Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 163.3187 (2025)

Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment.

✓ 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

163.3187 Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment.—

(1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions:

(a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer and:

(b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section.

(c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1).

(2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11).

(3) If the small scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation, the acreage limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met.

(4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments.

(5)(a) Any affected person may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 to request a hearing to challenge the compliance of a small scale development amendment with this act within 30 days following the local government’s adoption of the amendment and shall serve a copy of the petition on the local government. An administrative law judge shall hold a hearing in the affected jurisdiction not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days following the filing of a petition and the assignment of an administrative law judge. The parties to a hearing held pursuant to this subsection shall be the petitioner, the local government, and any intervenor. In the proceeding, the plan amendment shall be determined to be in compliance if the local government’s determination that the small scale development amendment is in compliance is fairly debatable. The state land planning agency may not intervene in any proceeding initiated pursuant to this section. The prevailing party in a challenge filed under this paragraph is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs in challenging or defending the order, including reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs.

(b)1. If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found not in compliance, the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found in compliance, the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the state land planning agency.

2. If the state land planning agency determines that the plan amendment is not in compliance, the agency shall submit, within 30 days following its receipt, the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. If the state land planning agency determines that the plan amendment is in compliance, the agency shall enter a final order within 30 days following its receipt of the recommended order.

(c) Small scale development amendments may not become effective until 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, small scale development amendments may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted small scale development amendment is in compliance.

(d) In all challenges under this subsection, when a determination of compliance as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(b) is made, consideration shall be given to the plan amendment as a whole and whether the plan amendment furthers the intent of this part.

History.—s. 10, ch. 75-257; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 5, ch. 77-331; s. 9, ch. 85-55; s. 10, ch. 86-191; s. 8, ch. 92-129; s. 11, ch. 93-206; s. 4, ch. 94-273; s. 1446, ch. 95-147; s. 12, ch. 95-310; s. 3, ch. 95-322; s. 5, ch. 95-396; s. 1, ch. 96-205; s. 27, ch. 96-410; s. 4, ch. 96-416; s. 3, ch. 97-253; s. 14, ch. 98-75; s. 13, ch. 98-176; s. 66, ch. 99-251; s. 5, ch. 99-378; s. 26, ch. 2000-151; s. 16, ch. 2000-158; s. 1, ch. 2000-284; s. 8, ch. 2002-296; s. 3, ch. 2004-230; s. 5, ch. 2004-372; s. 7, ch. 2005-290; s. 20, ch. 2006-1; s. 3, ch. 2006-69; s. 4, ch. 2007-198; s. 8, ch. 2009-96; s. 7, ch. 2011-14; s. 18, ch. 2011-139; s. 25, ch. 2014-17; s. 25, ch. 2014-218; s. 1, ch. 2019-157; s. 3, ch. 2021-206; s. 2, ch. 2023-115.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: Coastal Dev. of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coastal Dev. of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 28× “[10] See § 163.3187(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). [11] See § 163.”

Payne v. City of Miami, 52 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 26× “3161(7), which specifies that the purpose of the Act is to protect certain resources and to maintain the character and stability of development in this state through orderly growth and development; section 163.3187, which limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Article…”

Jacksonville Beach v. COASTAL Dev., 730 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). · cites it 6× “The developers applied for a "small-scale development amendment" to the city's comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Katherine's Bay, LLC v. Fagan, 52 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 9× “] After the Amendment changing the subject property’s future land use category from CL to RVP was adopted, Appellee, the owner of neighboring property, challenged the Amendment under the procedure set forth in section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).”

Martin Cnty. v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997). · cites it 2× “[6] We do note that in 1995, the legislature amended section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides special treatment for comprehensive plan amendments directly related to proposed small-scale development activities.”

Minnaugh v. Cnty. Com'n of Broward Cnty., 752 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). · cites it 12× “Vicki Minnaugh and Robert Minnaugh (petitioners) filed this petition for certiorari review of the circuit court's order dismissing counts of their complaint for a writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari challenging the county commission's denial of their application for a…”

Fleeman v. City of St. Augustine Beach, 728 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). · cites it 5× “Because the change involved less than ten acres, the application was filed pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes.”

DR Horton, Inc.-Jacksonville v. Peyton, 959 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · cites it 2× “In Coastal Development, the Jacksonville Beach City Council denied a proposed small-scale development amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, which the developer sought pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1996), to commercially develop a 1.”

Payne v. City of Miami, 53 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). · cites it 27× “The Riverside FLUM Amendment was sought and was granted as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187, Fla. Stat. (2005). 2 In addition to the statutes regulating land use requiring the enactment of comprehensive planning to control future development and providing a…”

Orange Cnty. v. Lust, 602 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). · cites it 2× “…accommodate the set back requirements and then build any C-3 appropriate business on the 2100 square foot parcel. [1] § 163.3187, Fla. Stat. (1989).”

Island, Inc. v. City of Bradenton Beach, 884 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 5× “2d at 205 , the Florida Supreme Court held that "the small-scale development amendment decisions made pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

City of Sanibel v. Buntrock, 409 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “§§ 163.3187, .3184(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979).”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 163.3187(1) — 2 cases

Coastal Dev. of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). “[10] See § 163.3187(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). [11] See § 163.”

Payne v. City of Miami, 53 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “The Riverside FLUM Amendment was sought and was granted as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187, Fla. Stat. (2005). 2 In addition to the statutes regulating land use requiring the enactment of comprehensive planning to control future development and providing a…”

— 163.3187(1)(c) — 10 cases

Coastal Dev. of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). “[10] See § 163.3187(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). [11] See § 163.”

Jacksonville Beach v. COASTAL Dev., 730 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “The developers applied for a "small-scale development amendment" to the city's comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.”

Martin Cnty. v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997). “[6] We do note that in 1995, the legislature amended section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides special treatment for comprehensive plan amendments directly related to proposed small-scale development activities.”

Minnaugh v. Cnty. Com'n of Broward Cnty., 752 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “Vicki Minnaugh and Robert Minnaugh (petitioners) filed this petition for certiorari review of the circuit court's order dismissing counts of their complaint for a writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari challenging the county commission's denial of their application for a…”

Fleeman v. City of St. Augustine Beach, 728 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). “Because the change involved less than ten acres, the application was filed pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes.”

— 163.3187(2) — 2 cases

Payne v. City of Miami, 52 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “3161(7), which specifies that the purpose of the Act is to protect certain resources and to maintain the character and stability of development in this state through orderly growth and development; section 163.3187, which limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Article…”

— 163.3187(3)(a) — 5 cases

Coastal Dev. of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). “[10] See § 163.3187(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). [11] See § 163.”

Katherine's Bay, LLC v. Fagan, 52 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “] After the Amendment changing the subject property’s future land use category from CL to RVP was adopted, Appellee, the owner of neighboring property, challenged the Amendment under the procedure set forth in section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).”

5220 Biscayne Boulevard, LLC v. Stebbins, 937 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Payne v. City of Miami, 913 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

— 163.3187(3)(b) — 2 cases

— 163.3187(l)(a) — 2 cases

— 163.3187(l)(c) — 5 cases

Durham Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami, 210 So. 3d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Durham Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami, 53 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

— 163.3187(l)(e) — 1 case

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Clay Cnty. v. Qualls, 772 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

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.