ANNA MARIA – The Anna Maria City Commission is delaying action by a month on a proposed ordinance pertaining to multiple non-conforming lots located on a single property.
The commission reached this decision, in part, because adopting the proposed ordinance would almost certainly subject the city to Bert Harris claims filed by negatively impacted property owners. Restrictive language contained in hurricane relief-related Senate Bill 250 also factored into the decision.
Proposed ordinance
In March, the planning and zoning board voted 2-1 in favor of recommending city commission denial of the proposed ordinance, Ordinance 23-914.
On May 11, the city commission discussed the proposed ordinance on first reading.
Section 114-135 of the city’s code of ordinances currently says non-conforming lots that don’t conform with the city’s minimum lot size and area requirements may be built upon as long as the proposed construction complies with all spatial and bulk requirements and all other regulations applicable to conforming lots and parcels.
The proposed ordinance contains new language that states “If two or more platted lots have been combined or used together at any time for a unified development or recognized as one lot under a single parcel ID, such combined lots shall not be utilized separately for use as individual lots for construction unless each individual lot is conforming as to minimum dimension and lot area at the time of requested development or redevelopment.”
When presenting the proposed ordinance amendment to the commission, City Planner Ashley Austin said it would provide consistency with the comprehensive plan which establishes a maximum density of six dwelling units per gross acre and a minimum lot size of 7,260 square feet.
Austin said the proposed amendment would only affect existing non-conforming lots that have been combined by a unified development, with the most common scenario being a single-family home built over two lots.
“Those lots would be deemed non-conforming,” Austin said. “Many of these lots in question are approximately 5,000 square feet.”
City Attorney Becky Vose addressed the legal concerns that would be created by SB 250 if Gov. Ron DeSantis signs the proposed legislation into new state law.
Vose referenced the following language that she said was buried in the appropriations bill: “A county or municipality located entirely or partially within 100 miles of where either Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole made landfall shall not propose or adopt any moratorium on construction, reconstruction or redevelopment of any property damaged by Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole; propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations; or propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval or issuance of a site plan, development permit or development order before Oct. 1, 2024. Any such moratorium or restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendment, land development regulation or procedure shall be null and void. This subsection applies retroactively to Sept. 28, 2022.”
“Anna Maria is within 100 miles of that landfall. If this gets signed, jurisdictions within that distance on both the east coast and the west coast have to put a pause on changes to their comp plan and land development regulations if they result in something more restrictive or burdensome,” Vose said.
Mayor Dan Murphy said SB 250 contains $60 million in state appropriations for communities damaged by the two hurricanes and that makes it highly unlikely that DeSantis will veto the bill.
“Our chances of stopping this are slim and none,” he said, noting the city still needs to confirm whether Anna Maria is within the 100-mile range of Hurricane Ian’s landfall, as calculated by the state.
Commissioner Jon Crane asked Vose about the risk of Bert Harris claims being filed against the city if the proposed ordinance is adopted.
Enacted in Florida in 1995, the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Protection Act provides relief for property owners aggrieved or inordinately burdened by the actions of the state or a local or county government.
Vose said existing city code allows the owner of two or more existing split lots to build on those lots even if they’re smaller than the currently required minimum lot size.
Vose also said a recent change in state law now requires the losing party to pay all the winning party’s attorney fees associated with a Bert Harris claim, beginning with the filing of the claim.
“I would anticipate that we would get significant Bert Harris claims,” Vose said. “It would be a pretty expensive proposition to do this.”
Public input
During the March planning and zoning board meeting, longtime Anna Maria resident and former city commission and planning board member Doug Copeland expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinance. He said he and many other property owners would file Bert Harris claims against the city if the proposed ordinance is adopted.
During Thursday’s meeting, Copeland said he and his wife, Pat, have owned their property since 1974 and their property contains a house on one lot and a garage on the second lot.
“We’ve always assumed that we would be able to sell or build on the second lot. My daughter expressed interest in building a second home on that property. I’m sure everyone who owns these properties always assumed there’s a certain value in that second, third or fourth lot,” Copeland told the commission.
Copeland said there are at least 500 lots in Anna Maria that are smaller than the currently required minimum lot size and imposing new restrictions on 37 property owners isn’t going to resolve that concern.
“This is a prime example of an inordinate burden. I spoke to a land use attorney. He said that ordinance reads like a textbook case for Bert Harris,” Copeland said.
Copeland urged the commission to discontinue further discussion on the proposed ordinance that would subject the city to significant attorney fees and potential settlement costs.
The commission then reached a consensus to continue the first reading of the ordinance and take no further action for at least a month.
