HB 399 Should Override Parking Minimums, not the Miami Dade Urban Development Boundary
HB 399 has drawn wide criticism. Let’s go through it point by point. Section 5 is our commentary on the Miami Dade Urban Development Boundary if that is what you are here for. The bill is in committee in the Florida Senate. We’ll update this when it hits the floor.
But first, some context. Florida is a “home rule” state. Local towns and municipalities are empowered to write their own development rules and authorize developments without state approval. The Florida legislature can preempt and override local authority when they see fit. HB 399 does exactly that with varying levels of impact.
HB 399
Section 1 & 2: Development Fees
Restricting fees to actual costs of review, not project value, is a sensible reform. Larger developments, such as apartment buildings, should not shoulder a disproportionate amount of development review costs. This adds an extra cost burden to larger developments we want to encourage for downtowns.
Section 3: New School Infrastructure Connections
The public authorities must coordinate infrastructure connections to new schools requiring access to infrastructure. Relatively straightforward.
Section 4: Large Destination Resorts
This section compels local governments to administratively approve variances that apply to only 20% of a large destination resort property for refurbishment or modification, as long as the work is consistent with the permitted use of the property. The stated intent is for timeliness. Compelling variance approval without a development review board hearing is a red flag. Variances are intended for properties experiencing hardship, where applying the normal rules creates practical difficulties or even amounts to a “taking” of the property. This section is giving a fast pass to resorts that is likely unnecessary and removes local oversight.
Section 5: Overriding local land use decision voting thresholds
Text added to the Florida Statute: “Notwithstanding any provision of a county charter, the exclusive method for the transmittal and adoption of an amendment to the future land use element of a comprehensive plan must be by affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the governing body present at the hearing.”
According to the Florida Association of Counties, there are 20 charter counties in Florida. Charter counties have their own charter, a local “constitution” that allows them to structure their government, define local laws and procedures, and exercise broader home rule authority. Charter counties can supersede their constituent municipalities and govern development through countywide rules.
This invalidates any county charter provisions and reduces any instance of two-thirds or other supermajority to 50% +1. The stated intention is to open up more land for development by reducing the threshold to amend future land use plans.
This is a state override of local control. In high-demand areas like Miami-Dade, this could pave the way for development into environmentally sensitive areas. South Florida suffers from highly restrictive zoning that causes sprawl. While some dense areas exist, low-density sprawl is the norm for the majority of the developed area.
A quick look at the Miami Dade parcel map shows that the undeveloped areas west and south of the county are mostly owned by the South Florida Water Management District, Florida Power and Light, or Miami Dade County. Some private owners, agricultural uses, and mining uses are present.
Zooming out, Miami Dade County could sprawl up to 20% farther west and south before reaching Everglades National Park (federally-owned land). This would remove the buffer between the city and Florida’s most iconic and recovering ecosystem.
What the bill does not solve are the root causes of sprawl and housing scarcity. These are created by restrictive zoning that forces swathes of asphalt, low-density development, and restrictive uses on zones. We don’t need more land open for sprawl in Florida. We need to modernize development rules so the market can respond to what is being demanded. We need at least the option to grow up, not out.
Section 6: Specific quantifiable standards must be referenced for denial of an application.
This section garners criticism for increasing the burden on denial for development review authorities. Cities and towns will have to be more proactive in planning the community they want through their planning process. They will have to legislate specific standards through planning boards or commissions, or accept more developments they did not envision but did not provide specific, quantifiable standards for.
“A denial of an application on compatibility grounds 178 must specify with particularity the area or areas of 179 incompatibility, including applicable standards and an 180 explanation of any mitigation measures considered and declined 181 by the applicant, or the basis for determining that feasible 182 mitigation measures do not exist. References to "community 183 character" or "neighborhood feel" are not sufficient, in and of 184 themselves, to support a denial of an application on 185 compatibility grounds.”
Local governments can still deny rezoning petitions or land use changes that do not comply with their comprehensive plans. These changes are oriented toward the process of development review. From a developer perspective, this adds more predictability to outcomes, which could lower the amount of time wasted on development projects that get denied for vague (possibly appropriate) reasons. This section does not compel local reviewers to utilize variances more than the typical standard. Properties must demonstrate hardship criteria for a variance.
Section 7: Allow replacement of older manufactured or mobile home units
If an area is zoned for a mobile home or RV park, local governments cannot prevent the placement of new, state-certified, factory-built housing. This allows for older manufactured units to be replaced by newer units instead of leaving the only options as either maintaining aging units or demolishing them without replacement. If your community goal is to remove manufactured or mobile home parks, that is a question of rezoning those areas. Locking in old units by preventing their replacement will not lead to great outcomes.
Section 8: Off-site constructed homes for permanent installation must be allowed in single family residential zoning
Some people’s heads will spin at this. Modular, factory-built, and manufactured homes that are constructed off-site and transported to their final lot for permanent installation will be allowed in single family zones. While cities can maintain design controls such as exterior materials, setbacks, roof pitches, etc, this section of the bill would require local governments to treat these manufactured homes the same as site-built homes for zoning purposes, despite their off-site construction.
So, if there are empty lots in your neighborhood, manufactured homes could provide a low-cost alternative for construction if this bill passes. This could reduce housing costs in some areas. This will certainly face criticism from people worried about their neighborhood and property values. With housing costs skyrocketing in the last 10 years, it's hard to blame legislators for seeking solutions.
Section 9:
If HB 399 passes, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) will conduct a study on the effects of eliminating the Miami Dade Urban Development Boundary (UDB). Cities and regions that deploy urban growth boundaries need to regularly study the outcomes created by the boundary. Since the supply of developable land is being restricted, cities must be able to grow internally: increase height limits; remove parking minimums; allow mixed use development. Let the market supply housing, offices, retail, and other uses at the scale and in the areas people need.