TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – While a controversial proposal to take decisions about developing land out of local hands has stalled in the state legislature, new language has been added to another House bill with striking similarities.
Senate Bill 1118 and its companion bill in the House both received backlash from local government officials and Central Florida residents who opposed legislation that would essentially undo our rural boundaries and restrict local development control.
But now, there’s a new version of House Bill 579 that appears to include some of the same concepts.
So, how different are SB 1118 and HB 579?
We compared the text, line by line, in both pieces of legislation regarding “agricultural enclaves.” Other than minor tweaks, the language in some sections is essentially the same.
For instance, where SB 1118 reads:
“Do not exceed 700 acres and are surrounded on at least 50 percent of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels that the local government has designated in the local government’s comprehensive plan and future land use map as land that is to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes; and the parcel or parcels are surrounded on at least 50 percent.”
HB 579 states:
“Do not exceed 700 acres and are surrounded on at least 50 percent of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels that the local government has designated on the local government’s future land use map as land that is to be developed for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes; and the parcel or parcels are surrounded on at least 50 percent of their perimeter by a parcel or parcels within an urban service district, area, or line”
Dave Bear, president of the group “Save Rural Seminole” says he noticed the similarities were added into HB 579 after it had already passed through two committees.
“After those two committees approved it, these lobbyists have slipped this very important language into the bill to be addressed by the third and last committee, rendering the first two committees obsolete,” said Bear. “Why were they there? What did they do? Because this important language wasn’t actually there for them to review.”
Bear has encouraged residents to reach out to local lawmakers and share their concerns. Some leaders in Seminole County and the cities within it have already publicly shared letters they addressed to Tallahassee demonstrating their opposition to SB 1118 and/or its companion HB 1209.
Bear says the “agricultural enclave” language that would allow parcels to be carved out and developed was one of the most concerning parts of those bills and is a main reason why he is now closely watching HB 579.
“Candidly, that was the biggest threat to Seminole County,” said Bear.
However, HB 579 does not appear to include language that would dismantle the rural boundary.
The latest version of SB 1118 not only bans local initiatives or referendums regarding land development regulation but also makes the ban retroactive to June 1, 2011.
“That is not in these bills,” said Bear. “And so Orange County’s rural boundary would not be automatically eliminated in this bill like it was in the prior.”
Bear said there is another difference between SB 1118 and HB 579 that caught his eye. HB 579 would establish a public hearing process that would involve local governments.
According to the bill, landowners would apply for certification of an agricultural enclave as it’s defined by law. It would be up to the local government to then hold a public hearing to “certify or deny the land is the subject of the application as an agricultural enclave.”
Bear calls it a “technical evaluation.”
“The commissioners will be charged with technically evaluating, basically the size of the property, what type of property is next to it, and based upon these physical characteristics, does it meet the statutory definition?” said Bear. “If so, they’re required to stamp it as an agricultural enclave, regardless of what they think, regardless of what the community thinks.”
News 6 reached out to Rep. Toby Overdorf, a Republican who represents District 85, and asked for his perspective on this legislation.
“In light of the concerns I have with the language that was placed on my bill as well as based on public input, I filed an amendment specifically regarding the agricultural enclaves language. The language returns reviews back to local control, requires that the parcel had to be an ag enclave as of January 1, 2025, and requires the proposed legislative changes sunset (repeal) as of January 1, 2027. By doing this it limits the amount of parcels to be considered and will not allow for the “spread” of agricultural enclaves as the legislation will not allow for the creation of new enclaves.”
Rep. Toby Overdorf, District 85
HB 579 was expected in front of the House Commerce Committee Tuesday, according to an online agenda.
Rep. Overdorf said he was informed in the afternoon that the bill will not be heard until next week.