STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: A Rule to Establish )
the Central Viera Community ) DOAH Case No. 94-5264 Development District. )
)
REPORT OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A local public hearing in the above styled matter was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer Daniel M. Kilbride, on December 7, 1994, at the Brevard County Government Center, 2725 St. Johns Street, Building C, Second Floor "Hearing Room," Viera, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes (Florida Statutes), for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of The Viera Company ("Petitioner") to establish the Central Viera Community Development District ("District").
This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
APPEARANCE
For Petitioner: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire
Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether the Petition to establish the Central Viera Community Development District meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, F.A.C.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Petitioner filed the Petition to establish the Central Viera Community Development District with the Secretary of the Commission on September 13, 1994. On September 12, 1994, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the Petition, together with the $15,000 filing fee, to Truman Scarborough, Chairman of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. A copy of the Petition was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13. On September 21, 1994, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the Petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. The Commission published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on November 4, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010, F.A.C.
By order of the undersigned dated October 14, 1994, the local public hearing was scheduled to be held in Viera, Florida, on Wednesday, December 7, 1994 at 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The Petitioner published a Notice of Local Hearing in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42- 1.011, F.A.C., and mailed copies of the notice to others as provided in Rule 42- 1.011(1)(b), F.A.C. As required by the October 14, 1994, order, the Petitioner filed its list of witnesses on November 7, 1994. Also as ordered, the Petitioner filed the prepared testimony of five witnesses, together with attached exhibits, on November 29, 1994. No testimony in opposition to the Petition was prefiled.
At the local public hearing on December 7, 1994, the Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy, 1/ Corporate Vice-President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., Executive Vice-President of The Viera Company, and agent of the Petitioner in this proceeding; Fred A. Greene, an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis in public infrastructure design, permitting, cost estimation, and construction for special districts; Jack F. Glatting, an expert in land use and community planning; Steven R. McDonald, an expert in economics, finance, and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts; and Gary L. Moyer, an expert in special- district management and operation. Their names and addresses are attached to this report as Exhibit 1. The Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13, which were admitted into evidence at the hearing. A list of Petitioner's exhibits in this proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2.
Public comment was received at the afternoon hearing from Mel Scott and Jim Mundhenk. Their names and addresses are attached to this report as Exhibit 3.
No member of the public spoke at the evening session of the hearing.
In accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), F.A.C., the record in this matter was left open until December 19, 1994, to allow for the submission of additional written comments or materials. No additional comments or materials were received.
A transcript of the local public hearing was filed by the Court Reporter with the undersigned hearing officer on December 14, 1994. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and Conclusions. At the hearing, the Petitioner was given leave to file a Proposed Report of
Findings and Conclusions no later than December 29, 1994. The Petitioner timely filed such Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district ( "CDD" or "District") of approximately 5,731 acres located entirely within unincorporated Brevard County. The proposed District would be located generally west of I-95, south of Barnes Boulevard, north of Lake Washington, and east of the Florida Power and Light Company electrical transmission line transversing the A. Duda & Sons landholdings in Brevard County. The proposed District would be eligible to exercise all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services.
Currently, the lands to be included within the District are principally undeveloped, although existing development includes the Florida Marlins Spring Training Facility. Existing land uses adjacent to the proposed District include
residential use east of the District, with commercial use along major roadways. Land west and south of the District is in agriculture use, and land north of the District is in agriculture and mixed uses. Existing development adjacent to the District includes the Brevard County Government Operations Center, the Space Coast Stadium, and the Brevard County School Board Complex.
The future general distribution, location, and extent of the public and private land uses proposed by the Petitioner for the lands within the District have been included in an Application for Development Approval of a substantial deviation to the Viera Development of Regional Impact (DRI). All of the land within the proposed District is either currently included within the approved Viera DRI or will be included upon approval of the substantial deviation to the Viera DRI.
The existing land uses within the proposed District are consistent with the adopted Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, and the land uses proposed for the District in the DRI substantial deviation are consistent with the Plan as it would be amended by a proposed Plan Amendment that has been submitted to the County for approval.
The proposed development plan for the lands within the District contemplates the construction of approximately 11,954 residential units; 1,415,000 square feet of office space; 736,800 square feet of office warehouse/light industrial space; 1,685,000 square feet of retail services space; 550 hotel rooms; 4,800 movie theater seats; a 154.6-acre educational campus; 162.4 acres of institutional uses; a 148.0-acre golf course; 298.5 acres of parks and pathways; and 20.5 acres of private recreation.
The following real property within the external boundaries of the proposed District is excluded from the District: a parcel known as the "Town Center"; Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital Site; Brevard County Government Operation Center; Brevard County School Board Administration Complex; Brevard South Judicial Facility; Space Coast Stadium and parking lot; Wickham Road; Lake Andrew Drive; St. Johns Street; and Stadium Parkway. This property, with the exception of the "Town Center," is excluded from the District because it is currently owned by governmental bodies. Because of the nature and scope of development and length of time necessary for its buildout, the "Town Center" parcel has also been excluded from the District.
The Petitioner currently intends for the District to fund the construction of a water management system, roadways, water and sewer systems; reuse facilities, and public facility landscaping. In addition, the District may fund the construction of certain recreational facilities. Once completed, some of the facilities will be owned, operated, and/or maintained by the District. Some facilities may be dedicated to other governmental entities, which will operate and maintain them.
