Update: Orange County to readopt Vision 2050 with an opt-out provision for developers
By Molly Duerig
July 13, 2026 at 5:03 PM EDT
Orange County commissioners directed staff Tuesday to draft an ordinance to re-adopt the county’s new planning framework, Vision 2050, with an opt-out provision allowing for development proposals to proceed under the county’s older comprehensive plan.
It’s an attempt to appease the Florida Department of Commerce, after it sent the county a letter last year saying Vision 2050 was “null and void” under a new, controversial state law. The notice from the state was “unprecedented,” Planning Division Manager Alberto Vargas said.
“In the 30 years that I have been involved in this profession, I have never seen a letter like that,” Vargas said at Tuesday’s commission meeting. “But it came, and it was a big surprise.”
Even with the opt-out provision, the state could still ultimately object again to Vision 2050, Orange County Planning Division Manager Alberto Vargas said Tuesday. “It is a recognized risk” — but one reduced by the opt-out provision, he said. (3000x2000, AR: 1.5)
RELATED: Orange County says it’s working with the state to revise Vision 2050
Now, the goal is for the county to re-adopt Vision 2050 with an ordinance that allows development applicants to opt out, on a “case-by-case” basis, and proceed instead under the planning framework in the county’s older comprehensive plan.
Planning staff have determined it’s the only feasible way to bring the county into compliance with state law while preserving Vision 2050. Vargas called it the “most balanced and safe path forward.”
A readoption public hearing will likely be set for Sept. 29. If all goes smoothly, Vision 2050 would be back in effect by late December.
‘Kind of hold our nose’
Vision 2050 and a corresponding set of new zoning rules known as the Orange Code are effectively an overhaul of Orange County’s growth planning framework. They were designed to foster more sustainable development patterns in the county by guiding future growth toward urbanized areas and away from rural ones.
Historically, buildings like homes, offices, shops and restaurants in Orange County have been separated by uses, a framework that “has created sprawling communities.” Vision 2050 and the corresponding Orange Code would focus on what buildings look and feel like, versus their intended use. (1016x464, AR: 2.189655172413793)
Commissioners approved the planning framework overhaul in June of last year, following eight years and tens of thousands of hours of work by county staff. Just a few weeks later, the state’s disapproving letter arrived. It said Vision 2050 was invalid, based on Senate Bill 180.
Since then, Orange County has been operating under its older comprehensive plan, Destination 2030, which is in itself not compliant with state law, Vargas said. “We need to get out of this situation somehow.”
Readopting Vision 2050 as developed, while allowing applicants to opt out, is the best way to do that as determined by the county’s planning and legal staff.
The opt-out provision would be temporary, Vargas said: it would sunset on Oct. 1, 2027, along with the section of SB 180 that Vision 2050 appears to violate — assuming the law’s timeline doesn’t change and an intervening hurricane doesn’t reset the clock on that provision.
RELATED: Ocoee challenges ruling of 'null and void' on its Envision 2045 growth plan
District 1 Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the readoption ordinance gives the county a solid path forward to preserving Vision 2050 and is worth advancing, even with the opt-out provision she doesn't herself support. (3000x2000, AR: 1.5)
Still, the opt-out provision drew some concern Tuesday. District 1 Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board would need to “kind of hold our nose” in order to enact it.
Ultimately, Wilson said she’d rather readopt Vision 2050 with the opt-out provision than leave the whole new package of development rules and policies “sitting on a shelf, collecting dust.”
County resident Liz Connor said she doesn’t like the idea of letting developers opt out of Vision 2050 policies specifically meant to guide future growth away from the county’s rural areas.
“That goes against the work this board did. That goes against the work that we did; the community voted for,” Connor said. “Trying to save what we can (of Vision 2050) — like, I get that, but I think if (developers) don't want to play (by) the rules of the land, then that's not the land for you. That's not the area for you.”
Vargas said he doesn’t expect very many development applicants to want to opt out, since most would “gain certainty” under Vision 2050 policies. “Staff anticipates a very limited use of opting-out.”
County resident Liz Connor said she’s concerned about the proposed opt-out provision for Vision 2050, calling it “not good for sprawl.” (1063x699, AR: 1.5207439198855508)
But District 5 Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad was skeptical.
