Florida Statute 163.3167 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XI
COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Chapter 163
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 163.3167

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.

F.S. 163.3167 on Google Scholar

F.S. 163.3167 on Casetext

Amendments to 163.3167

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 163.3167

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 163.3167.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 163.3167

Total Results: 20

Mullen v. Bal Harbour Village

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-03-21

Citation: 241 So. 3d 949

Snippet: Village asserted that Petition 82 violates section 163.3167(8)(a) of the Florida Statutes. We address this

Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-06-16

Citation: 226 So. 3d 303, 2017 WL 2605150, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8842

Snippet: 8 So.3d 413, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla Stat. (2005); Machado v. Musgrove

Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-01-29

Citation: 132 So. 3d 347, 2014 WL 305086, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1017

Snippet: which interpreted a 2012 amendment to section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes, as requiring the City of

City of Riviera Beach v. Riviera Beach Citizens Task Force

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-04-04

Citation: 87 So. 3d 18, 2012 WL 1108509, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5166

Snippet: unconstitutional because it was in violation of section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a referendum

Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-05-20

Citation: 63 So. 3d 840, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7250

Snippet: should not be determined by popular vote. Section 163.3167(12) rightfully protects the small landowner from

Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Committee v. Town of Palm Beach

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-12-15

Citation: 50 So. 3d 1176, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19112, 2010 WL 5093247

Snippet: whether the amendment conflicted with section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, by purporting to use the

Payne v. City of Miami

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-12-08

Citation: 52 So. 3d 707, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2010 WL 4962859

Snippet: property within a county or municipality. See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). A comprehensive plan acts

Nassau County v. Willis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-06-03

Citation: 41 So. 3d 270, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7662, 2010 WL 2196459

Snippet: conform to the requirements of Chapter 163. § 163.3167(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). A required element of a

M & H PROFIT, INC. v. City of Panama City

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-12-14

Citation: 28 So. 3d 71, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19475, 2009 WL 4756147

Snippet: See Halls River, 8 So.3d at 420-21 (citing § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2005), and Machado v. Musgrove

Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-03-20

Citation: 8 So. 3d 413, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2273, 2009 WL 722053

Snippet: of property within a county or municipality. § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Machado v. Musgrove, 519

Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-10-24

Citation: 2 So. 3d 329, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16449

Snippet: 3d DCA 1987) (citations omitted). See also § 163.3167, Fla. Stat. (2007). Once a comprehensive plan

City of Lake Worth v. Save Our Neighborhood, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-10-22

Citation: 995 So. 2d 1002, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16317, 2008 WL 4643800

Snippet: referendum process turned on interpretation of section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (2005), and its definition

Citizens for Resp. Growth v. St. Pete Beach

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-08-18

Citation: 940 So. 2d 1144

Snippet: not limited to Florida Statutes [sic] Section 163.3167. This amendment shall become effective immediately

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-06-22

Citation: 938 So. 2d 501, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 402, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 1336, 2006 WL 1699568

Snippet: affects more than five parcels of land. See § 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“An initiative or referendum

St. Johns Committee v. St. Augustine

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-09-02

Citation: 909 So. 2d 575, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13875

Snippet: comprehensive plan for that body. See §§ 163.3174(1); 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. A county is authorized to exercise

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re Referenda Required for Adoption & Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-03-17

Citation: 902 So. 2d 763, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 164, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 491, 2005 WL 610430

Snippet: affects more than five parcels of land. : See § 163.3167(12), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“An initiative or referendum

Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-10-25

Citation: 890 So. 2d 256

Snippet: pursuant to the terms of the DRI vests. See § 163.3167(8), Fla. Stat. (2001). Vesting means development

Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walton County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-12-19

Citation: 833 So. 2d 215, 2002 WL 31833708

Snippet: County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes" for development rights to

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-09-26

Citation: 795 So. 2d 191, 2001 WL 1130885

Snippet: partnership or both as the context requires. [2] See § 163.3167(2), Fla. Stat. (2000) ("Each local government

Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership, Ltd.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-12-13

Citation: 772 So. 2d 616, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16226, 2000 WL 1816832

Snippet: to guide its future development and growth. § 163.3167(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Simply stated, this