Tamarac commission rejects proposed code change to streamline approvals for recovery residences

The Tamarac City Commission on May 27 rejected, on a 3–2 vote, a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code intended to implement Florida Statute 397.487 and create a local reasonable‑accommodation process for certified recovery residences.

Community Development Director Kent Bellia outlined the draft ordinance, noting the statute preempts certain local regulation, requires municipalities to provide a 60‑day administrative response window and allows certified recovery residences (levels 1–4) to operate in residential zones with a reasonable‑accommodation process. Bellia said certification by the Florida Association of Recovery Residences (FARR) permits specific personnel‑to‑resident ratios for certified facilities and that FARR provides oversight and certification details.

Commissioners debated inspection frequency and enforcement authority for uncertified homes. Mayor Michelle J. Gomez raised concern about the limits of the city's ability to inspect privately owned residences beyond the annual review, asking whether the city could require more frequent inspections; staff said the city may act when it has reason to believe a residence is not complying but otherwise must treat these uses as single‑family homes under federal housing law. “So the answer is no. We have no authority to go in there,” the mayor said, summarizing constraints on routine inspections of privately occupied homes without demonstrated cause.

Opponents worried about uncertified operators and neighborhood impacts; supporters pointed to the statute’s protections under the Fair Housing Act and the role of certification to ensure appropriate supervision and safety. Staff noted the Florida Association of Recovery Residences maintains a searchable database identifying certified operations by city (without exact addresses) and that certified homes are subject to monitoring and potential revocation if they fail to meet standards.

On the roll call, Commissioners Patterson and Daniel voted yes; Mayor Gomez, Commissioner Wright and Vice Mayor Bolton voted no, and the ordinance failed 3–2.

Next steps: staff said it will continue coordinating with FARR and the city attorney to clarify enforcement tools and potential amendments that protect neighborhoods while complying with state law.