation to act on the bill. To track Governor DeSantis’s action on bills, go to flgov.com and click on “2023 Bill Actions” on the right side of the page.
The Bill Tracking Report, as of April 7, can be viewed here. Please review it to see the bills filed that APA Florida is tracking. Note that these tracking reports contain a new feature; if you click on the bill number, you are linked to more information about the bill.
If you would like any bills added to this report or would like more information about a specific bill, please contact Stefanie Svisco at ssvisco@floridaplanning.org
Please note: Not all bills are covered in all legislative reports. If a bill was covered in a previous reporter, and no action has taken place since that reporter, the bill will not be discussed until further action has occurred. These summaries are based on a review of the bill language and legislative staff analysis. You are encouraged to read the actual bill language of bills that interest you. Thank you.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Land Use and Development Regulations: CS/SB 1604 (Sen. Ingoglia) was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee, reflecting committee amendments, on April 5 and moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee, its second of three committees of reference.
The amended bill deletes a number of proposed changes in the bill as initially filed and reduces the scope of the bill. (Read the legislative staff report of the original bill to see what was previously proposed.) The bill as amended now does the following:
• Amends ss.163.3177(5)(a) to amend the planning periods for comprehensive plans from at least 5 and 10 years to at least 10 and 20 years;
• Amends ss.163.3191(1) F.S. to specify that the notification sent by a local government to DEO regarding an EAR determination must include a separate affidavit:
o signed by the county governing body chair or the municipality mayor, attesting that all the elements of its comprehensive plan comply with the requirements of s.163.3191(1),F.S.
o including a certification that the adopted plan contains the minimum planning period of 10 year; and
o citing the source and date of the population projections utilized in establishing the 10-year planning period;
• Amends ss.163.3191(3) to:
o state that local governments are required, versus encouraged, to comprehensively evaluate and, as necessary, update comprehensive plans to reflect changes in local conditions; and
o add that updates to the required elements and optional elements must be processed in the same plan amendment cycle;
• Amends ss.163.3191(4) and add a new (5), F.S., to provide that if a local government fails to provide its EAR notification and affidavit or fails to update its plan within a year of transmitting the notification, it may not initiate or adopt any publicly initiated plan amendments until it complies, unless otherwise required by general law.
o this prohibition does not apply to privately initiated plan amendments;
o the failure of a local government to update its plan in a timely manner is not the basis for the denial of a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment;
o if a local government fails to update its comprehensive plan, the state land planning agency must provide the required population projections that must be used by the local government and the local government must initiate an update within 3 months of receipt and transmit the update within 12 months;
o if the state land planning agency finds the update is not in compliance , it must establish the timeline to address the deficiencies, not to exceed an additional 12-month period;
o If the update is challenged by a third party, the local government may seek approval from the state land planning agency to process publicly initiated plan amendments that are necessary to accommodate the population growth during the pendency of the litigation;
o during the update process, the local government can provide alternative population projections based on professionally acceptable methodologies, but only if they exceed the ones provided by the state land planning agencies and only if the update is completed in the timeframe;
• Amends ss.163.3202(5), F.S.to:
o delete existing language that allows the application of building design element regulations to singlefamily or two-family dwellings located in a planned unit development or a master planned community;
o revise the provision regarding the application of building design regulations to single family or twofamily dwellings within a local government that has a design review board or architectural review board to require that the board has to have been created before January 1, 2020; and
o delete the definition of planned unit development and master planned community.
CS/HB 439 (Rep. McClain), a similar bill to SB 1604 as originally filed, is in the House Commerce Committee, its second of three committees of reference. This bill proposes additional provisions including:
• Amending the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act;
• Revising definitions and data sources that are used in consideration of the comprehensive plan and plan amendment;
• Removing the consideration of community goals and vision as a separate component of a local government’s analysis;
• Providing that optional elements of the comprehensive plan may not be updated until required elements have been updated, unless those updates are required by law;
• Prohibiting optional elements of a comprehensive plan from restricting the density or intensity established in the future land use element portion of a comprehensive plans;
• providing that levels of service established in a comprehensive plan solely for planning purposes may not be a basis for the denial of a development order or permit;
• Removing a list of indicators a local government must consider relating to urban sprawl, instead requiring local governments to discourage urban sprawl by more effectively planning for future growth;
• Requiring land development regulations adopted by a local government to establish minimum lot sizes consistent with the maximum density authorized by the comprehensive plan and to provide standards for infill residential development.
Local Regulation of Nonconforming or Unsafe Structures: CS/CS/SB 1346 (Sen. Avila), reflecting committee amendments, was moved favorably by the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee on April 4. It now moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its last committee of reference.
The bill creates s.553.8991, F.S., which establishes the Resiliency and Safe Structures Act. The bill applies to all of the following structures, unless the structure is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or is a single-family home:
• “Nonconforming structures” located within one-half mile of the coastline and within zones V, VE, AO, or AE, as identified in the Flood insurance Rate Map issued by FEMA (added by the committee);
• Any structure determined to be unsafe by a local building official; and
• Any structure ordered to be demolished by a local government that has proper jurisdiction.
