By Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix
A proposal to allow developments of 15,000 or more contiguous acres with at least 60% of the land set as “reserve area” and 40% for commercial and residential use on land already designated for future use was approved in its final committee stop in the Florida House on Thursday.
Labeled “Blue Ribbon Projects,” the proposal has drawn substantial criticism from environmental groups, which contend that, as originally written, the bill would have fast-tracked massive developments with little meaningful input from local governments and the public.
During a House State Affairs Committee meeting Thursday, however, Naples Republican Rep. Lauren Melo introduced an amendment to her measure (HB 299) that changed to how it was originally conceived.
Initially, the bill said that Blue Ribbon projects could be developments of 10,000 or more continuous acres located on land with a future land use designation. It further stated that a comprehensive plan amendment or rezoning “may not be required for approval of a project.”
Melo’s amended proposal now says a local government could reject a Blue Ribbon project plan upon a finding that it is “substantially inconsistent with the provisions of the governing comprehensive plan.”
Also as originally written, the bill said that approval would be given “administratively,” meaning no public hearings. The amended bill says a local government must conduct two public hearings.
“The vision is simple. Protect more than we build,” Melo told lawmakers about the concept. “It’s smarter growth that preserves our environment.”
The bill still says development rights would be allowed for up to 50 years, and still says a plan is not required to demonstrate need based on projected population growth or any other basis.
‘Not good governance’
Several members of the public warned that, even as amended, the bill would lead to massive sprawl in parts of Florida.
“This is not a conservation bill,” said Hugh Long, an FSU student. “Under this bill, you could go into farmland protection areas in places like Madison County, buy up all the land, and turn more of our beautiful working lands into literally city-sized subdivisions with no demonstration of need, while completely and totally ignoring the voices of local communities. That’s not good governance. That’s not home rule.”
St. Augustine resident Sarah Strohminger said that nearly 50,000 acres in Southwest St. John’s County would be at risk of development.
“I can tell you unequivocably, this does not comply with our comp plan. If we cannot argue compliance based on future land use, we cannot argue that based on zoning, then what can we argue that on? ” she said. “It does not follow along the standards that we have right now.”
St. Johns County has “quadrupled” in size since she was born, but the infrastructure hasn’t kept pace, Strohminger said.
“The roads have not quadrupled in size,” she said. “Our sewage has not quadrupled in size. The number of schools and firemen that we have have not quadrupled in size.”
Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, conceded that Melo’s amended language made the proposal “a little less aggressive,” but said she still couldn’t get “behind the concept of granting almost like a fast pass to what really is sprawl.”
Rep. Lindsay Cross, D-St. Petersburg, originally said she was a “soft no” on the bill.
“I think there still need to be a little more clarity on how local governments and the public would argue that something is substantially inconsistent with a local government comp plan and how they would put the brakes on something like this,” she said.
However, she ultimately voted for the measure.
Definitions
“I think that this is a bargain and I can tell you that if I owned 500 acres and I went in to seek development from the local government, the chances are that I could do better than a 60% set aside,” said Rep. Richard Gentry, R-Astor.
Melo said she had ensured that golf courses, data centers, and solar farms would not be allowed in Blue Ribbon projects.
The “reserve area” as written in the bill means land set aside for “environmental conservation, wildlife corridors, wetland and wildlife mitigation, lakes, passive recreation, productive agriculture and silviculture, conservation agreements granted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.”
The “development area” includes a maximum residential density of 12 units per gross acre, and a maximum nonresidential intensity of 85% impervious surface ratio per gross acre is permitted within the development area. At least 20% of the units built would have to be “affordable housing.”
“I don’t understand again how we can’t look past a small amount of developed area for the sake of a large amount of undeveloped area,” Melo said.
The measure was approved in the committee, 21-5, with Cross and Lake Worth Rep. Debra Tendrich the only Democrats to join all of the Republicans in supporting the bill.
The measure’s Senate companion (SB 354), sponsored by Ocala Republican Stan McClain, has one more committee stop before reaching the floor of that chamber.
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: in**@************ix.com. Banner photo: Residential development in Florida (iStock image).
Sign up for The Invading Sea newsletter by visiting here. To support The Invading Sea, click here to make a donation. If you are interested in submitting an opinion piece to The Invading Sea, email Editor Nathan Crabbe.
