STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOHN RATHKAMP, individually, ) and MONROE COUNTY VACATION )
RENTAL MANAGERS, INC., a )
Florida Corporation, LOWER KEYS ) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a Florida )
Corporation, and MARATHON ) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a Florida )
Corporation, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-5952
)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )
AFFAIRS, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
MONROE COUNTY, )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 20 through 23, 1998, and June 29 through July 2, 1998, in Marathon, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Jeffrey Bell, Esquire
Herzfeld & Rubin
5310 North West 33rd Avenue, Suite 102 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309
and
Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.
225 South Adams, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Kathleen Fowler, Assistant General Counsel Sherry Spiers, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
For Intervenor: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire
Hugh J. Morgan, Esquire Karen K. Cabanas, Esquire Morgan & Brookes
317 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040 and
James T. Hendrick, Esquire Monroe County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997, approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA97-280-FOI-GM, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997)?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Monroe County has been designated as an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs is required to review any ordinance passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County which constitutes a land development regulation to ensure that it is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
On February 3, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County adopted Ordinance 004-1997 prohibiting vacation rentals of less than twenty-eight days in specified areas of the Monroe County. Ordinance 004-1997 constitutes a land development regulation. On February 25, 1997, the ordinance was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for review as required by Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes.
On April 25, 1997, the Department of Community Affairs caused notice of its adoption of Proposed Rule 9J-14.006(11), finding Ordinance 004-1997 consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On May 15, 1997, the proposed rule was challenged.
On May 31, 1997, Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 97-253, Laws of Florida (1997), became effective. As amended Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes,
provides that the Department of Community Affairs is to approve or reject ordinances adopting land development regulations in Areas of Critical State Concern by final order rather than by rule. Consequently, the Department of Community Affairs withdrew Proposed Rule 9J-14.006(11).
On November 5, 1997, the Department of Community Affairs entered a Final Order approving Monroe County Ordinance No. 004- 1997. Notice of the Final Order was caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on November 26, 1997.
On December 16, 1997, Petitioners filed a "Petition for Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), F.S.," challenging the Department of Community Affairs' Final Order. The petition was filed by the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 19, 1997. The petition was designated Case Number
97-5952 and was assigned to the undersigned.
On January 9, 1998, a formal hearing was scheduled by Notice of Hearing for April 20 through 23, 1998, in Marathon, Florida.
At the end of the portion of the hearing conducted in April, additional hearing time was scheduled and conducted from June 29 through July 2, 1998.
On January 26, 1998, Monroe County filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Full Party. Leave to intervene was granted without objection by an Order Granting Leave to Intervene.
On April 16, 1997, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation. Among other things, the parties agreed to certain admitted facts and one admitted conclusion of law. Those findings of fact and the conclusion of law have been included in this order to the extent relevant.
At the commencement of the formal hearing Petitioners, Islamorada Chamber of Commerce and Key Largo Chamber of Commerce, voluntarily withdrew.
During the formal hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of John H. Rathkamp, Gene Moody, Charles H. Vowels, III, Louise Matthews, Wendy Sullivan, Carol Ann Fisher, Alexa Wheeler, Raymond Kitchner, Don Craig, Charles Ilvento, Leonard Vanstry, John Larkin, Diane Chaplin, and Charles Pattison. Don Craig, Charles Ilvento, and John Larkin were accepted as expert witnesses. The testimony of Randy Ludacer, Ken Metcalf, and David Quigley was admitted through depositions. Petitioners also offered fifty-three exhibits. Petitioners' Exhibits 7, 33, 34,
51, and 53 were rejected. Petitioners' Exhibits 38 and 39 were marked for identification but not offered.
The Department of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Jack Teague, Ty Symroski, and James Nicholas, Ph.D. All were accepted as experts. The testimony of Mike McDaniel was admitted through deposition. The Department of Community Affairs also offered 6 exhibits which were accepted into evidence.
Monroe County presented the testimony of Tim McGarry, Denise Werling, and Curtis Kruer. Mr. Kruer was accepted as an expert. The testimony of Dr. Nicholas was adopted by Monroe County.
Twenty-seven exhibits were marked as Monroe County Exhibits. Official recognition was taken of Monroe County Exhibit 6.
Monroe County Exhibit 15 was withdrawn and Monroe County Exhibit
23 was rejected. The rest of Monroe County's exhibits were accepted into evidence.
The parties also offered 5 Joint Exhibits. All were accepted into evidence. The parties stipulated during the formal hearing that Petitioners have standing to participate in this matter.
A transcript of the hearing was ordered. Portions of the transcript were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 12 and July 24, 1998. Proposed orders were, therefore, required to be filed on or before August 13, 1998. Petitioners and the Department of Community Affairs filed their proposed orders on August 13, 1998. Monroe County's proposed order was served on August 14, 1998, and was filed on August 17, 1998. The proposed orders have been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties.
Petitioners are all involved in the rental of real property in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida.
Petitioner John H. Rathkamp is a resident of the State of Georgia. (Admitted fact).
Mr. Rathkamp is the owner of real property located in unincorporated Monroe County described as Lost 6, Block 9, Redfish Lane, Cudjoe Ocean Shores Subdivision, Cudjoe Key (RE #188684000800). At the time of purchase, the property was improved. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rathkamp's property was located in an Improved Subdivision land use district. (Admitted facts).
Petitioner Monroe County Vacation Rental Managers, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is located at 701 Caroline Street, Key West, Florida. (Admitted facts).
Petitioner Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is Post Office Box 4330511, Mile Maker 31, Big Pine Key, Florida. (Admitted facts).
Petitioner Marathon Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is 12222 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. (Admitted facts).
Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997).
Intervenor, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is the governing body of Monroe County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Among other things, the County is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and land development regulations for unincorporated Monroe County.
Unincorporated Monroe County has been designated as the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (hereinafter referred to as the "Florida Keys ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1979. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the County must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
Standing.
The parties stipulated that Petitioners are all substantially affected persons as those terms are used in Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (1997). The evidence in this case proved that Petitioners' substantial interests have been determined by the Department's Final Order approving the land development regulation at issue in this case.
Petitioners have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding.
The evidence also proved that the County's substantial interests were determined by the Department's Final Order. The County has standing to participate in this proceeding.
The County's Adoption of Ordinance No. 004-1997.
During 1995 the County directed that public hearings be held on the issue of the rental of real estate for short periods of time for vacation purposes in Monroe County.
Public hearings were held before the County's Development Review Committee in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida, on July 25, 1995, and December 2, 1995.
Public hearings were also held before the County's Planning Commission on the following dates and at the following locations in Monroe County:
Date Location
March 7, 1996 Marathon
March 21, 1996 Key West
April 3, 1996 Key Largo
April 18, 1996 Marathon
April 22, 1996 Duck Key
July 15, 1996 Duck Key
September 5, 1996 Marathon
On November 5, 1996, a referendum was placed on the ballot in Monroe County. The referendum asked the following question: "Should transient rentals of less than 28 days be allowed in (IS) Improved Subdivisions?" This question was answered "yes" by 51% of the citizens who voted on the referendum.
