The Stewart City Commission on July 28 transmitted to a second reading an ordinance to rescind land-development changes adopted during a recent zoning-in-progress after the state’s Senate Bill 180 took effect July 1.

The ordinance — drafted to withdraw provisions affected by section 28 of SB 180 — was presented at first reading by city staff and moved to second reading by Vice Mayor Collins. The motion to transmit was seconded by Commissioner Gioby and approved at the meeting; final action will occur on second reading.

Why it matters: Section 28 of SB 180, the city attorney and staff told the commission, applies retroactively to Aug. 1, 2024, and bars municipalities within certain federally declared disaster counties from adopting "more restrictive or burdensome" land-development regulations related to recovery. City staff warned that failure to act after receiving a written notice could expose Stuart to litigation and attorney-fee claims.

City Manager comments and staff recommendation
City staff explained that the ordinance focuses on section 28 and does not take final action tonight. City Attorney Baggett read the ordinance title and staff summarized the law’s retroactive reach and the mechanics in the statute that allow a resident or business owner to obtain a preliminary injunction once notice is provided.

"This law does apply to the city of Stuart," the staff presentation said, noting Martin County’s inclusion in the governor’s federal disaster declaration cited in the bill. Staff recommended rescinding the local changes now to avoid being put in a position of receiving a notice that would trigger the 14‑day cure period in the statute.

Public comment: pushback and defense of ZIP
Members of the public who addressed the commission urged opposing positions. Robin Cartwright, who said she had spoken with Deltona officials and counsel for the municipal coalition, urged Stuart to “push back to Tallahassee” and to join the lawsuit challenging SB 180, saying the law could be permanent and could strip municipalities of local zoning powers. "Every municipality should consider joining this lawsuit," Cartwright said.

Another resident, Walter Lloyd, told commissioners: "Do not rescind the ZIP. Do not rescind all of that action that was put forth. Because if you rescind that, you're basically rescinding your commitment to your constituents."

Commission remarks
Vice Mayor Collins urged the commission not to "roll over" and described the issue as a defense of home rule; he said he would prefer to keep the city's ZIP changes but acknowledged the legal risk. Collins read portions of a draft resolution circulated by a municipal coalition and said he wanted Stuart to be an "ally" of other cities pursuing litigation.

Commissioner Gioby said she had concerns with the ZIP process previously and said the city had not followed certain procedures. Mayor Rich repeatedly urged caution about exposing the city to potential attorney-fee awards and said the commission must follow state law even if members disliked it.

Next steps and legal follow-up
Commissioners moved and approved transmitting the ordinance to second reading, where the city will consider final action. City staff told the commission they will place a fuller discussion of litigation options and counsel on an upcoming meeting; the city manager said he would have the city attorney present additional legal information at the next meeting. Several commissioners requested that staff and counsel continue to coordinate with municipal counsel networks and share more detail before any decision about formally joining outside litigation.

What was not decided
The commission did not adopt a resolution tonight to join any lawsuit and took no final action to rescind ordinances. Multiple commissioners and public speakers discussed the trade-offs between standing on principle and the financial exposure of litigation, but no binding vote to join outside counsel or sign on to a coalition complaint was taken.

Ending note
The item will return for a second reading at the commission’s next meeting; staff flagged the need for timely counsel and warned that receipt of a written notice by an aggrieved party could impose tight statutory deadlines.