The Petitioner intends for the District to own, operate, and maintain the water management system and certain recreational facilities which may be built. The water and sewer systems will be dedicated to the City of Cocoa and Brevard County, respectively, and will be operated and maintained by these local governments. Reuse facilities will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District or other governmental entity.
The Petitioner plans for the District to construct certain arterial roadways and other road improvements in phases as traffic warrants. The District will maintain roadways until they are dedicated to and accepted by
Brevard County or another governmental entity, at which time the County or another governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. The Petitioner also intends that the District provide certain public facility landscaping, which will be maintained by the District or another governmental entity.
The estimated cost in 1994 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $145,276,000, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2015. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary, due in part to the effects of future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest rates, and general market conditions.
The Petitioner expects that the District will finance such services and improvements through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of non-ad valorem special assessments imposed on benefitted property within the District. In other cases where infrastructure provides a specific revenue source from users of those systems, bonds may be repaid with those user fees. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes.
Statutory Criteria for the Establishment of the District
Section 190.005 (1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the Commission to consider six factors in making its determination to grant or deny the Petition to establish the District. The evidence presented on these factors is summarized in the following paragraphs.
Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct.
Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission. Maloy testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing, and that the only correction required was to Attachment 6.
Glatting testified that a typographical error in the number of hotel rooms on the "CDD Land Uses" chart in Attachment 6 should be corrected. Instead of "300" hotel rooms, it should state "550" rooms.
With the change set forth in the previous paragraph, all statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits were shown to be true and correct.
Whether the creation of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan.
Glatting reviewed the establishment of the proposed District from a planning perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes In addition, McDonald reviewed the establishment of the District from an economic perspective for consistency with the State and local comprehensive plans. Moyer reviewed the establishment of the District from a management perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan.
State Comprehensive Plan
From a planning perspective, Goals 10, 16, 21, and 26 of the State Comprehensive Plan and policies supporting these goals are particularly relevant to the establishment of the District. Goals 18 and 21 and the policies supporting those goals are relevant to the establishment of the District from an economic perspective. Goal 21 is also relevant to the establishment of the District from a management perspective.
Policy 13 under Goal 10, "Natural Systems and Recreational Lands," encourages the use of public and private financial resources for the development of state and local recreational opportunities. The District may, with the consent of the County, provide community recreational facilities.
Goal 16, "Land Use," recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth.
The District will have the fiscal ability and service capacity to efficiently provide an excellent quality and range of facilities and services to development in a rapidly growing area of Brevard County.
Goal 18, "Public Facilities," directs the State to protect the investments in public facilities that already exist, and to plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely and efficient manner. The District will provide facilities and services in a timely and efficient manner to the area within Brevard County served by the District, allowing the County to focus its resources outside the District and thus, provide facilities and services to County residents in a timely and efficient manner.
The "Governmental Efficiency" goal, Goal 21, requires that Florida governments provide the services required by the public in an economic and efficient manner. The District will have the fiscal capability to provide quality public services to those who benefit from and pay for those services. The size and configuration of the District would allow for the delivery of these facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In addition, because it is a limited-purpose local government, the District can provide focused delivery, management, and maintenance of these services more efficiently than a general- purpose government.
Goal 26, "Plan Implementation," encourages the integration of systematic planning into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. The development plan for the District contemplates the delivery of improvements in coordination with the general- purpose local governments in the area. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual Public Facilities Reports with Brevard County, which the County may use and rely on in its comprehensive plan. From a planning perspective, all decisions of the District are made at board meetings which are publicly noticed and open to the public, maximizing input from landowners and residents of the District.
The establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable goal or policy of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Local Comprehensive Plan
From a planning perspective, the Intergovernmental Coordination, the Capital Improvements, and the Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan relate specifically to the establishment of the
District. From an economic perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the establishment of the District.
The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies acknowledge the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and require the County to pursue interlocal agreements to ensure a review of proposals for public facility improvements. The Petition to establish the District contemplates coordination with the general-purpose governments for the provision and maintenance of facilities and services. In addition, the District must file an annual Public Facilities Report with the County, and all District facilities will be subject to the County's comprehensive plan, building codes, and land development regulations for public facilities.
The objectives and policies of the Capital Improvements Element require that the County pursue new funding sources for public improvements, and that new growth contribute its fair share of needed improvements. The District provides an alternative means of financing a fair share of the facilities and services necessary for community development.
The goal of the Recreation and Open Space Element requires the County to attain public and private support for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of recreational opportunities and open space area. The proposed development plan for the land within the Central Viera CDD includes 298.5 acres of pathways and parks. The District may also, with the approval of the County, construct and maintain recreational facilities.
Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district.
The establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any of the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.
Testimony on this criterion was provided by Greene, Glatting, McDonald, and Moyer. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 5,731 acres, located entirely within unincorporated Brevard County, and generally west of I-95, south of Barnes Boulevard, north of Lake Washington, and east of the Florida Power and Light electrical transmission line transversing the A. Duda & Sons landholdings.
All of the land within the proposed District is part of a planned "new town," which is a form of development containing all types of land uses for home, work, recreational, and daily life. The land within the proposed District is either currently included within the approved Viera DRI or will be included upon approval of the substantial deviation to the DRI and is master planned to be a part of a functional interrelated community with a balanced mix of uses to support the projected population.