Public hearings to consider an ordinance prohibiting certain vacation rentals were held before the County on December 18, 1996 in Marathon and on February 8, 1997, in Key West.
On February 3, 1997, the County passed and adopted Ordinance No. 004-1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance applies to lands located in unincorporated Monroe County. (Admitted facts).
The Department's Review of the Ordinance.
On February 25, 1997, the County transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact).
On April 25, 1997, the Department caused notice of Proposed Rule 9J-14.006(11), approving the Ordinance, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. (Admitted fact).
A challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to the proposed rule was filed by Petitioners on May 16, 1997.
The Department held public hearings in Monroe County on the proposed rule on May 21 and 22, 1997, and June 26, 1997.
On May 31, 1997, an amendment to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, became effective. The amendment changed the procedure for approving or rejecting comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern. Pursuant to the new procedure the Department was required to approve or reject comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern by final order instead of by rule. (Admitted facts).
Petitioners in the rule challenge proceeding stipulated that they would not object, procedurally, if the Department elected to withdraw the proposed rule and issue a final order approving or rejecting the Ordinance. (Admitted fact).
On November 26, 1997, the Department caused a Final Order entered November 5, 1997, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 48. The Final Order was accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 5. The Final Order contains Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Those Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. A copy of the Final Order is attached to this Recommended Order.
Pursuant to the Department's Final Order, the Department approved the Ordinance as being consistent with the Principles. (Admitted facts).
Studies and Reports.
One thing that was made abundantly clear during the formal hearing was that no formal studies were conducted by the County during its consideration and adoption of the Ordinance. Instead, the County relied upon information provided to it during the hearings conducted prior to, and during, the adoption of the Ordinance and the County's knowledge about Monroe County.
Another fact made abundantly clear was that the Department also did not undertake any formal studies during its review of the Ordinance. The Department relied upon the its knowledge of Monroe County and information that had been provided to the County, summarized in memorandums.
The Principles.
Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, creates the Principles:
To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development.
To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including:
The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
Sewage collection and disposal facilities;
Solid waste collection and disposal facilities;
Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
Transportation facilities;
Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
City electric service and Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
Other utilities, as appropriate.
To limit adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan.
To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles must be considered as a whole and no specific provision is to be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Principles must also be construed and applied with due consideration to the legislative intent.
The legislative intent in promulgating Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, is set out in Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is hereby declared that the intent of the Legislature is:
To establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys.
To establish a land use management system that conserves and promotes the community character of the Florida Keys.
To establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services.
To provide for affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys.
To establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base.
To protect the constitutional rights of property owners to own, use, and dispose of their real property.
To promote coordination and efficiency among governmental agencies with permitting jurisdiction over land use activities in the Florida Keys.
In order for the Ordinance to be consistent with the legislative intent of Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes, it must be consistent with the Principles.
The Ordinance.
The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), establishes the land uses which are allowed and prohibited in Monroe County.
The Ordinance provides the following "Purpose":
The purpose of this ordinance is to further and expressly clarify the existing prohibition on short-term transient rental of dwelling units for less than twenty-eight (28) days in duration in
Improved Subdivisions, mobile home districts (which provide affordable housing) and native areas, and to allow tourist housing uses in all other districts and in improved subdivision districts with a newly-created tourist housing subindicator.
The Ordinance defines the terms "vacation rentals" as the rental for tenancies of a dwelling unit for less than twenty- eight days. Hotels, motels, and recreational vehicle spaces are specifically excluded from the definition of "vacation rentals."
The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and prohibits vacation rentals within those district:
Sparsely Settled Residential District;
Native Area District;
Mainland Native Area District; and
Commercial Fishing Residential District.
The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are allowable "if a special vacation rental permit is obtained under the regulations established in Code s9.5-534":
Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use;
Urban Residential District;
Sub Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use;
Sub Urban Residential District;
Sub Urban Residential District (Limited);
Destination Resort District;
Maritime Industries District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units; and
Mixed Use Districts. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use.
The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are prohibited except "in gated communities which have (a) controlled access and (b) a homeowner's or property owners' association that expressly regulates or manages vacation rental uses":
Urban Residential-Mobile Home District;
URM-L District; and
Improved Subdivision Districts.
Improved Subdivision Districts (hereinafter referred to as "IS Districts"), are the primary, residential districts in Monroe County.
40 The Ordinance establishes a new district, the Improved Subdivision-Tourist Housing District (hereinafter referred to as the "IS-T District"). Vacation rentals are allowed in IS-T Districts under certain conditions:
A map amendment designating a contiguous parcel as IS-T may be approved, provided that the map amendment application (and subsequent building permit applications and special vacation rental
permit applications) meet the following standards, criteria and conditions:
The IS-T designation is consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and there is no legitimate public purpose for maintaining the existing designation.
The IS-T designation allowing vacation rental use does not create additional trips or other adverse traffic impacts within the remainder of the subdivision or within any adjacent IS district:
The parcel to be designated IS-T must contain sufficient area to prevent spot zoning of individual parcels (i.e., rezonings should not result in spot-zoned IS-T districts or result in spot-zoned IS districts that are surrounded by IS-T districts). Unless the parcel to be rezoned contains the entire subdivision, there will be a rebuttable presumption that spot-zoning exists, but the Board of County Commissioners may rebut this presumption by making specific findings supported by competent, substantial evidence that:
the designation preserves, promotes and maintains the integrity of surrounding residential districts and overall zoning scheme or comprehensive plan for the future use of surrounding lands;
does not result in a small area of
IS-T within a district that prohibits vacation rentals;
the lots or parcels to be designated IS-T are all physically contiguous and adjacent to one another and do not result in a narrow strip or isolate pockets or spots of land that are not designated IS-T, or which prohibit vacation rentals; and
the IS-T designation is not placed in a vacuum or a spot on a lot-by-lot basis without regard to neighboring
properties, but is a part of an overall area that allows vacation rentals or similar compatible uses.
In addition to the requirements contained in Code s.9.5-377 (District Boundaries), an IS-T district shall be separated from any established residential district that does not allow tourist housing or vacation rental uses by no less than a class C bufferyard:
Vacation rental use is compatible with established land uses in the immediate vicinity of the parcel to be designated IS-
T: and
Unless a map amendment is staff-generated (i.e., initiated by Monroe County), an application for a map amendment to IS-T shall be authorized by the property owner(s) of all lots (or parcels) included within the area of the proposed map amendment.
The Ordinance provides that vacation rentals are prohibited in Offshore Island Districts unless they "were established (and held valid state public lodging establishment licenses) prior to January 1, 1969."
Finally, the Ordinance provides, in part, that the following uses are permitted in Recreational Vehicle Districts:
Recreational vehicle spaces. RV spaces are intended for use by traveling recreational vehicles. RV spaces may be leased, rented or occupied by a specific, individual recreational vehicle, for a term of less than twenty-eight
days, but placement of a specific, individual Recreational Vehicle (regardless of vehicle type or size) within a particular RV park for occupancies or tenancies of 6 months or more is prohibited. Recreational Vehicles may be stored, but not occupied, for periods of 6 months or greater only in an approved RV storage area
(Designated on a site plan approved by the Director of Planning) or in another appropriate district that allows storage of recreational vehicles. . . .
