Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency recommends code change to align home‑based business rules with Florida statute; board discusses HOA preemption and enforcement
Summary
Growth Management presented an LDC amendment to conform county code to Florida Statute 559.955 on home‑based businesses; the agency recommended approval after questions about HOA preemption, parking and signage enforcement.
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Growth Management staff presented a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code to align local rules for home‑based businesses with Florida Statute 559.955. Amy Ring explained the changes will replace outdated "home occupation" language with the state’s "home based business" framework and incorporate statutory criteria into local code.
Ring summarized the statute’s key points, including employee residency limits (employees at the dwelling must reside there, with up to two non‑resident employees allowed), parking limits tied to residential norms, restrictions on external modifications that must respect neighborhood aesthetics, and the statutory requirement that retail transactions must take place within the dwelling. She told the agency a copy of the statute was included in the staff packet.
Agency members asked whether the state statute preempts homeowners associations (HOAs) and whether HOAs could still enforce covenants. County counsel and staff said HOAs may enforce covenants civilly and that local zoning enforcement is distinct: "HOAs would be able to enforce their rules civilly," counsel said, adding that the statute does not automatically eliminate covenant enforcement. Staff also noted that county code enforcement is complaint‑driven and that parking and signage restrictions in the county code remain limiting; for example, the proposed code allows a single one‑square‑foot sign attached to the residence rather than large external signage.
Several members expressed concern about potential increased activity (for example salons or small retail) operating in residential areas; staff emphasized that the statute and the proposed code retain limits that prevent non‑residential activity from overwhelming a neighborhood (no large customer flows, heavy vehicles, or outdoor storage as permitted uses). Miss Perkins moved to recommend approval of the proposed LDC amendment; the motion passed.
Next steps: the agency’s recommendation advances the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for a first hearing advertised for May 19; staff and counsel will continue to track questions about HOA preemption and finalize ordinance language for commission action.