The bill defines “nonconforming structure” as a structure that does not conform to the requirements for new construction issued by the National Flood Insurance Program.
It also provides that a local government (municipality, county, special district or any other political subdivision of the state) may not prohibit, restrict, or prevent the demolition of any qualifying structure identified in this section for any reason, other than public safety.
A local government may review an application for a demolition permit sought pursuant to this section only administratively for compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, and the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto, and any regulation applicable to a similarly situated parcel. (Note this provision was added by the committee.) The local government may not subject an application to additional land development regulations or public hearings.
The bill requires that a local government authorize “replacement structures” to be developed to the maximum height and overall building size authorized by local development regulations. A “replacement structure” is defined as a new structure built on a property where a structure was demolished or will be demolished in accordance with this section.
A local government may not do any of the following:
• Limit, for any reason, the development potential of replacement structures below the maximum allowed by the local development regulations (added by the committee);
• Require replication of a demolished structure;
• Limit the size or height of a replacement structure;
• Require maintenance of any element of a demolished structure; and
• Impose additional regulatory or building requirements on a replacement structure, demolished pursuant to this section, which would not otherwise be applicable to a similarly situated vacant parcel.
The bill states that s.553.8991,F.S., applies prospectively and retroactively to any “law” –defined toinclude any statute, ordinance,rule, regulation, policy,resolution, code enforcement order, agreement, or othergovernmentalact
that is contrary to thissection orits intent. Thecommittee added language that thebill doesnot apply to s.553.79(25), F.S., which dealswith the demolitionof single-family residential structures in certain high-hazard areas andflood zones. The billspecifically states that this new sectionmust be liberally construedto effectuate its intent.
It also includes a preemption provision that prohibits a local government from adopting or enforcing a law that in any way limits the demolition of any structures or that limits the development of replacement structures that fall under this section. A local government may not penalize an owner or developer of a replacement structure for a demolition pursuant to this section or otherwise enact laws that defeat the intent of this section. Any local government law contrary to this section is void.
CS/HB 1317 (Rep. Roach), a similar bill, is in the House Commerce Committee, its final committee of reference.
Building Construction: CS/SB 512 (Sen. Hooper), a delete-all amendment, was reported favorably by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on April 5 and moves to the Senate Regulated Industries Committee, its second of three committees of reference. The delete-all amendment made this bill substantively identical with CS/CS/HB 89 (Rep. Maggard) which is on the House Calendar on Second Reading.
The bill makes changes to notification requirements a local government must provide regarding the specific reasons why buildings plans do not comply with the Florida Building Code and other specified codes. It amends ss.553.79(2), F.S., to provide that if the building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector requests another local enforcing agency employee or person contracted by the local enforcing agency to review the plans and such person identifies specific plan features that do not comply with applicable codes, the building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector, must provide this information to the local enforcing agency.
After a local enforcement agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications unless the changes are required for compliance with the Building Code, the Fire Prevention Code, Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto.
If the local enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications after the permit has been issued, the local enforcing agency:
• Must identify specific parts of the plan that do not comply with the applicable codes;
• Identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based; and
• Provide this information to the permitholder in writing.
A plans examiner or inspector who fails to provide the building code administrator with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to building plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate. Additionally, a building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permit holder with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to building plans or specifications is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate.
The bill also amends ss.633.208(2), F.S. to:
• Provide that if a county, municipality, or special district concludes that the building plans for a building permit application do not comply with the Florida Fire Prevention Code or Life Safety Code or local amendments thereto, the local fire official must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific chapters and sections upon which the determination is based, and provide the information to the permit applicant;
• Provide that, after a municipality, county or special district issues a building permit, it may not make or require any substantive changes to the building plans except those required for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If substantive changes are made or required, the local fire official must identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the
applicable codes, identify the specific chapters and sections upon which the determination is based, and provide the information to permit holder; and
• Specify that a local fire official, who is also a certified fire safety inspector, who fails to comply with the requirements identified in the above two bullets, is subject to disciplinary action against their certificate.
Municipal Boundaries: CS/SB 718 (Sen. Yarborough) was reported favorably by the Senate Government Oversight and Accountability Committee on April 5 and moves to the Senate Rules Committee, its last committee of reference. The bill amends the Municipal Annexation or Contraction Act in Ch. 171, F.S.
Specifically, the bill identifies the report a municipality must prepare prior to any annexation or contraction action as a “feasibility study,” and defines the study in s.171.031, F.S., as an analysis conducted by qualified staff or consultants of the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of the proposed annexation or contraction, as applicable.
The bill amends ss.171.0413(5), F.S., relating to annexations, to clarify that the reference to 70 percent of the land in an area proposed to be annexed refers to acres of land.
As it pertains to contractions, the bill amends s.171.051, F.S., to remove the requirement that a municipality provide specific findings when rejecting a petition from the voters in an area desiring to be excluded from the municipal boundaries, and specifies that such rejection is a legislative decision. It also revises the contraction procedures in situations where more than 70 percent of the acres proposed to be contracted are owned by private entities that are not registered electors. Additionally, it requires in these instances that the owners of more than 50 percent of the acreage consent to such contraction. This provision mirrors requirements in current law for municipal annexation.
