SB 372: Developments of Regional ImpactMy Source says: "This should be renamed the most pro urban sprawl bill that Rick Scott and the legislature has come up with. I don't know how much support this has but it was pretty close last year. This will create chaos outside the UDB. Sosa is reported to be proposing a resolution "urging" them to remove certain language but it depends on the actual legislature to take the "urging" or not."
GENERAL BILL by Galvano (read it here)
Developments of Regional Impact; Deleting certain exemptions for dense urban land areas; revising the exemption for any proposed development within a county that has a population of at least 300,000 and an average population of at least 400 people per square mile, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2014
Last Action: 12/9/2013 Senate - Referred to Community Affairs; Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; Appropriations; Rules
Location: In committee/council (CA)
READ THIS RESPONSE to Mr. Bad Bill from 1,000 Friends of Florida:
December 20, 2013
The Honorable Bill Galvano, Senator
1023 Manatee Ave. W., Suite 201
Bradenton, FL 34205
1023 Manatee Ave. W., Suite 201
Bradenton, FL 34205
RE: SB 372
Dear Senator Galvano:
1000 Friends of Florida, as a growth management watchdog,
has been directly involved in the “dense urban land area” (DULA) legislation
that your bill would modify. While we
supported the concept for DRI exemptions within DULAs, we did not believe the
1000 people/square mile threshold was an adequate standard as that translates
into 1.6 people/acre – hardly what most people consider dense or urban. We had suggested that if one was
true to the intent, densities like at 3000 (4.7 people/acre) to 5000 (almost 8
people/acre) people/square mile were needed.
In any event, that standard was adopted by the Legislature
as part of the statutory intent to exempt development that would otherwise go
through the DRI process as an incentive for new projects within dense areas
that already had urban services and infrastructure in place. Such an approach would meet many state policy
objectives that promoted infill development, eliminated sprawl, saved taxpayer
dollars, and located projects in already developed areas that would have
minimal, if any, environmental impacts.
And as noted above, we agreed with that concept.
SB 372 would appear to incentivize DRI scale development
outside of the areas the DULA concept is intended to incentivize. Not only would it remove the requirement that
DULAs be located within an urban service boundary where urban infrastructure
and services are either available or planned, it would further reduce the
qualifying density standard to 400 people/square mile.
It is simply not possible to suggest that 400 people/square mile is
either dense or urban as this is only .63 people/acre. This would clearly
be a rural area where the benefit of DRI reviews would be the most valuable. I am more concerned with this provision and
the removal of the urban service district standard than I am with allowing the
lower population threshold number of 300,000.
I would be most interested in following up with you or a member of
your staff about SB 372 at your earliest convenience. Thanking you for considering these comments,
I am
Sincerely,
Charles G. Pattison, FAICP
President
President
2 comments:
Whatever happened to Comprehensive Land Use Planning? Do they still do it? If they do, do they still represent the law? Why is there a need for any additional measures like this?
There is no need for measures like this one. This is an invitation for major developments outside the UDB and it opens a Pandora Box.
Post a Comment