kathleen r. fowlerVs.kenneth w. buchman|Department of Commun... -- eLawyers

Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Respondent: PLANT CITY
Judges: ROBERT E. MEALE
Agency: Department of Community Affairs
Locations: Plant City, Florida
Filed: Jun. 26, 1998
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 20, 1999.
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 1999
Summary: The issue is whether plan amendments adopted by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance, for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Intent that is incorporated into the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs.Plan amendment redesignating 198 acres from suburban density residential to industrial not in compliance for omission from future land use map of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains and formal deficiencies of adoption ordinance.

98-2872.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )

AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-2872GM

)

CITY OF PLANT CITY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Plant City, Florida, on September 17, 1998.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kathleen R. Fowler

Assistant General Counsel David Jordan

Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Respondent: Kenneth W. Buchman

City Attorney

City of Plant City

212 North Collins Street Plant City, Florida 33566

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether plan amendments adopted by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance, for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Intent that is incorporated into the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Petition of the Department of Community Affairs dated June 26, 1998, Petitioner alleged that portions of the plan amendment adopted on April 13, 1998, by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the attached Statement of Intent.

The Statement of Intent is divided into three parts. The first part addresses the adoption ordinance. The second and third parts address the amendment that amends the future land use map to change the future land use designation of 198 acres from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial.

First, the Statement of Intent alleges that Ordinance 5-1998 is defective because it does not adequately describe the adopted changes, and it fails to refer to and attach the adopted changes as an exhibit. The Statement of Intent alleges that these failures are thus inconsistent with the criteria of Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and 166.041(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule

9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code.

The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent rescind the ordinance and adopt a new ordinance that describes in the title the elements of the comprehensive plan that are being amended and attaches as an exhibit the changes in the comprehensive plan resulting from the amendments.

Second, the Statement of Intent alleges that the ordinance redesignates the future land use of 198 acres from Suburban

Density Residential (four dwelling units per acre) to Industrial (.50 floor area ratio). The Statement of Intent alleges that the acreage is currently vacant, except for one single-family home.

The Statement of Intent alleges that this future land use change is not supported by the data and analysis, which do not justify the need for such a large designation of Industrial land. The future land use change is allegedly inconsistent with the recommendations contained in Respondent's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Allegedly, the future land use change is internally inconsistent with Objective 7A and supporting policies of the Future Land Use Element. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is thus inconsistent with the criteria of Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5) and 9J-5.006(3)(b)8, (4), and (5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code.

The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is not supported by the data and analysis because of the omission of any analysis that Industrial is suitable for this site, which contains 37 acres of wetlands. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is not consistent with the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which recognizes the need to strengthen the protection of wetlands. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is internally inconsistent with Objectives C and J and supporting policies of the Conservation Element. The Statement

of Intent alleges that the future land use change is thus inconsistent with the criteria of Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (3)(b)4, and 9J-5.013(2)(c)6 and (3), Florida Administrative Code.

The Statement of Intent alleges that the plan does not coordinate the change in future land use with the transportation system and does not ensure that the proposed densities are consistent with the transportation system. The absence of a specific development plan for the area whose future land use is changed allegedly precludes the phasing of development, which the supporting documentation mentions. The Statement of Intent alleges that the Capital Improvements Schedule omits the facility improvements allegedly needed by Jim Johnson Road and Coronet Road due to the future land use change. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is internally inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.E[.]1 and Objectives 7B, 7.E, and 7.F and supporting policies; Traffic Circulation Element Objective B and supporting policies and Policy D.1; and Capital Improvements Element Objectives 1, 2, and

3 and supporting policies. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is thus inconsistent with the criteria of Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006(2) and (4);

9J-5.016(1)(a), (2)(b), and (3)(b)1, 3, and 5; and

9J-5.019(4)(b)2 and (c)1, Florida Administrative Code.

