Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 163.3167 (2025)

Scope of act.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

163.3167 Scope of act.—

(1) The several incorporated municipalities and counties shall have power and responsibility:

(a) To plan for their future development and growth.

(b) To adopt and amend comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, to guide their future development and growth.

(c) To implement adopted or amended comprehensive plans by the adoption of appropriate land development regulations or elements thereof.

(d) To establish, support, and maintain administrative instruments and procedures to carry out the provisions and purposes of this act.

The powers and authority set out in this act may be employed by municipalities and counties individually or jointly by mutual agreement in accord with this act and in such combinations as their common interests may dictate and require.

(2) Each local government shall maintain a comprehensive plan of the type and in the manner set out in this part or prepare amendments to its existing comprehensive plan to conform it to the requirements of this part and in the manner set out in this part.

(3) A municipality established after the effective date of this act shall, within 1 year after incorporation, establish a local planning agency, pursuant to s. 163.3174, and prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan of the type and in the manner set out in this act within 3 years after the date of such incorporation. A county comprehensive plan is controlling until the municipality adopts a comprehensive plan in accordance with this act. A comprehensive plan for a newly incorporated municipality which becomes effective after January 1, 2016, and all land development regulations adopted to implement the comprehensive plan must incorporate each development order existing before the comprehensive plan’s effective date, may not impair the completion of a development in accordance with such existing development order, and must vest the density and intensity approved by such development order existing on the effective date of the comprehensive plan without limitation or modification.

(4) Any comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, adopted pursuant to this act, which but for its adoption after the deadlines established pursuant to previous versions of this act would have been valid, shall be valid.

(5) Nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a final local development order and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. Any landowner with a development order existing before the incorporation of a municipality may elect to abandon the development order and develop the vested density and intensity contained therein pursuant to the municipality’s comprehensive plan and land development regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (3) so long as the vested uses, density, and intensity are consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan and all existing obligations in the development order regarding concurrency remain.

(6) The Reedy Creek Improvement District shall exercise the authority of this part as it applies to municipalities, consistent with the legislative act under which it was established, for the total area under its jurisdiction.

(7) Nothing in this part shall supersede any provision of ss. 341.8201-341.842.

(8)(a) An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order is prohibited.

(b) An initiative or referendum process in regard to any land development regulation is prohibited.

(c) An initiative or referendum process in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment is prohibited unless it is expressly authorized by specific language in a local government charter that was lawful and in effect on June 1, 2011. A general local government charter provision for an initiative or referendum process is not sufficient.

(d) A citizen-led county charter amendment that is not required to be approved by the board of county commissioners preempting any development order, land development regulation, comprehensive plan, or voluntary annexation is prohibited unless expressly authorized in a county charter that was lawful and in effect on January 1, 2024.

(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that initiative and referendum be prohibited in regard to any development order or land development regulation. It is the intent of the Legislature that initiative and referendum be prohibited in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment, except as specifically and narrowly allowed by paragraph (c). Therefore, the prohibition on initiative and referendum stated in paragraphs (a) and (c) is remedial in nature and applies retroactively to any initiative or referendum process commenced after June 1, 2011, and any such initiative or referendum process commenced or completed thereafter is deemed null and void and of no legal force and effect.

(9) Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709.

(10)(a) If a local government grants a development order pursuant to its adopted land development regulations and the order is not the subject of a pending appeal and the timeframe for filing an appeal has expired, the development order may not be invalidated by a subsequent judicial determination that such land development regulations, or any portion thereof that is relevant to the development order, are invalid because of a deficiency in the approval standards.

(b) This subsection does not preclude or affect the timely institution of any other remedy available at law or equity, including a common law writ of certiorari proceeding pursuant to Rule 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, or an original proceeding pursuant to s. 163.3215, as applicable.

History.—s. 4, ch. 75-257; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 3, ch. 85-55; s. 6, ch. 86-191; s. 1, ch. 87-338; s. 1, ch. 92-129; s. 5, ch. 93-206; s. 1, ch. 95-322; s. 23, ch. 96-410; s. 158, ch. 2003-261; s. 11, ch. 2004-5; s. 1, ch. 2004-37; s. 3, ch. 2004-372; s. 1, ch. 2004-381; s. 42, ch. 2010-102; s. 3, ch. 2010-205; s. 7, ch. 2011-139; s. 1, ch. 2012-99; s. 1, ch. 2013-115; s. 3, ch. 2013-213; s. 1, ch. 2014-178; s. 3, ch. 2019-165; s. 1, ch. 2021-195; s. 1, ch. 2021-206; s. 1, ch. 2023-305; s. 1, ch. 2024-234.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton Cnty., 833 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton Cnty., 833 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 27× “Fla. Stat. § 163.3167 (8). On the contrary, the evidence is that the project was abandoned, both expressly by letter of KPM's predecessor in interest, and implicitly due to the developer's failure to pursue the project, leaving it dormant for more than eight years.”

Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay Cnty., 890 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). · cites it 21× “3167 and provided that "[n]othing shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to chapter 380.”

Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy, 132 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 20× “The limitations placed upon referenda for development orders originated in 1995, when the Legislature enacted section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided as follows: An initiative or.”

Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Comm. v. Town of Palm Beach, 50 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). · cites it 9× “§ 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2009). 1 “Development order” is defined as “any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit.”

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 938 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 5× “Section 163.3167(1) of the Act provides that local governments “shall have the power and responsibility: (a) To plan for their future development and growth, (b) To adopt and amend comprehensive plans .”

Fla. League of Cities, Inc. v. Admin. Com'n, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). · cites it 6× “" Section 163.3167(2) provides that the local government submit a "complete proposed comprehensive plan" by the due date.”

Citizens for Resp. Growth v. St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). · cites it 7× “Elector approval shall not be required for any Plan or Plan Amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land or as otherwise prohibited by Florida *1148 Statutes including but not limited to Florida Statutes [sic] Section 163.3167. This amendment shall become effective…”

Nassau Cnty. v. Willis, 41 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 163.3167(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). A required element of a comprehensive plan is a "future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation,…”

M & H PROFIT, INC. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · cites it 4× “3d at 420 -21 (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2005), and Machado v.”

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. Re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 902 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 3× “: See § 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment' or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.”

Save the Homosassa River All., Inc. v. Citrus Cnty., 2 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). · cites it 4× “See also § 163.3167, Fla. Stat. (2007). Once a comprehensive plan has been adopted pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, "all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental…”

MacHado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (1985); Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— 163.3167(1) — 9 cases

M & H PROFIT, INC. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). “3d at 420 -21 (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2005), and Machado v.”

MacHado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “§ 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (1985); Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v.”

Citrus Cnty. v. Halls River Dev., Inc., 8 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Sw. Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v. Broward Cnty., 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 938 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2006). “Section 163.3167(1) of the Act provides that local governments “shall have the power and responsibility: (a) To plan for their future development and growth, (b) To adopt and amend comprehensive plans .”

— 163.3167(1)(b) — 1 case

Martin Cnty. v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

— 163.3167(12) — 9 cases

Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Comm. v. Town of Palm Beach, 50 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2009). 1 “Development order” is defined as “any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit.”

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Gen. Re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Gov't Comprehensive Land Use Plans, 902 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2005). “: See § 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment' or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.”

Citizens for Resp. Growth v. St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). “Elector approval shall not be required for any Plan or Plan Amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land or as otherwise prohibited by Florida *1148 Statutes including but not limited to Florida Statutes [sic] Section 163.3167. This amendment shall become effective…”

City of Riviera Beach v. Riviera Beach Citizens Task Force, 87 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

— 163.3167(13) — 1 case

Payne v. City of Miami, 52 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

— 163.3167(2) — 7 cases

Nassau Cnty. v. Willis, 41 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “§ 163.3167(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). A required element of a comprehensive plan is a "future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation,…”

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Love Pgi Partners, Lp v. Schultz, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Fla. League of Cities, Inc. v. Admin. Com'n, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “" Section 163.3167(2) provides that the local government submit a "complete proposed comprehensive plan" by the due date.”

— 163.3167(2)(b) — 1 case

— 163.3167(4) — 1 case

López Torres v. Dep't of Transp., 488 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

— 163.3167(8) — 6 cases

Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton Cnty., 833 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “Fla. Stat. § 163.3167 (8). On the contrary, the evidence is that the project was abandoned, both expressly by letter of KPM's predecessor in interest, and implicitly due to the developer's failure to pursue the project, leaving it dormant for more than eight years.”

Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay Cnty., 890 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “3167 and provided that "[n]othing shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to chapter 380.”

Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy, 132 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “The limitations placed upon referenda for development orders originated in 1995, when the Legislature enacted section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided as follows: An initiative or.”

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Mayor, 633 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

XYZ 300, LLC, Tr. of the Mirror Lake Land Trust UAD March 20, 2013 v. City of St. Petersburg (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).

— 163.3167(8)(a) — 2 cases

Mullen v. Bal Harbour Vill., 241 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.