Code s9-534 of the Ordinance requires a permit for vacation rentals, except for vacation rentals located within a controlled access, gated-community or within a multifamily building which has 24-hour on-site management or 24-hour on-site supervision. This Code section also provides certain conditions which must be met by vacation rentals, requires that a copy of any permit be provided to surrounding property owners, provides for the circumstances under which a permit may be revoked, provides for certain penalties, and deals with other miscellaneous matters. Code s9-534 is hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order.
The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact).
Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance.
On December 16, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a challenge pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. (Admitted facts).
In addition to alleging that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles, Petitioners also challenged some of the specific findings of fact contained in the Final Order entered by the Department.
While the Department has agreed that it has the burden of proving the "validity of the final order," for purposes of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, the only "final order" which the Department entered in this matter is the final line of the order: "WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Monroe County Ordinance No. 004-1997 is consistent with Section 380.0552(7), F.S., and is hereby approved." Because this is a de novo proceeding, the "facts" and "conclusions of law" the Department reached in taking the "proposed agency action" at issue in this case, are not controlling.
Petitioners also alleged that the Ordinance is not "consistent with the legislative intent for designation of unincorporated Monroe County as the Florida Keys ACSC expressed in Section 380.0552(2), F.S." Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, does not specifically require the Department to independently determine whether a land development regulation is consistent with the legislative intent. The Department is only required to determine consistency with the Principles. If a land development regulation is consistent with the Principles, it will also be consistent with the legislative intent.
Finally, Petitioners alleged in their Petition that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Plan. This allegation was not included in the Prehearing Stipulation. This issue was, therefore, waived by Petitioners. Even if not considered waived, the issue of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Plan is
not an issue which has been properly brought before this forum. The challenge in this case was instituted pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is the Department required or authorized to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan. The Department's authority to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan comes from Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Challenges to Department's decisions under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, must be instituted pursuant to Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes. No such proceeding has been instituted by Petitioners.
Petitioners, although not specifically alleged in their petition or the Prehearing Stipulation, presented evidence at hearing and argument in their proposed order concerning what the County and Department knew or did not know, and what they did or did not do, at the time of their respective actions. Because this is a de novo proceeding, such knowledge or actions, do not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles unless, in the case of required information, the information is not provided at hearing and, in the case of an action that was not taken, the action was required by rule or statute. The evidence presented at hearing in this case was sufficient to determine consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. The evidence also failed to prove that the County or
the Department failed to take any action required by rule or statute with regard to their respective roles in this matter.
Sound Economic Development of Monroe County.
Section 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development." This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(e), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base.
Undoubtedly, the evidence in this case proved that the Ordinance will cause a negative impact to the economy of Monroe County. No economic impact study was necessary to prove this fact.
Although neither the County nor the Department conducted an economic impact study prior to the County's adoption and the Department's review of the Ordinance, the County and the Department were aware of the fact that there would be a negative economic impact as a result of the Ordinance and took that fact into consideration in carrying out their respective roles. More importantly, there is no requirement in Chapters 120 or 380, Florida Statutes, that an economic impact study be performed prior to adoption of a land development regulation or during the Department's review. Nor is the Department authorized as part of
its review pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to require such a study be conducted by the County.
This is a de novo proceeding. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Department in order to meet its burden of proof to present sufficient competent substantial evidence concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance during the formal hearing. Much of the proof was presented by Petitioners. The combined proof of the parties in this case concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance is sufficient to make a determination as to whether the Ordinance is consistent with Principle "d."
The economy of Monroe County is primarily dependent upon the tourist industry. The tourist industry in turn is largely dependent on the natural resources of Monroe County. As a consequence, the majority of the Principles provide for a consideration of impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Ultimately, the economic viability of Monroe County depends on its environmental resources.
Tourists who vacation in Monroe County generally require lodging while on vacation. Lodging in Monroe County is diverse and includes hotels, motels, camp grounds, RV parks, and rentals of dwellings, including rentals for periods of less than
28 days (rentals of dwellings of less than 28 days are hereinafter referred to as a "Short-Term Rental Property").
There are some tourists who prefer to stay in Short- Term Rental Property over other types of accommodations available in Monroe County. There are even some tourists who may go elsewhere if they are unable to find Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County.
A reduction in available Short-Term Rental Property may also cause some tourists to come to Monroe County during periods during the year when tourism is lower.
The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the loss of tourists or the extent to which tourists may come to Monroe County during the off-season if there is a reduction in the available number of Short-Term Rentals Property as a result of the Ordinance.
Short-Term Rental Property makes up a significant portion of tourist lodging available throughout Monroe County.
Short-Term Rental Property has been a part of the tourist economy of Monroe County for the past twenty to thirty years. Short-Term Rental Property, however, has increased significantly recently as the number of dwellings in Monroe County has increased.
The use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property adds to the economy of Monroe County by providing work for a number of businesses in Monroe County. Those businesses include real estate brokers, pool maintenance, lawn maintenance, home
repairs, maid/cleaning services, and many of the businesses associated with the tourist industry.
Occupancy rates for Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County have been averaging approximately 30% annually. Occupancy occurs primarily during the peak tourist season from December or January through April. To a lesser extent, occupancy is higher in August also.
Occupancy rates in Monroe County hotels and motels during the peak season have been approximately 80% to 100%.
There is currently a moratorium in the Florida Keys on the construction of hotels and motels. The moratorium is only effective through 2006. The construction of new transient rentals and the conversion of single-family residences to transient rentals are prohibited by the Plan. These measures represent an effort of the County to regulate the influx of tourists into Monroe County and very likely result in an increase of properties used for Short-Term Rental Property to meet the demand for tourist lodging.
As a result of the Ordinance's restriction on where Short-Term Rental Property will be allowable in Monroe County, there will be some reduction in the number of Short-Term Rental Properties available to tourist in Monroe County.
Petitioners have estimated that there will be a reduction of in excess of 3,000 Short-Term Rental Properties as a result of the Ordinance. This number is based upon the
assumption that there are 4,100 Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County, that 76% of those rentals are located in IS districts, and that all 76% of the rentals in IS districts will be lost. The evidence failed to support a finding that such a reduction will occur.
First, the Ordinance does not prohibit all Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County. The use of properties for Short-Term Rental Property is not prohibited in several land use districts listed, supra. Short-Term Rental Property located in the cities of Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Village of Islamorada are also not subject to the Ordinance.
There are approximately 12,000 seasonal rental units in incorporated and unincorporated Monroe County. To the extent that the demand for Short-Term Rental Property is not met by properties which are no longer available for use as a Short-Term Rental Property under the Ordinance, some part of that demand will be met by seasonal units not impacted by the Ordinance: those units located in land use districts in which Short-Term Rental Properties are not prohibited and in incorporated areas. The market will react to the market conditions as they change under the Ordinance.
