(1) The Legislature finds that incompatible development of land close to military installations can adversely affect the ability of such an installation to carry out its mission. The Legislature further finds that such development also threatens the public safety because of the possibility of accidents occurring within the areas surrounding a military installation. In addition, the economic vitality of a community is affected when military operations and missions must relocate because of incompatible urban encroachment. Therefore, the Legislature finds it desirable for the local governments in the state to cooperate with military installations to encourage compatible land use, help prevent incompatible encroachment, and facilitate the continued presence of major military installations in this state.
(2) Certain major military installations, due to their mission and activities, have a greater potential for experiencing compatibility and coordination issues than others. Consequently, this section and the provisions in s. 163.3177(6)(a), relating to compatibility of land development with military installations, apply to specific affected local governments in proximity to and in association with specific military installations, as follows:
(a) Avon Park Air Force Range, associated with Highlands, Okeechobee, Osceola, and Polk Counties and Avon Park, Sebring, and Frostproof.
(b) Camp Blanding, associated with Clay, Bradford, and Putnam Counties.
(c) Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field, associated with Gulf, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties and Cinco Bayou, Crestview, Destin, DeFuniak Springs, Fort Walton Beach, Freeport, Laurel Hill, Mary Esther, Niceville, Shalimar, and Valparaiso.
(d) Homestead Air Reserve Base, associated with Miami-Dade County and Homestead.
(e) Jacksonville Training Range Complex, associated with Lake, Marion, Putnam, and Volusia Counties.
(f) MacDill Air Force Base, associated with Tampa.
(g) Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Marine Corps Support Facility-Blount Island, and outlying landing field Whitehouse, associated with Jacksonville.
(h) Naval Air Station Key West, associated with Monroe County and Key West.
(i) Naval Support Activity Panama City, associated with Bay County, Panama City, and Panama City Beach.
(j) Naval Air Station Pensacola, associated with Escambia County.
(k) Naval Air Station Whiting Field and its outlying landing fields, associated with Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties.
(l) Naval Station Mayport, associated with Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville.
(m) Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, associated with Brevard County and Satellite Beach.
(n) Tyndall Air Force Base, associated with Bay County and Mexico Beach and Parker.
(3) The Florida Defense Support Task Force may recommend to the Legislature changes to the military installations and local governments specified in subsection (2) based on a military base’s potential for impacts from encroachment, and incompatible land uses and development.
(4) Each affected local government must transmit to the commanding officer of the relevant associated installation or installations information relating to proposed changes to comprehensive plans, plan amendments, and proposed changes to land development regulations which, if approved, would affect the intensity, density, or use of the land adjacent to or in close proximity to the military installation. At the request of the commanding officer, affected local governments must also transmit to the commanding officer copies of applications for development orders requesting a variance or waiver from height or lighting restrictions or noise attenuation reduction requirements within areas defined in the local government’s comprehensive plan as being in a zone of influence of the military installation. Each affected local government shall provide the military installation an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes.
(5) The commanding officer or his or her designee may provide advisory comments to the affected local government on the impact such proposed changes may have on the mission of the military installation. Such advisory comments shall be based on appropriate data and analyses provided with the comments and may include:
(a) If the installation has an airfield, whether such proposed changes will be incompatible with the safety and noise standards contained in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) adopted by the military installation for that airfield;
(b) Whether such changes are incompatible with the Installation Environmental Noise Management Program (IENMP) of the United States Army;
(c) Whether such changes are incompatible with the findings of a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) for the area if one has been completed; and
(d) Whether the military installation’s mission will be adversely affected by the proposed actions of the county or affected local government.
The commanding officer’s comments, underlying studies, and reports shall be considered by the local government in the same manner as the comments received from other reviewing agencies pursuant to s. 163.3184.
(6) The affected local government shall take into consideration any comments and accompanying data and analyses provided by the commanding officer or his or her designee pursuant to subsection (4) as they relate to the strategic mission of the base, public safety, and the economic vitality associated with the base’s operations, while also respecting private property rights and not being unduly restrictive on those rights. The affected local government shall forward a copy of any comments regarding comprehensive plan amendments to the state land planning agency.
(7) To facilitate the exchange of information provided for in this section, a representative of a military installation acting on behalf of all military installations within that jurisdiction shall be included as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the county’s or affected local government’s land planning or zoning board.
(8) The commanding officer is encouraged to provide information about any community planning assistance grants that may be available to a county or affected local government through programs such as those of the federal Office of Economic Adjustment as an incentive for communities to participate in a joint planning process that would facilitate the compatibility of community planning and the activities and mission of the military installation.
(9) If a local government, as required under s. 163.3177(6)(a), does not adopt criteria and address compatibility of lands adjacent to or closely proximate to existing military installations in its future land use plan element by June 30, 2012, the local government, the military installation, the state land planning agency, and other parties as identified by the regional planning council, including, but not limited to, private landowner representatives, shall enter into mediation conducted pursuant to s. 186.509. If the local government comprehensive plan does not contain criteria addressing compatibility by December 31, 2013, the agency may notify the Administration Commission. The Administration Commission may impose sanctions pursuant to s. 163.3184(8). Any local government that amended its comprehensive plan to address military installation compatibility requirements after 2004 and was found to be in compliance is deemed to be in compliance with this subsection until the local government conducts its evaluation and appraisal review pursuant to s. 163.3191 and determines that amendments are necessary to meet updated general law requirements.