“I'm having a hard time understanding how you enforce a plan when there's an opt-out provision that allows you to revert back to a plan that has resulted in some very poor developmental patterns,” Martinez Semrad said. “To me, a plan isn't a plan if I can opt out of it.”
The controversial state law
SB 180 became law in June 2025 — and quickly came under fire. It began as an emergency management bill, but language added toward the end of last year’s legislative session effectively restricts local governments’ home rule power, the ability to self-govern, in a range of ways.
SB 180 has blocked local governments from enacting policies to enhance flooding protection, affordable housing, wildlife habitat and more. It blocks local governments from adopting “more restrictive or burdensome” planning measures — without defining what that clause means — until at least Oct. 1, 2027. It also applies retroactively, affecting planning measures adopted as of Aug. 1, 2024.
“(The) law was presented as a measure to help communities and individuals recover from disasters, but it included damaging provisions that shut down local planning in critical policy areas that have nothing to do with disaster recovery, like environmental protection, community resilience and paying for infrastructure,” 1000 Friends of Florida Executive Director Paul Owens said at a press conference earlier this year.
Paul Owens is executive director of 1000 Friends of Florida, a nonprofit that advocates for planning fiscally and environmentally sustainable communities in the fast-growing state. (1767x946, AR: 1.8678646934460887)
Vision 2050, Orange Code and SB 180
If readopted, the Orange Code would be the county’s first entirely new zoning code since 1957. It would be a form-based code: a type of development code focused on buildings’ look, shape and architecture, instead of what they’re used for.
“This will create more walkable destinations where people can live, work, play and learn. In some instances, using cars may become an option rather than a necessity,” according to a fact sheet from the county.
The commerce department’s letter to Orange County last year outlined 10 specific policies within Vision 2050 that violate SB 180 because they are “more restrictive or burdensome” than the county’s previous comprehensive plan. Another four Vision 2050 policies were deemed “potentially more restrictive or burdensome,” including one that directs bicycle paths to be separated from roadways whenever possible.
Since taking effect, SB 180 has been widely criticized by local governments and policy experts. Attempts to resolve concerns with the bill during this year’s regular legislative session ultimately failed.
Orange County is one of about two dozen local governments challenging the constitutionality of SB 180 in a lawsuit. Because of that lawsuit, in April, the state rejected the county’s attempt to discuss readopting Vision 2050, Vargas said.
It’s an attempt to appease the Florida Department of Commerce, after it sent the county a letter last year saying Vision 2050 was “null and void” under a new, controversial state law. The notice from the state was “unprecedented,” Planning Division Manager Alberto Vargas said.
“In the 30 years that I have been involved in this profession, I have never seen a letter like that,” Vargas said at Tuesday’s commission meeting. “But it came, and it was a big surprise.”
Even with the opt-out provision, the state could still ultimately object again to Vision 2050, Orange County Planning Division Manager Alberto Vargas said Tuesday. “It is a recognized risk” — but one reduced by the opt-out provision, he said. (3000x2000, AR: 1.5)
RELATED: Orange County says it’s working with the state to revise Vision 2050
Now, the goal is for the county to re-adopt Vision 2050 with an ordinance that allows development applicants to opt out, on a “case-by-case” basis, and proceed instead under the planning framework in the county’s older comprehensive plan.
Planning staff have determined it’s the only feasible way to bring the county into compliance with state law while preserving Vision 2050. Vargas called it the “most balanced and safe path forward.”
A readoption public hearing will likely be set for Sept. 29. If all goes smoothly, Vision 2050 would be back in effect by late December.
‘Kind of hold our nose’
Vision 2050 and a corresponding set of new zoning rules known as the Orange Code are effectively an overhaul of Orange County’s growth planning framework. They were designed to foster more sustainable development patterns in the county by guiding future growth toward urbanized areas and away from rural ones.
Historically, buildings like homes, offices, shops and restaurants in Orange County have been separated by uses, a framework that “has created sprawling communities.” Vision 2050 and the corresponding Orange Code would focus on what buildings look and feel like, versus their intended use. (1016x464, AR: 2.189655172413793)
Commissioners approved the planning framework overhaul in June of last year, following eight years and tens of thousands of hours of work by county staff. Just a few weeks later, the state’s disapproving letter arrived. It said Vision 2050 was invalid, based on Senate Bill 180.