Petitioners' expert witness, Charles Ilvento, provided estimates of the losses in revenue and sales tax collections in Monroe County (at a rate of 11.55 per cent) as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates were that Monroe County would
experience $400,235,747.00 to $500,294,683.00 per year in economic losses and $6,262,444.00 per year in sales tax losses.
The Department's and County's expert, Dr. Nicholas, estimated that the economic loss from the Ordinance to Monroe County would only be approximately 20 per cent of the loss projected by Mr. Ilvento and would last only two years.
Mr. Ilvento also suggested that the losses would be continuing losses.
The weight of the evidence failed to support the extent of losses suggested by Mr. Ilvento.
First, in making his estimates, Mr. Ilvento relied upon the number of Short-Term Rental Properties Petitioners had estimated would be lost as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates are too high. See Findings of Fact 68 and 69.
Secondly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the economic benefit of keeping residential uses of property and the more commercial activities of Short-Term Rental Properties separate as required by the Ordinance. Because of the value of Short-Term Rental Properties, finding property for permanent residents is more difficult. In some areas, the use of residential property for Short-Term Rental Properties can dominate the residential nature of an area to a great enough extent that the residential sector will decline and withdraw.
Thirdly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the increase in income that would be likely to occur from the sales
of properties formerly used as Short-Term Rental Property which Petitioners assert will have to be sold.
Fourthly, Petitioners' estimate of the number of properties that will be sold (50%), which Mr. Ilvento relied upon in reaching his estimates, is not reasonable. Petitioners' estimate of the number of Short-Term Rental Properties that will be sold assumes that the owners of those properties will no longer be able to afford them without the rental income they had previously enjoyed from the properties. This assumption is not realistic. It is not realistic to assume that half the owners of Short-Term Rental Properties acquired their property without taking into account the possibility that they would not be able to rent the property. Additionally, it is not reasonable to assume that an owner who is faced with the inability to carry the debt on a property will necessarily elect to sell it rather than rent it on a long-term basis.
The evidence also proved that the economy of Monroe County will be benefited to the extent that the Ordinance enhances the availability of affordable housing and reduces adverse impacts to the environment of Monroe County, as discussed, infra. The benefits to the economy as a result of the increase in affordable housing and the reduction of adverse impacts to the environment will not be substantial, however.
The weight of the evidence in this case proved that there will be an overall economic loss in Monroe County as a
result of the Ordinance. That loss should last approximately two to three years. The amount of the loss projected by Dr. Nicholas is a more reasonable estimate of the loss which will occur. That loss, however, will be substantial.
Protection of the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare.
Section 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statues, includes the following principle: "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource."
The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was primarily exercising its police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Monroe County. The County decided to exercise its power by limiting the types of activities allowable in areas designated for residential use.
The County's decision was based upon extensive testimony on the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property in neighborhoods given at the public hearings conducted by the County.
Additionally, the County was aware of the results of the November 5, 1996, referendum vote in which residents of the County voted in favor of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts.
Although the testimony concerning the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property and the results of the referendum vote relied upon by the County constitutes hearsay, it does
corroborate and explain the testimony of Denise Werling, a permanent resident of Monroe County.
It is difficult to characterize the rental of Short- Term Rental Property as purely commercial or residential. While Short-Term Rental Property is being used by the people who rent the property as housing, which is in the nature of a residential use, the services they are provided in conjunction with the rental is more in the nature of a commercial enterprise. Therefore, Short-Term Rental Property use is more like the rental of a hotel or motel rental, rather than the a long-term lease of property. Additionally, although there are always exceptions, occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties use the properties for reasons that are different from the uses that occupants of long- term rentals or permanent residents put their properties.
As a result of the differences between the uses to which occupants of Short-Term Rental Property and permanent residents put their property, conflicts arise where the two land uses exist side by side.
Although Short-Term Rental Properties have been a part of Monroe County for many years, there has been an increase in the number of properties available for use as Short-Term Rental Property in areas which have also increasingly been used as neighborhoods for permanent residents during the past ten years. As a result, the conflicts between occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties and permanent residents have increased.
Denise Werling testified as to the types of conflicts she has experienced with a Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her home. Ms. Werling's testimony was illustrative of the types of conflicts which can exist if Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed to exist in areas designated for purely residential uses.
The following are the types of problems which are not uncommonly associated with the use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property in residential areas:
Short-Term Rental Property may be occupied with excessive numbers of tenants.
Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property usually do not have to work because they are on vacation. As a consequence, they usually want to maximize the time they spend enjoying their vacation. As a result, they may stay up later at night and/or get up earlier in the morning than permanent residents. Late- night parties are not limited to weekends.
Occupants often have excessive numbers of vehicles, boats, jet skies, RV's, and boat trailers, which they park on residential streets or all over the Short-Term Rental Property. RV's are parked in the driveway, yard, or the street in front of the rental property. When occupied, these RV's can be noisy if they are powered by self-contained generators.
Multiple boats may be docked along seawalls behind Short-Term Rental Properties. Ms. Werling has seen as many as
six boats parked at one time against the seawall of the Short- Term Rental Property located next to her residence.
Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are unfamiliar with garbage and recycling schedules. As a result, full trash containers and recycle containers, if they are used, are left outside when the occupants leave, even though it may be several days before pickup is scheduled.
Pets that are unfamiliar to the neighborhood are left to roam free. Ms. Werling has had dogs from the property next to hers on her property.
Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are strangers to the neighborhood. As a result, they can create a sense on uneasiness to permanent residents. This sense of uneasiness is not only a result of concern for the safety of the permanent residents and their families, but is also caused by the fact that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are less likely to adhere to accepted neighborhood practices. They may leave outdoor security lights on all the time. They are less concerned about trespassing onto seawalls and yards of the permanent residents. They are only in the area for a relatively short period of time and, consequently, they are likely to be less considerate of the neighboring permanent residents.
Short-Term Rental Property occupants are often less familiar with the waters that surround their Short-Term Rental Property. As a result, they tend to run aground, causing damage
to seagrass beds. While they could cause such damage elsewhere if they were staying at a hotel or motel, they at least have hotel and motel personnel that are familiar with the surrounding waters that they can consult before venturing out. Such information is not as readily available at Short-Term Rental Properties.
86 Most of the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Properties are not limited to occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. Many are also caused by some permanent residents. Just as there are some Short-Term Rental Property occupants that are inconsiderate to permanent residents, there are permanent residents that are inconsiderate to their neighbors. The degree to which the problems are caused is much higher, however, for occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties than it is for permanent residents.
Additionally, it is more likely that permanent residents that cause problems can be effectively dealt with through the enforcement of regulations than occupants of Short- Term Rental Property. Finally, some of the problems are only associated with occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties.
Efforts to enforce regulations intended to deal with the problems associated with inconsiderate neighbors, such as anti-noise ordinances, have not been successful in eliminating the problems associated with Short-Term Rental Property. Short- Term Rental Property occupants have less reason to be concerned
about regulations because they know they will be leaving the community in a short time. Whether they get along with their "neighbors" is not something they are concerned with.
Ms. Werling has reported the problems she has experienced with the Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her. The problems, however, persist.
