TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A bill containing language that would have allowed property developers to get around county rural boundary requirements failed in the Florida Senate on Thursday.
The Senate rejected SB 1080 on a vote of 18 to 19. Nine Republicans joined the 10 Senate Democrats in defeating the bill.
Recommended Videos
The bill was the latest attempt during the session to pass “agricultural enclave” language. The measure would have made it easier for agricultural land owners to get approval to develop the property as long as there are other industrial, commercial, or residential areas nearby.
State Sen. Stan McClain, R-Ocala, has been trying to get the agricultural enclave proposal passed throughout the session, first as part of SB 1118. The bill would have allowed developers to get their request approved by application, bypassing public hearings and other requirements under voter-approved rural boundary initiatives, which make it harder to develop land in designated rural areas.
[2025 ANNUAL SESSION: See what new bills Florida lawmakers are working on]
That bill also went a step further and proposed rolling back voter-approved rural boundary amendments, like those approved by voters in Orange and Seminole counties, and then banned any future amendments.
McClain said SB 1118 was necessary to accommodate the flood of people moving into Florida amid an affordable housing crisis.
“One of the things that happens is we have an inconsistent application of the current laws we have and we end up, one day we’re approving developments and the next day we’re trying to stop developments,” McClain said.
The bill had the support of developers and homebuilders.
Angry residents flooded state lawmakers with calls and emails against the bill, while county and city officials sent formal letters urging the bill’s defeat.
SB 1118 was stopped in committee, but last week McClain added a revised agricultural enclave proposal to SB 1080, which was another bill he had sponsored. The new language would have allowed a public hearing and commission vote, but only to determine if the land fit the definition of an agricultural enclave. If it did, the land was cleared for development.
None of the companion bills in the Florida House has the controversial language.