Although some land within the external boundaries of the proposed District is excluded from the District because it is owned by governmental entities or because of the nature and scope of development and the length of time for buildout, the exclusion of this land will not affect the contiguity or
compactness of the proposed District or otherwise interfere with the ability of the District to serve as one functional interrelated community.
The 5,731-acre District is of sufficient size from a planning perspective to require all the basic facilities and services of a community. Moreover, the size and configuration of the District would accommodate the provision of the proposed facilities and services in a cost-effective manner. The District will provide its residents and landowners with the benefits of phasing of the District's services over a time frame which takes advantage of the lower cost of long-term capital, as well as providing economies of scale to absorb the annual operating costs of District administration and to efficiently apportion the costs of improvements.
The proposed District is also compact in nature. The configuration of the District allows for the natural extension of infrastructure and services across the land area over time to serve the needs of the residents.
The property is sufficiently contiguous when the proposed facilities and services can be designed, permitted, constructed, and maintained in a cost efficient, technically-sound manner. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous to allow for the efficient design and use of infrastructure.
From engineering, planning, economics, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community.
Whether the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District.
It is presently intended that the District will fund the construction of a water management system, roadways, water and sewer systems, reuse facilities, and public facility landscaping. It may also, with the approval of the County, construct certain recreational facilities. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated to other governmental entities to own, operate, and/or maintain.
The stormwater management system and recreational facilities will be owned and maintained by the District. Certain water and sewer facilities to be constructed by the District will be dedicated to the appropriate general-purpose local government to own, operate, and maintain. In addition, reuse facilities will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District or the general- purpose local government. The District will maintain roadways until they are dedicated and accepted by Brevard County or other governmental entity, at which time the County or other governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. The public facility landscaping to be provided by the District will also be maintained by the District or the general-purpose local government.
It is expected that the District will issue bonds to finance these services and improvements. These bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of special assessments on benefitted property within the District. In cases where improvements provide a specific revenue source from uses of those systems, bonds may be repaid with such funds. Use of special assessments and user fees will ensure that those benefitting from District services help pay for those services.
The following five alternatives to the proposed District for providing the necessary facilities and services were identified: (1) a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU)/municipal service benefit unit (MSBU); (2) a dependent special district; (3) the County; (4) the Developer; or (5) a homeowners' association.
In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative is a stable provider of facilities and services and can provide a long-term perspective; and; and whether the alternative can secure long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality.
Public Alternatives
A MSTU/MSBU generally focuses on only one service or facility, which is not sufficient to serve the comprehensive development of a new community. It also requires County administration of the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Moreover, MSTU/MSBU debt is debt of the relevant County, and MSTU/MSBU taxes count against the County's millage cap. The County would be relieved of direct administrative duties and costs related to the provision of the proposed facilities and services if the proposed District is established.
In addition, District debt does not affect the County's borrowing capacity, and District taxes do not count against the County's millage cap.
Although a dependent special district may provide more than one service or facility, it would still require County involvement, and dependent special district taxes would count against the County's millage cap. Debts incurred by a dependent special district are debts of the County, as are those of the MSTU/MSBU. In contrast, debts of a CDD are not debts of the County, and CDD taxes do not affect the County millage cap.
The County, as a general-purpose government, has a broad range of responsibilities to its citizens. If the County provides all of the proposed services and facilities to the area to be included with the District, this may mean that other portions of the County would not be as fully served. In contrast, the District, as a special-purpose government created solely to provide infrastructure, can offer a more focused delivery of facilities and services. It does not have the demands of general purpose local governments for such things as social services and law enforcement. Furthermore, use of the District is the best way to help assure that growth pays for itself. Those especially benefitting from the facilities and services pay their fair share of the cost, rather than spreading the entire cost over residents of the entire County.
Private Alternatives
The District is also superior to the Developer in the provision of long-term financing of infrastructure. Private funding is generally more difficult and expensive to secure. In contrast to the Developer, which may not be involved in the project upon completion of development, the District would be a perpetual entity. It would continue to exist to provide facilities and services of high quality in a timely and cost-effective manner, also ensuring a longer life for the facilities.
The District would also be a superior alternative to a homeowners' association to secure the long-term financing for facilities. A homeowners' association generally becomes involved only after the planning and construction of improvements is complete because it cannot provide the necessary financing program. In addition, a homeowners' association is usually managed by volunteers, while the District would employ a professional manager. This professional involvement allows for the independent planning, construction, financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of facilities within the District. A homeowners' association also would not have collection and enforcement authority for defaults in assessments and charges comparable to that authorized for the District in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes Therefore, an association is a less stable long-term maintenance entity.
The Viera Company has experience in working with a CDD and Company staff stated that the Viera East CDD, which provides facilities and services to the land in the Viera DRI east of I-95, has lived up to the Company's expectations and is providing necessary public services in a timely manner to the development and its residents. The Company expects that the proposed Central Viera CDD will similarly benefit landowners and residents in the years ahead, particularly as The Viera Company ceases to be the major landowner.
None of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery and long-term maintenance and management of the proposed public facilities as would the District. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community services and facilities to the area.
Whether the community development services and facilities of the District will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
There is no planned duplication of facilities and services. There are existing trunk water mains, reuse lines, and sewer interceptors within or adjacent to the area to be included within the District which are owned by a general-purpose local government. The District will supply additional facilities and services made necessary for development that are not provided by local general-purpose governments or other governmental entities.