Since then, Orange County has been operating under its older comprehensive plan, Destination 2030, which is in itself not compliant with state law, Vargas said. “We need to get out of this situation somehow.”
Readopting Vision 2050 as developed, while allowing applicants to opt out, is the best way to do that as determined by the county’s planning and legal staff.
The opt-out provision would be temporary, Vargas said: it would sunset on Oct. 1, 2027, along with the section of SB 180 that Vision 2050 appears to violate — assuming the law’s timeline doesn’t change and an intervening hurricane doesn’t reset the clock on that provision.
RELATED: Ocoee challenges ruling of 'null and void' on its Envision 2045 growth plan
District 1 Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the readoption ordinance gives the county a solid path forward to preserving Vision 2050 and is worth advancing, even with the opt-out provision she doesn't herself support. (3000x2000, AR: 1.5)
Still, the opt-out provision drew some concern Tuesday. District 1 Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board would need to “kind of hold our nose” in order to enact it.
Ultimately, Wilson said she’d rather readopt Vision 2050 with the opt-out provision than leave the whole new package of development rules and policies “sitting on a shelf, collecting dust.”
County resident Liz Connor said she doesn’t like the idea of letting developers opt out of Vision 2050 policies specifically meant to guide future growth away from the county’s rural areas.
“That goes against the work this board did. That goes against the work that we did; the community voted for,” Connor said. “Trying to save what we can (of Vision 2050) — like, I get that, but I think if (developers) don't want to play (by) the rules of the land, then that's not the land for you. That's not the area for you.”
Vargas said he doesn’t expect very many development applicants to want to opt out, since most would “gain certainty” under Vision 2050 policies. “Staff anticipates a very limited use of opting-out.”
County resident Liz Connor said she’s concerned about the proposed opt-out provision for Vision 2050, calling it “not good for sprawl.” (1063x699, AR: 1.5207439198855508)
But District 5 Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad was skeptical.
“I'm having a hard time understanding how you enforce a plan when there's an opt-out provision that allows you to revert back to a plan that has resulted in some very poor developmental patterns,” Martinez Semrad said. “To me, a plan isn't a plan if I can opt out of it.”
The controversial state law
SB 180 became law in June 2025 — and quickly came under fire. It began as an emergency management bill, but language added toward the end of last year’s legislative session effectively restricts local governments’ home rule power, the ability to self-govern, in a range of ways.
SB 180 has blocked local governments from enacting policies to enhance flooding protection, affordable housing, wildlife habitat and more. It blocks local governments from adopting “more restrictive or burdensome” planning measures — without defining what that clause means — until at least Oct. 1, 2027. It also applies retroactively, affecting planning measures adopted as of Aug. 1, 2024.
“(The) law was presented as a measure to help communities and individuals recover from disasters, but it included damaging provisions that shut down local planning in critical policy areas that have nothing to do with disaster recovery, like environmental protection, community resilience and paying for infrastructure,” 1000 Friends of Florida Executive Director Paul Owens said at a press conference earlier this year.
Paul Owens is executive director of 1000 Friends of Florida, a nonprofit that advocates for planning fiscally and environmentally sustainable communities in the fast-growing state. (1767x946, AR: 1.8678646934460887)
Vision 2050, Orange Code and SB 180
If readopted, the Orange Code would be the county’s first entirely new zoning code since 1957. It would be a form-based code: a type of development code focused on buildings’ look, shape and architecture, instead of what they’re used for.
“This will create more walkable destinations where people can live, work, play and learn. In some instances, using cars may become an option rather than a necessity,” according to a fact sheet from the county.
The commerce department’s letter to Orange County last year outlined 10 specific policies within Vision 2050 that violate SB 180 because they are “more restrictive or burdensome” than the county’s previous comprehensive plan. Another four Vision 2050 policies were deemed “potentially more restrictive or burdensome,” including one that directs bicycle paths to be separated from roadways whenever possible.
Since taking effect, SB 180 has been widely criticized by local governments and policy experts. Attempts to resolve concerns with the bill during this year’s regular legislative session ultimately failed.
Orange County is one of about two dozen local governments challenging the constitutionality of SB 180 in a lawsuit. Because of that lawsuit, in April, the state rejected the county’s attempt to discuss readopting Vision 2050, Vargas said.