Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 163.3213 (2025)

Administrative review of land development regulations.

✓ 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

163.3213 Administrative review of land development regulations.—

(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that substantially affected persons have the right to maintain administrative actions which assure that land development regulations implement and are consistent with the local comprehensive plan.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Substantially affected person” means a substantially affected person as provided pursuant to chapter 120.

(b) “Land development regulation” means an ordinance enacted by a local governing body for the regulation of any aspect of development, including a subdivision, building construction, landscaping, tree protection, or sign regulation or any other regulation concerning the development of land. This term shall include a general zoning code, but shall not include a zoning map, an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land, or any building construction standard adopted pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of chapter 553.

(3) After the deadline specified in s. 163.3202 for each local government to adopt land development regulations, a substantially affected person, within 12 months after final adoption of the land development regulation, may challenge a land development regulation on the basis that it is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan. As a condition precedent to the institution of a proceeding pursuant to subsection (4), such affected person shall file a petition with the local government whose land development regulation is the subject of the petition outlining the facts on which the petition is based and the reasons that the substantially affected person considers the land development regulation to be inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan. The local government receiving the petition shall have 30 days after the receipt of the petition to respond. Thereafter, the substantially affected person may petition the state land planning agency not later than 30 days after the local government has responded or at the expiration of the 30-day period which the local government has to respond. The local government and the petitioning, substantially affected person may by agreement extend the 30-day time period within which the local government has to respond. The petition to the state land planning agency shall contain the facts and reasons outlined in the prior petition to the local government.

(4) The state land planning agency shall notify the local government of its receipt of a petition and shall give the local government and the petitioning, substantially affected person an opportunity to present written or oral testimony on the issue and shall conduct any investigations of the matter that it deems necessary. These proceedings shall be informal and shall not include any hearings pursuant to s. 120.57(1). Not later than 60 days nor earlier than 30 days after receiving the petition, the state land planning agency shall issue its written decision on the issue of whether the land development regulation is consistent with the local comprehensive plan, giving the grounds for its decision. The state land planning agency shall send a copy of its decision to the local government and the petitioning, substantially affected person.

(5)(a) If the state land planning agency determines that the regulation is consistent with the local comprehensive plan, the substantially affected person who filed the original petition with the local government may, within 21 days, request a hearing from the Division of Administrative Hearings, and an administrative law judge shall hold a hearing in the affected jurisdiction no earlier than 30 days after the state land planning agency renders its decision pursuant to subsection (4). The parties to a hearing held pursuant to this paragraph shall be the petitioning, substantially affected person, any intervenor, the state land planning agency, and the local government. The adoption of a land development regulation by a local government is legislative in nature and shall not be found to be inconsistent with the local plan if it is fairly debatable that it is consistent with the plan. The hearing shall be held pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57(1), except that the order of the administrative law judge shall be a final order and shall be appealable pursuant to s. 120.68.

(b) If the state land planning agency determines that the regulation is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan, the state land planning agency shall, within 21 days, request a hearing from the Division of Administrative Hearings, and an administrative law judge shall hold a hearing in the affected jurisdiction not earlier than 30 days after the state land planning agency renders its decision pursuant to subsection (4). The parties to a hearing held pursuant to this paragraph shall be the petitioning, substantially affected person, the local government, any intervenor, and the state land planning agency. The adoption of a land development regulation by a local government is legislative in nature and shall not be found to be inconsistent with the local plan if it is fairly debatable that it is consistent with the plan. The hearing shall be held pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57(1), except that the order of the administrative law judge shall be the final order and shall be appealable pursuant to s. 120.68.

(6) If the administrative law judge in his or her order finds the land development regulation to be inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan, the order will be submitted to the Administration Commission. An appeal pursuant to s. 120.68 may not be taken until the Administration Commission acts pursuant to this subsection. The Administration Commission shall hold a hearing no earlier than 30 days or later than 60 days after the administrative law judge renders his or her final order. The sole issue before the Administration Commission shall be the extent to which any of the sanctions described in s. 163.3184(8)(a) or (b)1. or 2. shall be applicable to the local government whose land development regulation has been found to be inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. If a land development regulation is not challenged within 12 months, it shall be deemed to be consistent with the adopted local plan.

(7) An administrative proceeding under this section shall be the sole proceeding available to challenge the consistency of a land development regulation with a comprehensive plan adopted under this part.

(8) The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate that he or she has read the petition, motion, or other paper and that, to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for economic advantage, competitive reasons, or frivolous purposes or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a petition, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the administrative law judge, upon motion or his or her own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it or upon a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the petition, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(9) Initiation of administrative review of determination of inconsistency of a land development regulation pursuant to this section shall not affect the validity of the regulation or a development order issued pursuant to the regulation.

History.—s. 15, ch. 85-55; s. 26, ch. 87-224; s. 900, ch. 95-147; s. 23, ch. 95-280; s. 30, ch. 96-410; s. 16, ch. 2012-5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2003 · leading case: City of Coconut Creek v. City of Deerfield Beach, 840 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Coconut Creek v. City of Deerfield Beach, 840 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “1st DCA 2000) (finding a failure to comply with section 163.3213(3), which required substantially affected person seeking to challenge consistency of land development regulation with comprehensive plan to file petition with local government outlining facts on which petition is…”

Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 842 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. This particular provision is applicable to administrative review of land development regulations.”

Veal v. Escambia Cnty., 773 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). · cites it 9× “As was said of a closely related statute, section 163.3213 “should be liberally construed to advance the intended remedy, i.”

Lee Cnty. v. Zemel, 675 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). · cites it 2× “At the time this action was brought in the circuit court, the Zemels had previously filed a petition challenging the validity of the plan amendments pursuant to the statutory remedies provided in section 163.3213, Florida Statutes (1989).”

City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, Inc., 852 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, City argues that because the charter amendments were not "adopted by the governing body," the statute is not implicated. City is correct that neither charter amendment is a "land development regulation," which is defined as "an ordinance enacted by a local…”

— 163.3213(2)(b) — 2 cases

Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 842 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “§ 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. This particular provision is applicable to administrative review of land development regulations.”

City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, Inc., 852 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Alternatively, City argues that because the charter amendments were not "adopted by the governing body," the statute is not implicated. City is correct that neither charter amendment is a "land development regulation," which is defined as "an ordinance enacted by a local…”

— 163.3213(3) — 2 cases

Veal v. Escambia Cnty., 773 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “As was said of a closely related statute, section 163.3213 “should be liberally construed to advance the intended remedy, i.”

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.