15:09Senate Bill 180, referred to as the “hurricane Helen and Milton version,” builds on previous legislation tied to Hurricane Ian. The bill’s provisions include prohibiting municipalities from increasing building fees until 180 days after a hurricane-related state of emergency declaration, specifically referencing Hurricane Milton’s April 3 declaration. Moreover, it mandates that permitting departments must remain open 40 hours per week post-hurricane, with the term “practicable” remaining undefined. The bill also prohibits the adoption of cumulative substantial improvement rules, a policy repealed in St. Pete Beach in December 2024.

The board’s discussion revealed concerns about the retroactive application of SB 180 to August 2024 and its potential impact on older local developments, particularly regarding redevelopment and impact fee assessments. One notable restriction is the inability of cities to impose construction or redevelopment moratoriums on hurricane-affected properties, thereby necessitating the reconstruction of storm-damaged structures in line with existing zoning laws.

The bill further prevents local governments from adopting more development standards or complicating the permitting process until October 2027. This broad preemption has raised alarms among planning organizations like the Thousand Friends of Florida, who argue it effectively halts any new restrictions on development during this period. It stipulates that changes or applications affecting only a developer’s property may proceed if sponsored by the developer, while city-initiated restrictions face curtailment.

Discussions also touched upon minor permits related to fence height and sign placement, alongside more substantial development permits. Questions arose around the definition of “burden” as it pertains to municipalities’ responses to code amendment challenges. The city attorney’s office has reviewed the bill’s potential impacts on ongoing projects, including the 8th Avenue district, which may see a shift from required design review to recommendations. The board noted that the sign ordinance would remain unchanged for the time being.

24:48Beyond the immediate implications of SB 180, the board also addressed a conditional use permit (CUP) for Corey Landings, scheduled for a virtual webinar on May 29. The significance of clear communication between the planning board and the city commission was underscored following a recent commission meeting where an applicant criticized the board for allegedly failing in its duties. A board member sought to clarify that their recommendations aligned with the comprehensive plan and relevant policies, emphasizing the advisory nature of the planning board’s role.

25:37The member referenced the applicant’s assertion that the board had not adequately considered their hardship, affirming, “I went back and I looked at the comp plan,” and stressed the planning board’s consistent findings with the city’s goals for natural resource preservation and traffic management. The applicant was noted to have misunderstood the advisory capacity of the board, mistakenly believing their recommendations were binding.

30:41The need for a clearer process in communicating the planning board’s recommendations during commission presentations was discussed. While acknowledging the validity of the applicant’s specific points, it was emphasized that they did not fully represent the board’s overall stance on the project’s compliance with the comprehensive plan and land development codes.