The meeting’s primary focus was a presentation on government exactions and regulatory takings, emphasizing the legal and constitutional parameters surrounding these issues. A speaker provided an in-depth overview of how government exactions operate, explaining that these are requirements imposed on developers, such as impact fees or land donations, in exchange for development approvals. The speaker stressed the importance of the Fifth Amendment’s stipulation that “no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation,” noting that compensation does not always mean monetary payment but can involve other forms of concessions.

The discussion detailed the necessity for exactions to pass the rational basis test to avoid legal challenges. The speaker outlined that local governments have the authority to regulate development impacts under Florida’s home rule powers but must implement exactions carefully to avoid legal pitfalls. The principles of “Nexus” and “rough proportionality” were introduced and explained—Nexus being the logical relationship between the exaction and the development’s impacts, and rough proportionality the degree to which the exaction correlates with the impact on the property.

Several court cases were cited to illustrate these principles. One notable case, Nolan v. California Coastal Commission, saw the court ruling against a requirement that a developer provide a permanent easement for beach access in exchange for rebuilding their beach house, finding the requirement lacked a rational Nexus. Another case, Dolan v. City of Tigard, involved the court ruling that the city’s demands were not proportional to the impact of the development project. The discussion also referenced the Pennsylvania Transportation Company v. City of New York, which introduced a test for evaluating exactions based on the regulation’s impact on the claimant, the extent of interference with investment-backed expectations, and the nature of government actions.

The conversation highlighted the complexities of claims related to compensation, especially when a development permit is denied or conditioned on exactions. The speaker referenced a Florida case, Coons v. St. John’s River Management District, where the court ruled that demands for property or money as conditions for permit approval must demonstrate both Nexus and proportionality. It was concluded that while local governments have significant regulatory power, they must clearly justify any exactions to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.

Following the detailed examination of government exactions, the focus shifted to a review of the Land Development Code, particularly the non-consensus articles between the LPA and LDCC. A major point of contention revolved around the proposed makeup of the LPA. New language suggested that at least four members should have backgrounds in specific professions such as land planning, architecture, and engineering. The LDCC supported this requirement, while the LPA leaned towards removing the entire section, sparking a debate about the balance between professional expertise and community representation.

Opponents argued that the LPA should represent the community at large, with a diverse mix of professional backgrounds, noting the practicality challenges of finding qualified professionals willing to serve.

The meeting also delved into zoning densities, particularly R2 and R1 BB classifications, and their implications for achieving certain densities. There was a suggestion to adjust R2 zoning to allow smaller lot sizes, specifically proposing a minimum of 5,000 square feet for duplexes. This led to a technical debate over whether such changes would align with existing density regulations. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of achieving higher density without resorting to Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) or subdivision plans, with some participants expressing frustration over the limitations imposed by current zoning classifications.

The discussion included the topic of “missing middle” housing and the possibility of adjusting R2 zoning to facilitate the construction of duplexes and smaller homes. Some argued that the existing framework was too restrictive, while others maintained that the current zoning was adequate for achieving necessary density as long as criteria were followed. A consensus seemed to emerge regarding allowing duplexes in R2 with the same measurements as R1 BB, theoretically enabling more units without changing the fundamental zoning.

Lastly, the conversation touched on accessory structures and their placements relative to principal structures. The LDCC favored more lenient placement rules, while the LPA recommended stricter regulations to prevent unattractive structures from being visible from the street. The legal framework, specifically Section 163.32025, was referenced, complicating the enforcement of design elements on single-family or two-family dwellings. The consensus leaned towards the LPA’s recommendations, recognizing the limitations imposed by state statutes.