Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broward Planning Council updates administrative rules to require affordable set-asides for redevelopment allocations; in-lieu fee standardized
Summary
The Broward County Planning Council presented changes to Broward NEXT administrative rules: Article 3 now asks for affordable housing set-asides when jurisdictions request redevelopment units, and Article 5 would standardize the in-lieu fee to align with Policy 216.4 (the Geller policy); Article 5 is slated for consideration in September.
Dawn Tietzel, a planner with the Broward County Planning Council, told the Broward County Housing Council that the council updated its Broward NEXT administrative rules to require affordable-housing set-asides when local governments apply for county redevelopment units.
"Since it's an incentive based policy, the Commission thought this was a really good way to sort of get our local government partners to provide affordable housing," Tietzel said, explaining that redevelopment units are requested from the county when a local government wants to increase density.
The Planning Council also proposed a change to Article 5 to standardize the in-lieu fee used when a project does not include an affordable set-aside. Tietzel said the change would align the in-lieu calculation with Policy 216.4 (often called the Geller policy) and Policy 216.2, and noted the current ad-hoc fee in some cases is effectively a dollar-per-square-foot while the aligned fee would be materially higher and increase annually. The council intends to consider Article 5 for adoption in September.
Council members asked for clarification about when the requirement applies. Tietzel repeated that the requirement applies to any request for redevelopment units from the county — not to naturally occurring redevelopment at the local level — and is intended as an incentive for local governments to provide affordable housing when they seek county redevelopment allocations.
Council members also asked whether recent state legislation (Senate Bill 180) would prevent the updates from moving forward. Tietzel said the administrative rules document is different from the county land-use plan policies and is not subject to state review; she added these are optional, incentive-based programs rather than mandatory restrictions, and the Planning Council worked with the county attorney's office to confirm the approach.
No formal vote on either Article 3 or Article 5 took place at the meeting; Tietzel said Article 3 had been adopted the previous day and that Article 5 was set for consideration in September.
Votes and next steps: Article 3 — adopted (per Planning Council update); Article 5 — proposed alignment with Policy 216.4, scheduled for consideration in September.
Ending: The Planning Council presenters concluded their remarks and left the meeting; council staff said the documents will continue through the scheduled adoption process.