The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to State or County standards and must also be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, building codes, and land development regulations.
From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
Whether the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government.
The area to be served by the District requires basic infrastructure for development to occur. The District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to allow infrastructure to be provided and maintained in an efficient and cost-effective manner. These services and infrastructure have been carefully planned to avoid duplication of existing local and regional facilities and services and to maximize efficiency of cost and effort to deliver such improvements.
From an engineering perspective, having a separate unit of special- purpose government enhances the orderly provision of facilities and their long- term maintenance as well as the ability of the government to respond to the needs of the residents of the District.
From a financial perspective, it is expected that the District will levy assessments and fees on the landowners and residents within the District who benefit from the improvements in order to fund the construction and maintenance of the improvements. The District will not be dependent on the County for funding, nor is the County liable for any obligations of the District. Therefore, it is more economically and functionally efficiently to have a separate special-district government to manage the activities related to the improvements to the land within the District.
From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the area to be included within the District is amenable to separate special-district government.
From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the establishment of the District meets all of the statutory criteria in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes
The record also shows the type and scope of development that would necessitate the establishment of the District if the pending substantial deviation to the existing DRI were not approved. If the pending substantial deviation to the Viera DRI were not approved, significant development of the area within the boundaries of the proposed District that is consistent with the existing County comprehensive plan is possible and appears likely.
The land within the proposed District is in an urbanizing area of Brevard County. There is a developed community, Suntree, adjacent to the proposed District on the east. The Viera East development, located on the east side of I-95, is also well underway. The existing Brevard County Governmental Operations Center, Brevard County School Board Complex, and the Space Coast Stadium, as well as the proposed judicial facility and Veterans Administration Hospital, while not within the boundaries of the proposed District, will generate the need for new development in the area.
Extensive development is authorized by the existing comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan authorizes approximately 20,825 dwelling units with an assumed population of 51,022 in this area. In addition, areas within the proposed District designated as mixed-use may include commercial, professional, office, institutional, conservation, recreation, and public facility uses as well as residential use. Although the nature of the development under the existing comprehensive plan is more residential than proposed by the substantial deviation to the DRI, there would still be a need for water management, water and sewer systems, recreation and open space, and some roadway improvements and landscaping. Because these necessary facilities do not currently exist, their provision by the District would not be incompatible with existing facilities.
The land is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community and is amenable to separate special-district government. In fact, if the property is developed as is allowed under the comprehensive plan, the use of the District to provide infrastructure is as important, if not more important, than if the property is developed as proposed
under the substantial deviation to the DRI. The District could provide overall coordination and oversight to avoid duplication of facilities.
The District would continue to be the best alternative for providing the necessary public facilities and service in an efficient, cost-effective manner. With or without the proposed amendments to the DRI and the comprehensive plan, the establishment of the District meets the statutory criteria and is necessary to ensure the timely, efficient, cost-effective, and long-term provision of infrastructure to this area.
Public Comment on the Petition
Public comment related to the criteria was received in the afternoon session. Mr. Mel Scott, a Planner with Brevard County, asked for clarification of the cost of infrastructure contained in Mr. Greene's testimony. Greene testified on redirect examination that the total cost of infrastructure for the development proposed under the substantial deviation to the DRI is $145,276,000. He also testified that if the DRI were not approved and development were to occur that is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan, the cost of infrastructure would be approximately 11.77 percent less or $18 million less. Greene stated that this reduction results largely from lower costs of certain road improvements that would not appear to be necessary for development under the comprehensive plan and a reduction in the size of the reuse system and the capacity needed for the wastewater treatment plant.
Scott also inquired about the ability of the District to issue industrial revenue bonds. Moyer testified on redirect examination that in his experience in managing 46 CDDs, he is not aware of any of them applying for a portion of either the state or regional allocation of these bonds or receiving a legal opinion that it could issue these types of bonds. He explained that in his view there is no reason for a district, which is limited to projects for public purposes, to use industrial revenue bonds because they are primarily for private activity.
Mr. Mundhenk asked that the impact of the District upon the taxpayers of the rest of the County be taken into consideration and asked for financial assurance from The Viera Company that County taxpayers would not be held responsible for any debts of the District. McDonald testified on redirect examination that the costs of the establishment of the District to Brevard County and its citizens are offset by the filing fee and other fees paid to the County. He stressed that no debt of the District can be placed on the citizens of the County.
Agency Comment on the Petition
The Secretary of the Commission distributed copies of the Petition to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and requested that these agencies review the Petition. By letter dated October 5, 1994, Secretary Linda Shelley of the DCA replied that, other than an inconsistency in the number of proposed hotel rooms within the District and proposed in the substantial deviation to the DRI, the DCA had no concerns regarding the proposed District. This inconsistency was due to a typographical error in Attachment 6 to the Petition and was corrected in testimony as set forth above.
The ECFRPC responded to the Commission Secretary's request by letter dated December 1, 1994.
First, the ECFRPC concluded that the "district and development it will support are consistent with the state and regional comprehensive plans," and that the development will be consistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as amended by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
Second, the ECFRPC stated that the District is of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developed as a functional interrelated community. Specifically, the ECFRPC has no objection to the exclusion of the "Town Center properties."