Efforts of managers of Short-Term Rental Properties have not eliminated the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Property for the same reason that regulations are not effective and because not all owners of Short-Term Rental Property use local managers. Some absentee owners rent the properties themselves and they are not available to handle complaints as they arise.
The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was exercising its police power to eliminate the incompatible use of Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended for use as residential communities. In exercising its police power, the County prohibited Short-Term Rental Property in the most sensitive residential areas and placed restrictions intended to reduce the impacts of Short-Term Rental Properties in areas where Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed under the Ordinance. The County also restricted Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended to protect the sensitive natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC.
Petitioners' have suggested that, while additional regulation of Short-Term Rental Property may be appropriate and beneficial, to prohibit Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts, given the negative economic impact of such a prohibition, would be detrimental to the overall welfare of Monroe County. Therefore, Petitioners have argued that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle "l." Petitioners' suggestion does not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle (l), however. Petitioners' suggestion relates to the issue of the balancing of all the Principles, discussed infra.
The County's Ability to Manage Land Use and Development.
Section 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation."
Short-Term Rental Properties have existed throughout the Florida Keys for many years. Many owners of Short-Term Rental Property have obtained an occupational license for their rental business.
Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, the County Attorney and the Monroe County Code Enforcement Board, began to question whether the use of property as Short-Term Rental
Property was an allowable land use in certain land districts in Monroe County under existing laws.
The fact that some owners of Short-Term Rental Properties obtained occupational licenses from the Monroe County Tax Collector and licenses pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation does not, as Petitioners have argued, support a finding that the use of Short-Term Rental Properties have been an allowable use.
An occupational license is, in essence, a method of collecting a tax pursuant to Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, for the operation of a business in a local jurisdiction. The issuance of such a license is not in the nature of a land use decision. Although there was a requirement in the County prior to the adoption of the Ordinance that occupational licenses issued by the Tax Collector be reviewed by the County for consistency with land use requirements, the evidence failed to support a finding that licenses were actually reviewed. Even if they had been, the evidence in this case only proved that the County simply did not give any consideration to whether existing comprehensive plans and land development regulations allow or prohibit the use of property as Short-Term Rental Property in all land use districts of Monroe County. Licenses from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation also do not constitute land use decisions.
By taking the actions necessary to consider the problem of Short-Term Rental Properties and in adopting the Ordinance, the County has evidenced the willingness to take responsibility for the issue of whether the use of property for Short-Term Rental Property is allowable, and, if so, in which districts. By adopting the Ordinance, the County has resolved any ambiguity concerning the legality of Short-Term Rental Property.
Even if it were clear that the use of Short-Term Rental Property has been allowable throughout Monroe County, the County has still taken steps to strengthen its capability for managing land use and development. The County took on a highly controversial issue, with vocal proponents and opponents, and made a decision as to the future direction of neighborhoods in Monroe County. In so doing, the County also took the actions necessary to actually "manage" Short-Term Rental Properties.
The Environmental Issues.
100. Sections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), (e), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes, are Principles which require a consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys:
Principle "b": "To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat."
Principle "c": "To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat."
Principle "e": "To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys."
Principle "f": "To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys."
Principle "i": "To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." (This Principle could also be grouped with Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes). These Principles are consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys.
Part I of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is titled "The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972." Section 380.012, Florida Statutes. The legislative purpose for establishing Part I and designating areas of critical state concern was primarily to provide State protection from adverse development impacts on environmentally sensitive areas of the State: Big Cypress Swamp, Green Swamp, Apalachicola Bay, and Monroe County's Florida Keys. All of these areas include environmentally sensitive lands and water bodies.
The Ordinance does not specifically deal with environmental issues. The Ordinance involves primarily a balancing of a local government's police power with the economic impact of the exercise of that power. The Ordinance does, however, have some small positive impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Most importantly, the Ordinance does nothing contrary to the legislative intent to protect the Florida Keys ACSC.
Monroe County's economic viability depends on the preservation and protection of its natural resources, including the quality of its surrounding waters. Tourism, which is the largest industry in Monroe County, is dependent on Monroe County's natural resources.
The tourists who come to Monroe County are, in large part, attracted to Monroe County by its environmental qualities. Unfortunately, tourists are generally the worst abusers of the natural environment of Monroe County. This is true whether a tourist is staying in a motel or a Short-Term Rental Property.
Tourists have more free time and, as a consequence, tend to participate in the recreational activities available in Monroe County more frequently and intensely than permanent residents. They simply use the resources more than a permanent resident. For example, in addition to spending more time on the water during good weather, tourists tend to engage in water activities even during inclement weather. Unlike a permanent
resident who can wait until the next clear weekend, a vacationer will not necessarily be in Monroe County when the weather clears and therefore, is likely to be on the water at every opportunity.
Tourists use the resources of the Florida Keys ACSC throughout their vacation. Unlike permanent residents, who are limited primarily to enjoying the natural environment of the Florida Keys ACSC on weekends and holidays, tourists are free to enjoy the environment everyday they are in Monroe County.
In addition to the more frequent and intense use of the resources of Monroe County, tourists also cause harm to the environment because of their lack of knowledge about the Florida Keys ACSC or because they simply don't care.
Monroe County's nearshore waters consist of numerous unmarked channels that leave many areas of Monroe County, including many canals of IS Districts. The unmarked channels can be difficult to navigate because of shallow waters typical of the Florida Keys. Navigation through these channels is learned largely from experience.
The shallow nearshore waters contain beds of seagrasses that provide an important part of the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. They support juvenile fish and shellfish, which in turn provide feeding stock for birds and larger fish species. Grounding on these seagrass beds causes propeller scaring damage to the seagrasses.
Tourists are also not familiar or do not care about limits on the numbers of fish and other marine life that can be caught, the sensitively of coral reefs and other natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC, or the need to minimize human contact with the Key Deer. As a result, tourist tend to create more harm to most of the environmental features of the Florida Keys ACSC.
Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties located in IS Districts and other land use districts are not significantly different from tourists that stay in other transient rentals available in Monroe County such as hotels or motels in terms of their impacts on the environment. The adverse impacts on the environment from tourists described, supra, are caused by tourists regardless of where they may be staying.
Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties, however, do cause slightly more harm to the environment than other tourists for several reasons.
First, a large number of tourists bring their own boats and ski jets with them to Monroe County. Those who stay in Short-Term Rental Properties generally do not operate or store their boats out of commercial marinas or use public boat ramps. As a consequence, it is more difficult to educate them about the adverse impacts they may cause on the environment. Marinas and other commercial locations where boats may be docked provide greater information about the waters of the Florida Keys and are
more likely to have adequately marked access channels than Short- Term Rental Properties. Marinas, hotels, and motels also have knowledgeable individuals available to answer questions concerning the surrounding waters, a service not available to Short-Term Rental Property occupants.
Prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will reduce the number of inexperienced boaters using the numerous canals of IS Districts to access the waters of Monroe County.
