Development Bills Get Go-Ahead in Senate

By Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida

Proposals that would allow single-family homes on some property zoned for agriculture and make it more difficult for local governments to increase impact fees started to move forward Tuesday in the Florida Senate.

The Senate Committee Affairs Committee approved two bills by Chairman Stan McClain, R-Ocala, that are being watched closely by environmental groups.

One measure (SB 686) would allow owners of what are known as agricultural “enclaves” in counties with populations under 1.75 million to put forward plans for single-family housing that are consistent with land-use requirements of adjacent parcels. Such enclaves are generally agricultural land surrounded by development.

Only Miami-Dade and Broward counties have more than 1.75 million residents, based on 2025 estimates from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

McClain said the proposal is about “property rights.”

“Someone that owns a piece of property should be able to come and certainly enjoy the same benefit of a decision made by a governmental body that was made for his neighbors,” McClain said.

Neil Fleckenstein, planning coordinator for the Tall Timbers land trust, expressed concern the agricultural enclaves measure could undermine local planning and decision making.

“We work really closely with local governments on their comprehensive plans,” Fleckenstein said. “They spend a lot of time, and in the areas that I work in, they’re really focused on trying to protect those ag lands and rural working land.”

The growth-management group 1000 Friends of Florida said Friday the proposal “would override local comprehensive plans and accelerate development in rural areas, even where communities have planned for agriculture or conservation.”

The other bill (SB 548) that moved forward Tuesday seeks to require local governments to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” where specific conditions are met before raising impact fees beyond ordinary limits on phasing in the fees.

Supporting the proposal, Louis Rotundo, a lobbyist for Altamonte Springs, said the bill clarifies that local governments have “to explain to both developers and to the citizens what is being charged and what is being built and when it is going to be built.”

Environmental groups also have opposed four other bills that McClain is pursuing this session. They include a bill (SB 208) intended to make the permit and development-order application process less costly while making it harder for local governments to deny applications because of a lack of compatibility with existing neighboring land uses.

Another bill (SB 354) would preempt local land-use regulations for what are dubbed “Blue Ribbon” projects of at least 10,000 acres, with at least 60 percent of the property set aside for environmental protection, agriculture, recreation and utilities.