Third, the ECFRPC stated that the proposed District will be the best alternative for delivery of the necessary facilities and service because it "will provide the best opportunity for minimizing fiscal impacts to the public service providers." The ECFRPC specifically stated that "we support the creation of the Central Viera CDD and, in fact, would be concerned if the proposed district were not approved as it would require that these facilities be made available by other, presently unknown means."
The ECFRPC found no incompatibilities of the proposed facilities and services with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities.
The ECFRPC noted the Petition reflects that all of the landowners within the District are amenable to its creation, and that future landowners will be made aware of the existence of the District and its obligations before purchasing property within the District.
Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.
Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, F.A.C., impose certain specific requirements set forth below regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission.
A. Elements of the Petition
Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains such a description. This statutory section also requires that any property within the external boundaries of the District which is to be excluded from the District be specifically described and the last known addresses of all owners of this property be listed. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 includes this information.
Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the written consent to establishment of the District of the owners of
100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains the written consent of A. Duda & Sons, Inc./The Viera Company; John A. Bell, Trustee, of the Trust Agreement of John A. Bell dated October 29, 1993; Becky N. Bell, Trustee, of the Trust Agreement of Becky
N. Bell dated October 29, 1993; Freedom Christian Center, Inc.; Temple Israel of Brevard County, Inc.; and Marlins-Viera, the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District.
Section 190.005(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the names of the five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, who will serve on the initial Board of Supervisors. The five persons designated in the Petition are:
John R. Maloy
135 Highway A1A N., #135 Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
Tracy Duda
1906 Whitehall Drive Winter Park, Florida 32792
David Duda
7979 Dunstable Circle
Orlando, Florida 32817
Thomas Duda
11700 Pinewood Lakes Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33813
Stephen L. Johnson
250 South Sykes Creek Parkway #603 Merritt Island, Florida 32952
All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States.
Section 190.005(1)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition contain the proposed name for the District. The Petition proposes to establish the "Central Viera Community Development District.
Section 190.005(1)(a)5, Florida Statute, requires that the Petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 shows the location of those facilities within and adjacent to the District.
Section 190.005(1)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and the estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains this information in a table entitled "Central Viera CDD: Estimated Infrastructure Construction Schedule and Cost".
Section 190.005(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 provides that information.
The Petition contains all information required by Section 190.005(1)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes.
Economic Impact Statement
Section 190.005(1)(a)8, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to include an economic impact statement ("EIS") which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The EIS prepared by the Petitioner is attached to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13.
The Petitioner's EIS meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)1. and 120.54(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, that an EIS include an estimate of the costs and benefits of the establishment of the District to all affected agencies
and persons. It concludes that the economic benefits of establishing the District exceed the economic costs to all affected agencies and persons.
Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens would incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District would require no subsidies from the State to fund District improvements. Benefits would include improved planning and coordination of development, as well as long- term professional management and maintenance of District facilities.
Costs of the establishment and operation of the District to Brevard County and its citizens should be offset by the $15,000 filing fee and other fees paid by the Petitioner or the District. The County would not be responsible for the debt service on any bonds used to fund District improvements. Citizens of the County would receive the benefits of planned development, and the County would be relieved of the fiscal and administrative burden of providing the improvements provided by the District.
The Petitioner would incur substantial costs to create the District and would pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments as the largest landowner in the District in the initial stages of development. In addition, the Petitioner would provide certain rights-of-way and easements. The Petitioner would benefit from the establishment of the District because of increased access to bond financing.
Landowners within the District would pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities; however, these facilities would be required for development regardless of the existence of the District. Benefits to these landowners/consumers would include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of improvements provided by the District on a timely basis, and a share of control over decisions involving community development services and facilities.
The EIS also meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)3. and 120.54(2)(c)4., Florida Statutes, that the EIS include an estimate of the impact of the proposed rule on competition, the open market for employment, and on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. The implementation of this rule is not expected to have an adverse impact on competition and is expected to have only a nominal effect on the open market for employment and small business.
The EIS also meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)5., Florida Statutes, that the statement include a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of not adopting the rule.
Where there are reasonable alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the rule which are not precluded by law, Sections 120.54(2)(c)6. and 120.54(2)(c)7., Florida Statutes, require than an EIS describe these alternatives and make a determination of whether any of the alternatives are less costly or less intrusive than the proposed method. Petitioner's EIS meets these requirements and concludes that none of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery, and long-term management and maintenance of the public facilities and services to be provided by the District. The District is the preferred alternative because it is a special-purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned new communities.
The requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)8., Florida Statutes, that the EIS include a detailed statement of the data and methodology used in preparing the analysis is also met.
The Petitioner's EIS meets all the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes
Other Requirements
Petitioner has complied with Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires that the Petitioner submit a copy of the Petition and pay a filing fee to the local general-purpose government.
Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Brevard County for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The notice was published in Florida Today for four consecutive Wednesdays beginning on November 9, 1994.
Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Commission to cause to be published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Such notice was published on November 4, 1994.
Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), F.A.C., requires the Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were hand delivered to the Secretary of the Commission as required on December 2, 1994.
Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), F.A.C., requires the Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notices were mailed as required by the rule.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that:
This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of a copy of the Petition and payment of a filing fee to the local general-purpose government.
The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Brevard County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.
The requirement of Rule 42-1.010, F.A.C., that a Notice of Receipt of Petition be published in Florida Administrative Weekly was also met.