Secondly, tourists that occupy Short-Term Rental Properties are more likely to cause harm to the Key Deer and other sensitive natural resources due to the proximity of their Short-Term Rental Property to the Key Deer and other resources. Key Deer inhabit the Florida Keys primarily on Big Pine Key. The Key Deer is an endangered species. Properties located on Big Pine Key and in other areas where Key Deer are found are used for Short-Term Vacation Rental Properties.
Adverse impacts on the Key Deer result from their interaction with humans, through feeding, automobile deaths, and dogs that chase the Key Deer.
While all tourists have impacts on the Key Deer due to their interaction with the them, the location of Short-Term Rental Property within the Key Deer habitat, especially areas located away from the main highway corridor of the Florida Keys,
U.S. Highway 1, increases the amount of interaction between those
tourists who occupy those Short-Term Rental Properties and the Key Deer. Tourists staying in IS Districts on Big Pine Key, especially those in Port Pine Heights at the north end of the Key, feed the Deer more because they are there more often, and cause more traffic problems because of the drive required to get to their rental property.
Principle "e" requires that land development regulations limit the adverse impacts of development on water quality.
There are public health concerns associated with untreated or improperly treated sewage, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites.
Throughout most of the Florida Keys ACSC, septic tanks are used to dispose of sewage. Many of the septic tanks were installed years ago and do not meet today's standards for septic tanks.
The size of a septic tank that must be installed depends on what the property will be used for. For single family residences, it is assumed that 100 gallons per day of sewage will be disposed of. Hotels are also assumed to create the same amount per room, while resorts, camps, and cottages are assumed to produce 200 gallons per day. Establishments with self-service laundries are assumed to produce 750 gallons per day.
The use of Short-Term Rental Properties is somewhere between the use of single-family residence, hotels, resorts, and
establishments with self-service laundries because of the similarity in how tourists in Short-Term Rental Properties and occupants of other transient locations live. Additionally,
Short-Term Rental Properties are often occupied with more persons than would normally be found in a single-family residence.
Although some septic tanks are designed with even more capacity than may be required by rules, not all septic tanks are designed to handle the increased use that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties can cause. As a consequence, there is at least the potential for adverse consequences to the water of the Florida Keys ACSC to the extent that Short-Term Rental Properties are not better regulated by the County.
Through the Ordinance, the County is attempting to ensure that the potential harm from the over use of septic tanks in Monroe County is regulated. The Ordinance limits the number of occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. The Ordinance also requires that applicants for vacation rental permits submit a report from the Department of Health verifying compliance with existing septic tank or on-site sewage disposal system regulations.
The Ordinance has no direct impact on Principle (i) and some parts of the other environmental Principles. The Ordinance is not, however, inconsistent with any of the Principles which deal with the environment.
Community Character and Historical Heritage of the Florida Keys.
Section 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, provides for a consideration of the "community character" of the Florida Keys, in addition to environmental considerations. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(b), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes the community character of the Florida Keys.
Section 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, includes the following Principle: "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys."
Although the evidence proved that the vacation rental of single-family residences has been a part of the character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys for many years, the problem being dealt with by the County through the Ordinance has not.
The Ordinance does nothing to harm the community character or historical heritage of Monroe County.
Public Investments.
Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that "the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized
life of existing and proposed major public investments be protected, including the following investments:
The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
Sewage collection and disposal facilities;
Solid waste collection and disposal facilities;
Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
Transportation facilities;
Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
Other utilities, as appropriate.
This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(c), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services.
The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Ordinance has any impact, positive or negative, on "existing and proposed major public investments "
Affordable Housing.
Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." This Principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys.
There is a significant problem finding housing in Monroe County. It is especially difficult finding housing affordable to lower income residents. The shortage of housing has been caused by the lack of available developable land and restrictions on development, including those imposed by the Rate of Growth Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "ROGO").
ROGO limits the number of new permanent residential units which may be constructed in the Florida Keys to 255 per year.
Because of the restrictions on available new housing in Monroe County, prices for residential property have increased over the years.
Currently, most 2 to 3 bedroom properties used as Short-Term Rental Properties are selling for $200,000.00 to
$300,000.00. These properties do not come under the definition of "affordable housing" for lower income residents.
"Affordable housing" is defined in terms of housing which can be afforded by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. Homes that costs over $200,000.00 do not constitute "affordable housing" as defined in the County's Land Development Regulations.
The market for homes selling for over $200,000.00 in Monroe County is not high. Therefore, to the extent that properties located in IS Districts that are currently used as Short-Term Rental Properties are placed on the market, there will not be a direct increase in housing for very-low income, low- income, or moderate-income persons.
Many of the Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County are second homes that are used only part of the year by the owners and are used as Short-Term Rental Properties the rest of the year. Some Short-Term Rental Properties are properties that have been purchased for investment purposes and/or with the intent of using the properties as the owners' permanent residence upon retirement. As a result, these properties are not available for use by permanent residents. Regardless of their costs, with a limited number of new residential properties allowed under ROGO, the use of new properties as Short-Term Rental Properties necessarily reduces the overall availability of housing in Monroe County. The restriction caused in the overall housing market in Monroe County can reasonably be expected to also negatively impact the availability of affordable housing.
Potential revenues to property owners from Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts are higher then the potential revenues from long-term rentals to permanent residents. Consequently, as more property owners in IS Districts are attracted to using their properties as Short-Term Rental Properties, there is a reduction in the amount of housing available for long-term rentals. Therefore, the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties decreases the supply of long-term rentals available for residents of Monroe County. By prohibiting the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties, the total properties in Monroe County available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases demand for all housing, including an affordable housing to some small extent, will be better met.
There is a demand for long-term rentals in Monroe County. Two to three bedroom homes located in IS Districts can easily be rented for $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 per month. Some segment of the permanent population of Monroe County could afford such rentals if they were available, freeing up less expensive housing.
Additionally, some absentee owners are able to purchase more expensive property because of their ability to rent the property as Short-Term Rental Property and apply the rental income to meet a higher mortgage payment. As a result, the real
estate market in Monroe County builds more expensive homes to meet the demand. To the extent that this market for higher priced homes is reduced by the Ordinance, the allocation of ROGO residential units may be used for less expensive housing.
The overall impact on the increase in available housing for permanent residents of Monroe County as a result of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will generally "trickle" down throughout the entire housing market and benefit the availability of affordable housing.
Natural or Manmade Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief.
Section 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan."
Hurricane evacuation in Monroe County is a difficult problem because of the low elevations in the Florida Keys and the lack of evacuation routes. Through most of the Florida Keys, there is only one evacuation road: U.S. Highway 1.
The County has adopted, and put in place, hurricane evacuation plans for Monroe County.
Estimated hurricane evacuation times for Monroe County determine the extent to which growth can be allowed in the future. The estimated hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County is determined by a ROGO hurricane evacuation model.
The model takes into account seasonal residents, hotel/motel residents, transient rental occupants, and permanent residents.
Petitioners presented evidence in an effort to show that the reduction in Short-Term Rental Properties will cause the calculation under the ROGO hurricane evacuation model to be inaccurate. The evidence failed to support such a finding.
The evidence failed to prove how occupants of Short- Term Rental Properties are treated for purposes of the hurricane evacuation model. Testimony that they are included as seasonal occupants was not credible.
