Planning board opens discussion on a ‘Good Neighbors’ development ordinance and asks staff for legal review

A planning‑board member introduced a draft “Good Neighbors” ordinance aimed at tightening rules for subdivisions — items such as stormwater protections, roads and sidewalks, lighting, buffers, and the timing of amenities — but city staff advised caution because two recent Florida laws change how local governments may regulate plats and impose new procedural requirements.

Planning board member Jonathan McKeenchaff described the draft as a tool to require infrastructure and amenities be completed or substantially advanced before certain occupancy or platting milestones, to improve stormwater and grading oversight, and to stop developers from leaving unfinished amenity promises to residents. He framed the draft as a response to resident complaints about flooding, failed silt controls and incomplete neighborhood amenities.

Legal context and staff guidance

City attorney Patrick Brackens and staff summarized two state laws signed in late June 2025 that affect local plat and land‑use procedures: Senate Bill 784 (changes to final plat approval, which generally makes final plats subject to administrative approval rather than governing‑body action) and Senate Bill 180 (a broader provision limiting a county or municipality from enforcing new rules that are “more restrictive or more burdensome” with a private right of action for affected owners; the statute applies broadly and is time‑sensitive). Brackens advised that the city must analyze any proposed ordinance carefully for conflict with state preemption, and he urged the board to give staff time to prepare legal analysis and specific text edits.

Board direction

After extended discussion about specifics — stormwater inspection, grading enforcement, whether bonds should be allowed in lieu of construction, timing for amenities, and whether citizen advisory or development‑review committees could provide additional oversight — the board reached consensus to ask staff to:

- Identify where the city’s current LDRs already address the topics raised; and - Provide a legal analysis of proposed changes in light of SB 784 and SB 180, highlighting where proposed language might be interpreted as "more restrictive or more burdensome" and recommending edits to reduce legal risk.

Staff agreed to return with pinpoint citations to existing code sections and proposed language modifications and to explain which items are already implemented through the city’s current subdivision, preliminary plan, construction‑document and permitting processes.

Why it matters: the discussion touches on recurring resident complaints after heavy storms — erosion, mud and drainage impacts from nearby construction — and a desire among some board members to ensure the city’s approval processes better protect neighboring properties. Staff cautioned that the new state statutes could bar or delay local changes that are perceived as imposing extra burdens on property owners and could expose the city to injunctions and attorney‑fee claims if challenged.

Next steps: staff will produce a report mapping current LDR provisions to the board’s draft items and provide legal recommendations for language that avoids obvious state preemption risk; the board asked staff to return with that report at a future meeting.