The Petitioner has met the requirements of Rule 42- 1.011(1)(a), F.A.C., that the Petitioner furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local hearing to the Secretary of the Commission.
The Petitioner has also met the requirements of Rule 42- 1.011(1)(b), F.A.C., that the Petitioner mail a copy of the notice of local hearing to specific persons named in the rule.
All portions of the Petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law.
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
The statements contained within the Petition and its attachments, as corrected, are true and correct.
The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective Brevard County Comprehensive Plan.
The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.
The District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District.
The community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Central Viera Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Exhibit 4.
DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
Daniel M. Kilbride Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1994.
ENDNOTES
1/ Because Maloy was unavoidably detained out of state due to bad weather conditions and unable to reach Viera in time for the 1:00 p.m. hearing, Tom McCarthy, Director of Land Development for The Viera Company, adopted Maloy's testimony as his own. He gave direct testimony that summarized the contents of the prefiled testimony that sumarized the contents of the prefiled testimony and the attached exhibits at the afternoon session of the hearing. Maloy attended the evening portion of the hearing and presented his testimony at that time.
2/ Tom McCarthy, Director of Land Development, The Viera Company, 7380 Murrell Road, Suite 201, Viera, Florida, 32940, adopted Maloy's prefiled testimony as his own and gave direct testimony at the morning session of the hearing. Maloy testified at the evening session of the hearing.
COPIES FURNISHED:
David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314
R. Mason Blake, Esquire The Viera Company
7380 Murrell Road, Suite 201
Viera, Florida 32940
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
EXHIBIT 1
Petitioner's Witnesses at Hearing
John R. Maloy 2/ The Viera Company 7380 Murrell Road Viera, Florida 32940
Fred A. Greene Gee & Jenson
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach, Florida 33419
Jack F. Glatting
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
33 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Steven R. McDonald Fishkind & Associates
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 275
Orlando, Florida 32826
Gary L. Moyer
10300 NW 11th Manor
Coral Springs, Florida 33065
EXHIBIT 2
List of Petitioner's Exhibits Number Description
Letter to Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) with Proof of Publication
Department of Community Affairs' letter to FLWAC concerning Petition and The Viera Company's response
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's comments on Petition
Supplemental Authorization of Agent
Letter to Brevard County enclosing $15,000 filing fee
FLWAC's Notice of Receipt of Petition published in 11-4-94 Florida Administrative Weekly
Letters to Persons named in Petition, DCA, and Brevard County enclosing Notice of Hearing
Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency
Existing Future Land Use Map and Existing Residential Density Map
Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing in Florida Today
McDonald Resume
List of Districts managed by Moyer and infrastructure provided
Petition to establish the Central Viera Community Development District
EXHIBIT 3
Members of the Public Who Appeared at Hearing Mel Scott
Planner II
Planning and Zoning Division
Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 2725 St. Johns Street, Building A Melbourne, Florida 32940
Jim Mundhenk 650 Paul Avenue
Merritt Island, Florida
EXHIBIT 4
Text of Proposed Rule Chapter 42V-1
Central Viera Community Development District
42V-1.001 Creation. The Central Viera Community Development District is hereby created. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History-- New _- - .42V-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: PARCEL "1"
A parcel of land lying in Sections 29, 28, 32, and 33, Township 25 South,
Range 36 East, and Sections 5, 4, 9, and 10, Township 26 South, Range 36 East all in Brevard County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of Section 29, Township 25 South, Range 36 East; thence S 00o31'06" E, a distance of 1.00 foot, to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described parcel; thence N 89o20'44" E, along a line 1.00 foot South of, by perpendicular measurement, the North line of said Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, a distance of 236.83 feet, to a point on the West right of way line of Interstate Highway 95, a 300.00 foot wide Limited Access Right of Way, as described in Circuit Court Book 53 Pages 359-363 of Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, said point also being a point of intersection with a non
of 5579.65 feet and a central angle of 26o53'15"; thence Southeasterly, and Southerly, along the arc of said curve to the right and said West right of way line, a distance of 2618.39 feet, (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S 27o57'37" E, for 2594.43 feet) to a point of tangency; thence S 14o30'59" E, along said West right of way line, a distance of 3416.81 feet; thence S 10o33'09" E, a distance of 652.65 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 1051.92 feet and a central angle of 31o48'13"; thence Southerly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 583.90 feet, to a point of tangency; thence S 21o15'04" W, a distance of 750.65 feet; thence S 43o30'13" W, a distance of 193.49 feet; thence N 88o03'09" W, a distance of 600.00 feet; thence S 01o56'51" W, a distance of
247.75 feet; thence S88o03'09"E, a distance of 76.74 feet; thence S 84o03'09" E, a distance of 136.38 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Southerly, having a radius of 1051.92 feet and a central angle of 33o00'00";
thence Easterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 605.86 feet, to a point of tangency; thence S 51o03'09" E, a distance of 978.47 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 1051.92 feet and a central angle of 35o21'15"; thence Southeasterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 649.08 feet, to a point of tangency; thence S 15o41'54" E, a distance of 1051.92 feet, to a point on said West right of way line of Interstate Highway 95; thence S 14o30'59" E, along said West right of way line, a distance of 9805.76 feet; thence S 04o15'31 "E, a distance of 436.28 feet; thence S 75o28'39" W, a distance of 840.66 feet; thence S 14o31'21" E, a distance of 506.89 feet; thence S 89o33'38" W, a distance of