Even if occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are considered seasonal occupants for hurricane evacuation purposes, it does not necessarily mean that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Principle "k." It would only mean that the results of the hurricane evacuation model need to be revised.
Rather than hampering hurricane evacuation efforts in Monroe County, the Ordinance should have a beneficial impact by giving the County more accurate information about the actual number of Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County.
Consideration of the Principles as a Whole.
Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statues, specifically provides that the Principles are to be "construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions."
The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles "d" and "l." To the extent that there is any impact on the other Principles, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent. This finding, however, is not dispositive of this case.
Ultimately, the question of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is dependent upon an evaluation of the consistency of the Ordinance with Principles "d" and "l." Clearly, the Ordinance will have a short-term negative impact on the economy of Monroe County. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of Monroe County.
When the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is taken into account, it is clear that this is not the type of land use decision the State is most concerned with. Because the Ordinance does essentially no harm to the natural environment and waters of the Florida Keys ACSC, the State's interest in the Florida Keys ACSC is protected. The issue is essentially a local one. Consequently, some deference should be afforded the County to make this difficult choice.
Given the purpose of the Department's involvement in this matter, the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the County's effort in considering the issues, and the evidence presented in this proceeding, it is concluded that the
County's effort to protect the public safety, health, and welfare is sufficient to overcome any harm to the economy. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, considered as a whole.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1997).
Standing.
Any person whose "substantial interests" have been determined by an agency may institute a proceeding challenging the agency's determination pursuant to Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, and, if the dispute involves disputed issues of material fact, Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
It was stipulated that Petitioners' substantial interests have been determined by the Department's Final Order.
The facts in this case also support a conclusion that Petitioners and Monroe County have standing to participate in this matter.
Burden and Standard of Proof.
The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue in the proceeding. Young v. Department of Community
Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1993); Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this case, it is Petitioners that are asserting the affirmative.
Petitioners have asserted, and the Department and the County have agreed, that Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, places the burden of proof in this proceeding on the Department.
Section 380.05, Florida Statutes deals with the creation of areas of critical state concern and provides, in pertinent part, the following procedures which must be followed once an area has been designated as an area of critical state concern:
After the commission adopts a rule designating the boundaries of, and principles for guiding development in, an area of critical state concern and within 180 days of such adoption, the local government having jurisdiction may submit to the state land planning agency its existing land development regulations and local comprehensive plan, if any, or shall prepare, adopt, and submit the new or modified regulations and plan, the local government taking into consideration the principles set forth in the rule designating the area.
Once the state land planning agency determines whether the land development regulations or local comprehensive plan is consistent with the principles for guiding the development of the area specified under the rule designating the area, the state planning agency shall approve or reject the land development regulations or portions thereof by final order, and shall determine compliance of the plan or amendment, or portions thereof, pursuant to s. 163.3184. The state land planning agency shall
publish its final order to approve or reject land development regulations, which shall constitute final agency action, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. If the final order is challenged pursuant to s. 120.57, the state planning agency has the burden of proving the validity of the final order. . . .
By its express terms, Section 380.005(6), Florida Statutes, only applies to the review of land development regulations which are submitted for review immediately after an area has been designated an area of critical state concern. It does not by its express terms apply to amendments to land development regulations or newly adopted land development regulations which a local government by approve after it initially establishes its land development regulations.
The review of subsequently adopted land development regulations is provided in Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes:
(9) MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.-- Any land development regulation . . . in the Florida Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment, amendment, or rescission shall become effective only upon the approval thereof by the state land planning agency. The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance with the principles for guiding development set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code . . .
and shall either approve or reject the requested changes within 60 days of receipt thereof. . . .
Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, provides for the same type of review by the Department of subsequently adopted land development regulations that is required in Section 380.05, Florida Statutes. Unlike Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes,
however, Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, does not place the burden on the Department to prove that subsequently adopted land development regulations, like the Ordinance, are consistent with the Principles.
There being no statutory directive to the contrary, the burden of proof in this proceeding is on Petitioners.
Despite the foregoing, in light of the fact that the outcome of this matter does not depend on which party has the burden of proof, it will be assumed that the burden of proof in this case was on the Department.
As to the standard of review there is no dispute. The standard of review in this proceeding is established by Section 120.57(1)(h), Florida Statutes:
(h) Findings of fact shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure disciplinary proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute . . . .
De Novo Proceeding.
Although the challenged action of the Department in this case was taken by a "Final Order," the Department's decision does not constitute "final agency action" for purposes of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(i), Florida Statutes, final agency action will not be taken until this Recommended Order is submitted to the Department and it takes final action on the Recommended Order pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes.
Because no final agency action has been taken, this proceedings was a "de novo proceeding." Section 120.57(1)(i), Florida Statutes. See also DeCarion v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 445 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The Department, with the Administrative Law Judge sitting as the head of the Department, is considered to be formulating its final agency action through this proceeding. The formulation of the Department's final agency action may be accomplished by a consideration of "the presentation of new and additional evidence, by which the matter might be determined as if it had not been previously addressed." Citrus Central v. Gardner, 569 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Petitioners have argued in their proposed order that the Department was required to "perform an independent evaluation of the regulation or ordinance . . ." and that by failing to do so it abrogated its responsibility pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statute. Petitioners' argument is without merit. This de novo proceeding constitutes the independent evaluation of the Ordinance argued for by Petitioners.
Petitioners have also attacked some of the Findings of Fact contained in the Final Order entered by the Department. It is not the function of the Administrative Law Judge, however, to "review" the Final Order, or the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law contained therein. All that is at issue is the ultimate decision required by the Department in this case: whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles. The only pertinent findings of fact and conclusion of law in this matter will be those adopted by the Department in its Final Order entered in response to this Recommended Order.
The Ultimate Issue: Consistency with the Principles.
The Ordinance at issue in this proceeding affects the use of land in Monroe County. Therefore, the Ordinance constitutes a land development regulation. Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, the Ordinance was required to be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles. Based upon its review, the Department was required to "either approve or reject" the Ordinance. The conduct of the hearing of this case constitutes part of the Department's review of the Ordinance.
The ultimate determination of whether the Ordinance should be approved or rejected depends on whether the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Ordinance is "consistent" with the Principles.
Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, provides some guidance concerning the determination of whether a land development regulation should be considered "consistent" with the Principles:
. . . . For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. .
. .
Although Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, does not specifically mention land development regulations, the Department, in reviewing land development regulations for consistency, looks at the Principles as a whole.
In determining consistency with the Principles, it may be determined that some of the Principles have little or no application.
A separate determination of whether the Ordinance is also consistent with the legislative intent provided in Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes, is not required. It follows, however, that if the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, it will not conflict with the legislative intent.
Petitioners have also argued that the Department must determine whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Plan. The review of comprehensive plans is required and governed by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Despite any suggestion to the contrary by Mr. Pattison, the Department has no authority pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to review land development regulations for consistency with the Plan. The Department's authority under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is limited to a review for consistency with the Principles.
