Commissioners: Florida Legislature overreached to block local development rules
Winter Park attempts to put some guardrails on affordable housing projects after state’s Live Local Act removed local control
By Beth Kassab
Winter Park is working to ensure developers don’t exploit a new loophole in local development codes created by the Live Local Act passed by the Florida Legislature this year in an attempt to promote more affordable housing projects.
Commissioners expressed unanimous support for a new city ordinance that would require developers to document that affordable housing projects are actually providing units that are truly affordable and won’t quickly convert to market-rate apartments or condos.
Mayor Phil Anderson said the new ordinance being crafted now by city staff represents an attempt to “preserve home rule” after the new state law prohibits cities from restricting the height and density of new affordable housing projects.
The act is Gov. Ron DeSantis’ $711 million investment in affordable housing, but changes in the new law will alter how cities and counties can govern themselves. For example, the act allows affordable housing developers to construct buildings at maximum height and density, limiting a City Commission’s ability to restrict the number of units per acre to protect the the aesthetics, charm and consistency in a neighborhood.
“Occasionally the state Legislature overreaches and, in this case, they have overreached by preempting some of our land-use ordinances in the spirit of trying to create more affordable housing,” Anderson said during Wednesday’s meeting. “I want to thank our planning department for taking a look at the unintended consequences of this preemption.”
Planning and Zoning Director Jeff Briggs said the Live Local Act (SB 102) now allows affordable housing developers to ignore certain local requirements such as the height of new buildings. But the law does not require those developers to prove they are building affordable units.
“There are no requirements for a developer to provide any data that they are, in fact, providing affordable housing,” Briggs said. “All this does is ensure that people are authentically and honestly doing affordable housing.”
The Live Local Act takes effect on Saturday and the city’s new ordinance is slated to come back to the City Commission for approval later in July.
“I think we’re getting quite used to preemptions,” said Commissioner Marty Sullivan, a reference to a number of prohibitions by the Legislature in recent years that have usurped the authority of locally-elected city and county officials.
This is bad policy. If I interpret it correctly, a developer could build a high rise on normally 2 story allowed lot and say it is affordable housing. And them, after it is built, say it isn’t. This will put the brainpower of our city leaders to the test as they navigate these choppy waters. Another reason for the city to buy up as much vacant land as possible. Of course, we might relax and assume developers would do what is best for the community!
So Rollins could build unlimited 30 story dorm buildings in Winter Park and call it “affordable housing?”
No because I don’t believe any zoning in the city of Winter Park allows for 30 stories. Also, student housing is not affordable housing. That’s very clear in the definitions.
Keene Towers- No, but a developer (including Rollins) could build something which our codes do not allow in a place where our codes do not allow it, and there would be nothing that either the commission or residents could do to stop it. Whatever the highest density allowed on any other city parcel within a mile of the proposed affordable housing site and the maximum height allowed on any city parcel within a mile of the proposed site would allow would govern.
Hey Keene Towers and SBT – In Florida we call them “devilopers”, not developers.
I thought Republicans support less government. Why is Tally behaving like a helicopter parent?
Mothers, Agree 100%. Tallahassee needs to keep their hands off. Republicans seem to have been captivated by deviloper $$$ and other special interest money.
Encouraging development in commercial and industrial zoned land, without having to go through re-zoning hearings, is a no-brainer. Are you opposed to apartments being built in commercial/industrial areas? I like giving workers access to housing that is close to urban centers if the commercial/industrial land is sitting vacant. What’s the problem?
So, in other words, a developer could buy real estate anywhere within one mile from Ravadage – even if it’s east of 17-92 – and build the same height and density as Ravadage apartments and hotels as long as they say it’s for “affordable housing?”
It would highly unlikely that an affordable housing development could/would/may be built in any “commercial, industrial, mixed-use” (according to the bill that was passed) area of WP. And if someone wants to build apartments the only feasible locations are Orange Ave. and the commercial/industrial land between 17-92, Minnesota. I-4, Fairbanks Ave. Do you really think a developer is going to build cheap apartments on tres cher WP dirt?
And if we’re serious about “affordable housing” why not incentivize the few places that are suitable (OAO, I-4 area) with requirements that a certain percentage of units must be documented affordable. No lip service affordable. Documented affordable.
City of WP owns over 700 affordable housing units. I doubt any city in USA of comparable size has more.
And let’s not forget that one of our commissioners wanted “affordable housing” (workforce housing) at the old library. Maybe we should be more worried about our own commission vs. a mythical bogeyman developer.
Your elegant prose appears to be accurate at first glance. But alas, I found a faulty assumption. That is, a developer might “plan” for affordable housing but later decide that would not work for them and go with higher priced structures despite their erstwhile promises. The proof will be in the infill. Although I am not an attorney, it appears that developers can change their minds once they have started or completed their projects. The law is ambiguous, and attorneys and developers thrive on ambiguity. Take heed of the proposed “Peacock Manners.” We must be vigilant and support our wonderful mayor and commissioners. As the great Maitland philosopher once said, “Beware, a squirrel cannot bury its nuts in an Astroturf city.”
Let him plan away. The new law is applicable to land that is currently zoned commercial, industrial or mixed use. And they can only build as high as the rules currently allows within 1 mile. Why would a developer jump through hoops to save a few bucks on doc stamps and sales tax on building supplies to build “affordable housing”? The high-earners who will pay $2500-$4000 for a 1 bedroom won’t want to be anywhere near an affordable housing project. Much ado….
Pitt Warner- You are correct we do not need any more affordable housing in WP than the substantial amount we already have. But why wouldn’t one of the OAO major landowners build what the new law permits ? They have been suing the city for restoration of the original OAO entitlements. Law suit still pending. Might this new “Live Local” statute allow them to reach increased heights and maximum multi-family densities such as what they originally were trying to obtain? Only 40% of the units need to be “affordable”. 60% could be market rate. Height can equal that of anything commercial or residential within a mile. Densities could likely be equal to that of Ravaudage or the Paseo. And there’s no need to even go through a re-zoning process. That’s my superficial understanding having never seen how the law will be applied to municipalities. I suspect the 2 land owners are penciling it out now. They don’t make all those political donations for nothing.
The new bill is intended to encourage development of affordable housing on land zoned commercial or industrial or mixed use; land that is dormant. The property that Dr. Phillips is developing on OBT/Princeton seems to be the intended type of target land. No rezoning to multi-family needed if it’s to be affordable. WP doesn’t have too much under-utilized commercial/industrial that would be apartment worthy. But if someone want to build apartments in the area between I-4, 17/92, Minn. Ave and Fairbanks, go for it. I’d be surprised if someone tried to use this new law. Too much money on the table in WP to mess around with affordable housing guidelines, whether they were lip service or not.
OAO is zoned for apartments. The new Live Local Law can’t be used there. Paseo on Denning rents 1 bedrooms starting at $2200/month. I bet an OAO apartment would cost more. Why even advertise affordable housing? They’ll want $3000 a month for 1 bedroom. Double income, no kids. Or a single professional.