21.40 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Southerly, having a radius of 1984.86 feet and a central angle of 12o25'32"; thence Westerly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 430.45 feet, to a point of tangency; thence S 77o08'07" W, a distance of 429.33 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Northerly, having a radius of 1834.86 feet and a central angle of 07o36'53"; thence Westerly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 243.85 feet, to a point of compound curvature with a curve, concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 50.00 feet and a central angle of 94o30'24"; thence Westerly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 82.47 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 00o44'37" W, a distance of 1375.05 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 1560.00 feet and a central angle of 46o16'23"; thence Northerly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 1259.88 feet, to a point of reverse curvature with a curve, concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 2490.00 feet and a central angle of 46o43'46"; thence Northwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 2030.80 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 00o17'14" W, a distance of 2173.08 feet; thence S 89o11'20" W, a distance of 1602.94 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of
340.00 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 400.00 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of 640.00 feet; thence S 89o11'20" W, a distance of 610.00 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of 1200.00 feet; thence S 89o11'20" W, a distance of 760.00 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of 730.01 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 1775.00 feet and a central angle of 22o30'00"; thence Northerly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 697.04 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 23o18'40" W, a distance of 545.70 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Easterly, having a radius of 1015.00 feet and a central angle of 81o53'33"; thence Northwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 1450.73 feet, to a point of reverse curvature with a curve, concave Northwesterly, having a radius of 875.00 feet and a central angle of 58o51'25"; thence Northeasterly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of
898.84 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 00o16'32" W, a distance of 1073.57 feet, to a point of curvature with a curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 1275.02 feet and a central angle of 42o37'30"; thence Northerly, and Northwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 948.54 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 42o54'02" W, a distance of 1233.99 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Easterly, having a radius of 1125.00 feet and a central angle of 41o53'22"; thence Northwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 822.50 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 01o00'40" W, a distance of 612.19 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 2321.17 feet and a central angle of 20o15'52"; thence Northerly, along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 820.96 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 21o16'32" W, a distance of 638.10 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve, concave Easterly, having a radius of 2645.00 feet and a central angle of 21o05'36"; thence Northerly, along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 973.76 feet, to a point of tangency; thence N 00o10'56" W, a distance of 1703.06 feet;
thence N 88o44'20" E, a distance of 94.45 feet; thence N 00o27'28" W, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence N89o28'05"E, a distance of 467.24 feet; thence N 00o27'28" W, a distance of 187.53 feet; thence N 89o20'44" E, a distance of 817.56 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 1204.60 acres, more or less.
TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL; CENTRAL VIERA CDD PARCEL #2:
A parcel of land lying in Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, Township 25 South, Range
36 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 28 and 29,
Township 26 South, Range 36 East all in Brevard County, Florida more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northwest corner of Section
29 in said Township 25; thence N 89o20'44" E, along the North line of said Section 29, a distance of 1498.36 feet; thence S 00o39'16" E, a distance of 1.00 foot to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described parcel; thence N 89o20'44" E, a distance of 2226.96 feet; thence S 00_10'56" E, a distance of
133.73 feet; thence N 89o49'04" E, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence S 00o10'56" E, a distance of 1805.43 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Easterly having a radius of 2795.00 feet and a central angle of 21o05'36"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 1028.98 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 21o16'32" E, a distance of 638.10 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Westerly having a radius of 2171.17 feet and a central angle of 20o15'52"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 767.90 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 01o00'40" E, a distance of 612.19 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Easterly having a radius of 1275.00 feet and a central angle of 41o53'22"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 932.16 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 42o54'02" E, a distance of 1233.99 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Westerly having a radius of 1125.02 feet and a central angle of 42o37'30"; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 836.95 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 00o16'32" E, a distance of 1073.57 feet, to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northwesterly having a radius of 725.00 feet and a central angle of 58o51'25"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 744.75 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of 1165.00 feet and a central angle of 34o03'37"; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 692.55 feet, to a point of intersection with a non-tangent line; thence N 65o28'44" W, a distance of 103.32 feet; thence S 72o56'12" W, a distance of 1011.46 feet; thence S 00o05'50" W, a distance of 537.26 feet; thence N 72o56'06" E, a distance of 378.37 feet; thence N 72o56'12" E, a distance of 419.64 feet; thence N 85o25'51" E, a distance of 195.96 feet to a point of intersection with a non- tangent curve concave Easterly having a radius of 1165.00 feet and a central angle of 20o27'48"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 416.08 feet (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S 13o04'46" E for 413.88 feet) to a point of tangency; thence S 23o18'40" E, a distance of 64.12 feet; thence S 66o37'23" W, a distance of
542.44 feet; thence N 17o03'48" W, a distance of 508.65 feet; thence S 72o56'12" W, a distance of 450.02 feet; thence S 00o06'01" W, a distance of 347.62 feet; thence S 35o48'40" E, a distance of 69.36 feet; thence N 72_56'12" E, a distance of 480.28 feet; thence S 17o03'48" E, a distance of 442.43 feet; thence S 72o56'12" W, a distance of 340.09 feet to a point of intersection with a non- tangent curve concave Westerly having a radius of 1145.00 feet and a central angle of 27o38'08"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 552.27 feet (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S 14o37'44" E