The Department's determination of whether a land development regulation is consistent with a comprehensive growth management plan conducted pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, may be instituted pursuant to Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes. No such proceeding has been instituted by Petitioners in this case. The undersigned is, therefore, without jurisdiction to determine consistency of the Ordinance with the Plan.
The Department's Role.
Section 380.021, Florida Statutes, sets out the overall legislative intent in enacting the Environmental Land and Water Management Act:
It is the legislative intent that, in order to protect the natural resources and environment of this state as provided in s. 7, Art. II of the State Constitution, ensure a water management system that will reverse the deterioration of water quality and provide optimum utilization of our limited water resources, facilitate orderly and well-planned development, and protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life of the residents of this state, it is necessary adequately to plan for and guide growth and development within this state. In order to accomplish these purposes, it is necessary that the state establish land and water management policies to guide and coordinate local decisions relating to growth and development; that such state land and water management policies should, to the maximum possible extent, be implemented by local governments through existing processes for the guidance of growth and development; and that all the existing rights of private property be preserved in accord with the constitutions of this state and the United States.
The primary emphasis of the Legislature in enacting the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, based upon the foregoing legislative intent, is the protection of the natural resources and waters of the State. The Department has been delegated as the agency responsible for ensuring that local governments make decisions that do not conflict with this intent.
In carrying out the legislative intent expressed in Section 380.021, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary that the Department ensure that every land planning action of a local government positively enhance the natural resources and waters of the local government's area of critical state concern. It is only necessary that the local government, at a minimum, not do harm to its natural resources and waters.
The land development regulation subject to review in this case has little direct impact on the natural resources and waters of the Florida Keys ACSC. As a consequence, few of the Principles specifically apply to the Ordinance. Essentially, the Ordinance only directly involves two Principles: Sections 380.0552(7)(d) and (l), Florida Statutes. Principle "d" requires that a land development regulation be consistent with "the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development." Principle "l" requires that a land development regulation be consistent with the protection of the "public health, safety, and welfare "
The evidence in this case proved that the Ordinance is consistent with Principle (l) and inconsistent with Principle (d). Under this circumstance, the local government should be given some leeway to exercise its judgment as to how its police power should be exercised, as long as the evidence does proves that the local government's decision will not be harmful to the natural resources or waters within its jurisdiction.
Application of the Principles to the Ordinance.
Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statues, provides that the Principles are to be "construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions."
The evidence in this case proved that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles. To the extent that there is any impact on the most of the Principles, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent.
The Principles impacted significantly by the Ordinance are those provided in Sections 380.0552(7)(d) and (l), Florida Statutes. Ultimately, the question of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is dependent upon an evaluation of the consistency of the Ordinance with these Principles.
The evidence proved that the Ordinance will have a short-term negative impact on the economy of Monroe County. The evidence also proved that the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of Monroe County.
When the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is taken into account, it is clear that this is not the type of land use decision the State is most concerned with. Because the Ordinance does no harm to the natural environment and waters of the Florida Keys ACSC, and, if fact, has some small beneficial consequence to the environment, the State's interest in the Florida Keys ACSC is protected by the Ordinance.
The crucial issue is essentially a local one. Consequently, some deference should be afforded the County to make this difficult choice.
Given the purpose of the Department's involvement in this matter, the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the County's effort in considering the issues, and the evidence presented in this proceeding, it is concluded that the County's effort to protect the public safety, health, and welfare is sufficient to overcome any harm to the economy.
Based upon the foregoing, the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, considered as a whole.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order approving Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kelly B. Plante, Esquire Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A.
225 South Adams, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Jeffrey Bell, Esquire Herzfeld & Rubin
5310 North West 33rd Avenue, Suite 102 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309
Kathleen R. Fowler, Assistant General Counsel Sherry Spiers, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Hugh J. Morgan, Esquire Karen K. Cabanas, Esquire Morgan & Brookes
317 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
James T. Hendrick Monroe County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040
James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100
2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Stephanie Gehres Kruer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
Suite 325-A
2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 10 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case. See Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 27, 1999 | (S. Seibert, M. Snipes) Order Denying Motion for Stay rec`d |
| Dec. 09, 1998 | Final Order rec`d |
| Sep. 30, 1998 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 04/20-23/98, 06/29/98 thru 07/02/98. |
| Sep. 10, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Joint Exhibit 4 filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1998 | Disk containing Monroe County`s Corrected Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1998 | Monroe County`s Corrected Proposed Recommended Order; Monroe County`s Index to Joint Exhibits; Exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1998 | (K. Plante) (Proposed) Recommended Order; Disk ; Petitioner`s Exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1998 | Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1998 | Transcript filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1998 | (3 Volumes) Transcript filed. |
| Jun. 30, 1998 | Petitioners` Rebuttal Witness and Exhibit List (filed w/judge at hearing) filed. |
| Jun. 30, 1998 | (Petitioners) Stipulation Waiving Exclusion of Expert Witnesses filed. |
| Jun. 29, 1998 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 29, 1998 | Monroe County`s Notice of Filing Additional Exhibits (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 29, 1998 | Monroe County`s Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Exempt Witness from Rule of Exclusion (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 22, 1998 | (Petitioner) Amended Re-Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1998 | Monroe County`s Motion to Exempt Witness From Rule of Exclusion (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 12, 1998 | (8) Transcript filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1998 | (Petitioners) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1998 | Monroe County`s Response to Request to Produce (filed via facsimile). |
| May 26, 1998 | (Petitioners) Request to Produce filed. |
| May 05, 1998 | Notice of Continuation of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 29 - July 2, 1998; 9:00am; Marathon) |
| Apr. 20, 1998 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to June 29 - July 2, 1998; 9:00am; Marathon. |
| Apr. 20, 1998 | Petitioners` Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent, Department of Community Affairs`, First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1998 | (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1998 | (Petitioner) Request to Produce at Trial filed. |
| Apr. 14, 1998 | (Petitioner) DCA Opinions (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 08, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Respondent`s Answers to Petitioners` Interrogatories; Respondent`s Answers to Petitioners` Interrogatories; Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, Response to Petitioner Request for Production (facsimile) rec` |
| Apr. 07, 1998 | (Petitioner) Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum; (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1998 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 30, 1998 | Order Granting Leave to Intervene sent out. (for Monroe County) |
| Mar. 16, 1998 | Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners John Rathkamp, Monroe County Vacation Rental Managers, Inc., Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce, Marathon Chamber of Commerce, Islmorada Chamber of Commerce and Key Largo (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 16, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 09, 1998 | (Petitioners) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 09, 1998 | (Petitioners) Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Jan. 26, 1998 | (Monroe County) Petition for Leave to Intervene As A Full Party filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1998 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 20-23, 1998; 11:00am; Marathon) |
| Jan. 09, 1998 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Jan. 06, 1998 | (From K. Fowler) Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1998 | (Joint) Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 24, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 19, 1997 | Agency Referral Letter; Petition For Administrative Hearing Pursuant To Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), F.S. filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 04, 1998 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 30, 1998 | Recommended Order | Department of Community Affairs (DCA) proved that land development regulation, limiting area where residences can be rented for less than twenty-eight days, was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. |