A similar bill, CS/HB 653 (Rep. Canady), is in the House Ethics, Elections & Open Government Subcommittee, its second of three committees of reference.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Natural Emergencies: CS/CS/SB 250 E1 (Sen. Martin), was passed by the Senate, reflecting floor amendments, on April 3 and is in Messages to the House. The bill makes various changes throughout Florida Statutes regarding the preparation and response activities of state and local government when natural emergencies impact the state. Note that there is currently no House companion bill or related bills.
Included among other changes, the bill does the following:
• Requires the Division of Emergency Management to post on its website a model debris removal contract for the benefit of local governments;
• Creates s.252.391, F.S., which encourages local governments to create emergency financial plans in preparation for major natural disasters;
• Creates s.125.023 and 166.0335, F.S., to provide that, following the declaration of a state of emergency for a natural emergency during which a permanent residential structure was damaged or rendered uninhabitable, counties and municipalities respectively cannot prohibit that resident from placing a temporary residential structure, such as a recreational vehicle or trailer, on their property for up to 36 months following a natural emergency if:
o the resident makes a good faith effort to rebuild or renovate the damaged permanent residential structure
o the temporary structure is connected to water and electric utilities and does not present a threat to health and human safety; and
o the resident lives in the temporary structure;
• Creates ss.252.40(3), F.S., which authorizes local governments to create specialized building inspection teams to review and approve expedited permits for temporary housing solutions, repairs and renovations following a natural , and encourages interlocal agreements for additional building inspection services during a state of emergency;
• Creates s.553.7922, F.S., requires impacted local governments, following a state of emergency for a natural disaster, to approve special processing procedures to expedite permit issuance for permits that do not require technical review, including but not limited to roof repairs, reroofing, electrical repairs, service changes, or the replacement of one window or one door. Local governments may waive application and inspection fees for permits expedited under this section;
• Amends s.252.363(1)(a), F.S., to increase the tolling extension of the existing specified permits or authorizations following a declaration of a state of emergency for a natural emergency from six to 24 months and caps such extension at 48 months in the event of multiple natural emergencies;
• Amends s.553.80, F.S., to specify that, effective January 1, 2023, counties and municipalities within the disaster declaration for Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole cannot increase building inspection fees until October 1, 2024; this prohibition expires on June 30, 2025; and
• State that, upon becoming law and expiring on June 30, 2025,:
o counties and municipalities, located entirely or partially within 100 miles of where either Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole made landfall, cannot adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations, nor propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval, or issuance of a site plan, development permit, or development order before Oct. 1, 2024. Any such restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendment, land development regulation, or procedure shall be null and void ad initio. This applies retroactively to Sept. 29, 2022. (Note that the bill was amended on the floor to expand the proposed language to include procedures as well as comprehensive plans and land development regulations);
o provide that, notwithstanding the prohibition immediately above, any comprehensive plan amendment, land development regulation amendment, site plan, development permit, or development order approved or adopted by a county or municipality on or after the effective date of the bill becoming law may be enforced if:
▪ the associated application is initiated by a private party other than the county or municipality; and
▪ the property that is the subject of the application is owned by the initiating party (Note the bill was amended on the floor to include these two conditions).
TRANSPORTATION
Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized Trail Network: CS/SB 106 ER (Sen. Brodeur) was passed by the Senate on March 8 and subsequently passed by the House on April 4. It expands the existing Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail Network and enhances coordination of the state’s trail system with the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
Specifically, the bill:
• Prioritizes the development of “regionally significant trails” which are defined as trails crossing multiple counties; serving economic and ecotourism development; showcasing the state’s wildlife areas, ecology, and natural resources; and serving as main corridors for trail connectedness across the state;
• Enhances the planning, coordination, and marketing of the state’s bicycle and pedestrian trail system and the Wildlife Corridor;
• Stipulates that trails developed within the Wildlife Corridor maximize the use of previously disturbed lands, such as abandoned roads and railroads, canal corridors, and drainage berms, and be compatible with applicable land use provisions;
• Requires the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to erect uniform signage identifying trails that are part of the SUN Trail Network and to submit a periodic report on the status of the SUN Trail Network;
• authorizes the FDOT and local governments to enter into sponsorship agreements, instead of the current concession agreements, for trails and to use associated revenues for maintenance, signage, and related amenities;
• Recognizes “trail town” communities and directs specified entities to promote the use of trails as economic assets, including the promotion of trail-based tourism; and
• Increases recurring funding for the SUN Trail Network from $25 million to $50 million and provides a nonrecurring appropriation of $200 million to plan, design, and construct the SUN Trail Network.
NEWS CLIPS
Lawmakers seek to beef up insurer oversight after tort reforms
Florida Politics |April 5
‘Buckle up': DeSantis escalates Disney dispute, eyes hotel taxes and road tolls Politico |April 6
Bill easing restrictions on delivery drones coasts to Senate floor
Florida Politics |April 5
Florida has most lead pipes in U.S. and is getting $376M for drinking water upgrades
WUSF |April 5
Senators strike septic tank testing requirements from algae bill
Florida Politics |April 4