for 546.93 feet) to a point of tangency; thence S 00o48'40" E, a distance of
170.00 feet; thence S 89o11'20" W, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of 170.00 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Westerly having a radius of 995.00 feet and a central angle of 35o00'00"; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 607.81 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 35o48'40" W, a distance of 676.45 feet; thence S 54o11'20" W, a distance of 138.31 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northerly having a radius of 1230.00 feet and a central angle of 35o48'40"; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 768.78 feet to a point of tangency; thence West a distance of
675.69 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Southerly having a radius of 890.00 feet and a central angle of 23o20'00"; thence Westerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 362.45 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 66o40'00" W, a distance of 117.25 feet to a point of intersection with a non-tangent curve concave Westerly having a radius of 3000.00 feet and a central angle of 20o55'41"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 1095.79 feet (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S 12o52'09" E for 1089.71 feet) to a point of intersection with a non-tangent line; thence S 70o48'40" E, a distance of 478.77 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northerly having a radius of 2000.00 feet and a central angle of 20_00'00"; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 698.13 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 420.00 feet; thence S 00o48'40" E, a distance of 1200.00 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 760.00 feet; thence S 00o48'40" E, a distance of 1100.00 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence S 00o48'40" E, a distance of 1369.72 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 1050.00 feet; thence N 00o48'40" W, a distance of 479.72 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 1864.60 feet; thence S 00o17'13" E, a distance of 310.01 feet; thence N 89o11'20" E, a distance of 639.10 feet; thence S 00o17'14" E, a distance of 851.93 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of 2610.00 feet and a central angle of 46o43'46"; thence Southerly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 2128.67 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave Southwesterly having a radius of 1440.00 feet and a central angle of 46o16'23"; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 1162.97 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 00o44'37" E, a distance of 1580.63 feet; thence N 89o08'33" E, a distance of 33.70 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northerly having a radius of 1984.86 feet and a central angle of 12o00'26"; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 415.96 feet (said arc subtended by a chord which bears N 83o08'20" E for 415.20 feet) to a point of tangency; thence N 77o08'07" E, a distance of 429.33 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Southerly having a radius of 1834.86 feet and a central angle of 12o25'32"; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve to the right a distance of 397.92 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 89o33'39" E, a distance of 341.59 feet; thence S 00o26'21" E, a distance of 55.00 feet; thence N 89o33'39" E, a distance of
100.00 feet; thence S 64o31'58" E, a distance of 389.10 feet; thence S 25o00'16" E, a distance of 1054.20 feet; thence S 23o33'44" E, a distance of 448.82 feet, to the West right of way line of Interstate Highway 95; thence S 14o30'59" E, along said West right of way line, a distance of 4187.24 feet; thence S 87o31'12" W, a distance of 2383.56 feet, to the East line of said Section 21; thence S 00o52'01" E, along said East line, a distance of 4941.06 feet, to the Northeast corner of said Section 28; thence S 00o22'01" E, along the East line of said Section 28, a distance of 2641.30 feet, to the East 1/4 corner thereof; thence S 89o09'50" W, a distance of 5316.03 feet, to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 28; thence S 89o24'21" W, a distance of 1321.53 feet; thence N 00o42'48" W, a distance of 2644.74 feet; thence N 00o25'43" W, a distance of 5296.74 feet;
thence N 00o35'21" E, a distance of 5204.77 feet; thence S 89o08'33" W, a distance of 3998.76 feet to the West line of said Section 17; thence N 00o35'19" W, along said West line, a distance of 75.00 feet, to the Southwest corner of said Section 8; thence N 00o35'22" W, along the West line of said Section 8, a distance of 5302.92 feet, to the Southwest corner of said Section 5; thence N 00o33'35" W, along the West line of said Section 5, a distance of 5290.28 feet, to the Southwest corner of said Section 32; thence N 00_31'18" E, along the West line of said Section 32, a distance of 4667.93 feet; thence N 66o33'30" E, a distance of 1990.78 feet; to the point of curvature of a curve concave Northwesterly having a radius of 2988.25 feet and a central angle of 66o44'26"; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left a distance of 3480.84 feet to a point of intersection with a non-tangent line; thence S 89o20'44" W, a distance of 1298.28 feet; thence N 45o39'16" W, a distance of 1200.05 feet; thence N 00o33'05" W, a distance of 1649.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 4526.70 acres more or less.
THE CENTRAL VIERA CDD CONTAINS 5731.30 ACRES MORE OR LESS
42V-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: John R. Maloy; Tracy Duda; David Duda; Thomas Duda; Steven L. Johnson. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New _- - .
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 28, 1994 | Report of Findings and Conclusions sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 12/07/94. |
| Dec. 20, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions (for Hearing Officer Signature); Disk w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1994 | Transcript of Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1994 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Nov. 29, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Prepared Testimony; Prefiled Testimony filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1994 | Petitioner`s Witness List filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1994 | Notice of Assignment, Notice of Hearing and Order sent out. (hearing set for 12/07/94; 1:00pm; Melbourne) |
| Oct. 06, 1994 | Petitioner`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Sep. 28, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 22, 1994 | Agency referral letter (Exhibits 1 - 11 To Petition Tagged); Petition filed. |
| Sep. 13, 1994 | Letter to SLS from C. Stuart (re: coordination of hearing) filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 28, 1994 | Recommended Order | Petition for creation of Community Development District is uncontested-proposed district meets all statutory criteria--recommends approval by Florida Land and Water Adjuicatory District. |
