By GARETT VALCOURT
The Holmes County Board of County Commissioners reviewed an extensive overhaul of the county’s Land Development Regulations during a special meeting Tuesday, October 6, examining proposed changes that could significantly affect property development, subdivision construction, land-use approvals and political campaign signage throughout unincorporated Holmes County.
The proposed revisions, presented through the county’s planning review process, represent a broad restructuring of the regulations governing how land may be developed and how development applications are evaluated.
Among the most significant changes are the introduction of zoning districts, the creation of a Residential Agricultural district, expanded stormwater management requirements, revised procedures for development approvals and new provisions intended to protect property owners with previously approved development rights.
Commissioners were also presented with additional proposed language requiring underground utility installation in new subdivisions and establishing restrictions, fees and refundable deposits for political campaign signs.
The changes were outlined in documents titled ‘Holmes County LDR Major Changes’ and ‘Holmes County Land Development Code (LDC) Update – Input from County Commissioners.’ The documents distinguish between revisions contained in the draft development code and additional language proposed for consideration by commissioners. They do not establish that every provision received final approval during the meeting.
One of the most substantial portions of the proposed update involves Chapter II, addressing zoning and overlay districts. The planning summary describes a comprehensive overhaul intended to align county regulations with current conditions and administrative practices.
The revisions introduce zoning classifications, including a new Residential Agricultural district, and establish development parameters for individual districts. They also add a formal Planned Unit Development process for reviewing coordinated development proposals.
Additional provisions establish an Urban Service Boundary Overlay and incorporate the previously approved Airport Impact Overlay Zone. The chapter also adds a prohibited-uses section based on a recently adopted county ordinance.
Under proposed changes to Chapter I, the Planning Commission would receive authority over special exceptions, variances and similar requests as specified in the code, shifting certain responsibilities previously assigned to the Board of County Commissioners.
The county project director or a designee would determine Technical Review Committee membership rather than relying on a list of positions in the regulations. Applications could not be scheduled for public hearings until deemed complete, and applicants would bear certain notification costs.
Chapter X incorporates Florida law concerning development application review timelines and establishes administrative, minor and major review categories, with corresponding documentation and procedural requirements. Expanded bonding and financial guarantees would protect the county against unfinished development work or work affecting rights-of-way.
A separate commissioners’ memorandum proposes requiring new subdivisions to install utility lines underground. Such a requirement could affect subdivision design and construction costs while reducing the exposure of overhead lines to falling trees and wind.
The proposal addresses new subdivisions; the materials do not indicate that existing neighborhoods or individual property owners would be required to relocate existing utility lines. The memorandum says the consultant would incorporate additional language if directed by the board.
Another proposal would require candidates qualifying through the Holmes County Supervisor of Elections to pay $250 at or before qualification: a $50 nonrefundable administrative fee and a $200 refundable compliance deposit.
Candidates would be eligible to recover the $200 deposit after removing all campaign signs for which they are responsible within 15 days following the election. Failure to comply could result in forfeiture, subject to applicable procedures, and the county could remove signs and seek additional authorized costs.
Signs on private property adjacent to dirt or unpaved roads would have to remain at least three feet from the traveled roadway; those beside paved roads would have to remain at least 10 feet from the pavement. All signs would have to remain outside public rights-of-way.
Signs would also be restricted within 150 feet of intersections when they interfere with visibility or safety and could not obstruct traffic devices, sidewalks, drainage facilities, utilities or other public infrastructure. Property-owner or lawful-occupant permission would remain necessary.
The proposed language states that restrictions would apply without regard to candidate, political party, issue or viewpoint. These provisions remain proposals subject to legal review and applicable adoption requirements.
Separate from the campaign-sign proposal, Chapter VIII revisions cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert as a reason to pursue content-neutral sign regulations.
The draft addresses signs on vehicles, signs attached to utility poles, temporary signage and a general 15-foot setback from rights-of-way for certain signs. It also prohibits electronic message center signs in historic preservation districts and within the Historic Future Land Use category.
Because the separate campaign-sign proposal includes different setbacks, the two sets of provisions would need to be reconciled before finalization.
Chapter V consolidates site-development standards, including landscaping, buffers and parking, and substantially expands stormwater management provisions. Subdivision requirements were revised to reflect Florida law and clarify required documentation and standards. A new section addresses communications towers.
Chapter IV changes include a five-foot access-width provision and a reversal of the naming of wellfield protection zones. The summary describes the Primary Zone as 500 feet in perimeter and the Secondary Zone as 200 feet in perimeter; those measurements should be checked against the full draft. Floodplain management remains largely unchanged from the recently adopted ordinance.
Chapter VII clarifies Future Land Use categories where mobile food dispensing vehicles may operate, adding Mixed Use Urban, Planned Unit Development and Crossroads Mixed Use classifications. In Recreation-designated areas, such vehicles would be allowed only for temporary events.
The draft also clarifies parking rules for festival and event vendors and adds a 14-day limitation under the applicable subsection.
Chapter XI introduces vested-rights provisions intended to protect development approvals obtained before changes to the code. It also updates variance standards and procedures to provide clearer criteria for hardship-related requests and greater certainty for applicants and county reviewers.
The appendix adds a force majeure definition and references May 16, 1988, as the date of the county’s first Land Development Regulations for purposes involving lots of record. Other revisions address the code’s effective date and reorganize definitions. Chapter III receives primarily technical concurrency updates, including a reference to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Some revisions reorganize existing requirements, while others would establish new standards or change approval authority. The materials reviewed do not establish a final adoption vote on the complete revised code during the October 6 meeting. Provisions not yet adopted would require applicable approval procedures before becoming enforceable.