The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is not supported by the data and analysis because the amendment exhibits the indicators of urban sprawl and does not establish an efficient land use pattern, discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and coordinate land uses with the availability of facilities and services. The Statement of Intent alleges that the excessive conversion of undeveloped land to Industrial may result in a failure to conform potential urban levels of development to a pattern that efficiently uses the land and infrastructure, protect agricultural land and natural resources, ensure a separation of urban and rural land uses, and promote mixed use development or compact urban form. The Statement of Intent alleges that the excessive conversion of undeveloped land to Industrial instead allows substantial areas to develop as single-use development, designates land uses in excess of demonstrated need, and promotes a leap-frog development pattern by permitting urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from urban areas. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is thus inconsistent with the criteria of Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8 and 10,

and (4)(c), and (5) and (5)(g)1-13, Florida Administrative Code.
The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change does not provide an adequate buffer between the newly designated Industrial and an adjacent residential subdivision and
does not provide for the compatibility between the newly designated Industrial and an existing residential subdivision to the south. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is internally inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.A[.]3. The Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is thus inconsistent with the criteria of Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5) and 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code.
The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent rescind the ordinance.
In the alternative, the Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent revise the amendment to demonstrate that Respondent needs an additional 198 acres of Industrial. The recommendation requests a need analysis showing the acreage of vacant Industrial and the need for additional Industrial acreage, based on the 2015 projected population.
The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent add a suitability analysis to consider the suitability of the Industrial designation, considering, among other site characteristics, the 37 acres of wetlands consisting in part of contiguous strands of hardwood swamps and freshwater swamps, which should be considered for designation as environmentally sensitive lands.
The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent identify the improvements that it plans for Jim Johnson Road and Coronet
Road in the Capital Improvements Schedule and the Department of Transportation's five-year work program. If no improvements are planned, Respondent should amend the Capital Improvements Schedule to include these improvements to ensure adequate capacity.
The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent include data and analysis to evaluate the plan, as amended, based on the primary indicators of urban sprawl, as identified in Rule
9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent revise the amendment to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl and protect natural resources by reducing the Industrial designation consistent with projected need, maximize the use of existing and future public facilities and infrastructure, and clearly separate rural and urban uses. The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent revise the amendment to ensure that it does not promote or allow significant urban development in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for urban development.
The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent revise the amendment to include data and analysis showing the compatibility of uses and ensuring that adequate buffering will reduce potential auditory and visual impacts.
Third, the Statement of Intent alleges that the future land use change is inconsistent with the following criteria of the State Comprehensive Plan: Goal 10 and Policies 1, 3, 7, and 10;
Goal 16 and Policies 1, 2, 3, and 6; Goal 18 and Policies 1, 7,

and 9; Goal 20 and policies 3, 9, 10, 13, and 15; and Goal 26 and

Policies 7 and 8.

The Statement of Intent recommends that Respondent take the remedial action detailed above.
At the hearing, Petitioner called two witnesses and offered into evidence 25 exhibits. Respondent called six witnesses and offered into evidence two exhibits. All exhibits were admitted.
The court reporter filed the transcript on October 12, 1998.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Plan and the Adoption Ordinance
  1. Petitioner challenges Respondent's redesignation of a 198-acre parcel (Parcel) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial on the future land use map (FLUM) of Respondent's comprehensive plan. This is the Plan amendment that is the subject of the present case.
  2. Respondent's comprehensive plan consists of a document that was restated through 1990 (Petitioner Exhibit 22) and a set of plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997 (Petitioner Exhibit 13). This recommended order will refer cumulatively to the 1990 restated plan and the 1997 plan amendments as the Plan.
  3. Two conditions govern reliance upon Petitioner Exhibits
    
    22 and 13 as the sources of Plan provisions. First, Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 do not contain all of the textual Plan amendments adopted by Respondent between 1990 and 1997. For example, Text Amendment T-1 in Plant City Plan Amendment 95-1, as adopted by Ordinance 34-1994 on October 10, 1994, is missing from Petitioner Exhibit 22. It is unlikely, though, that the missing Plan provisions would have a bearing on the present case.
  4. Second, and more important, Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains proposed plan language that Respondent never adopted. Similarly, Respondent did not adopt the plan language or recommendations for the addition, deletion, or amendment of plan language contained in Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 8.
  5. Petitioner Exhibit 6 is Respondent's evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). Required by law to be prepared at stated intervals, the EAR is the document by which a local government assesses the performance of its comprehensive plan and recommends needed amendments.
  6. In this case, Petitioner objected to portions of the EAR, so Respondent adopted a revised EAR (REAR), which is Petitioner Exhibit 8.
  7. After Petitioner determined that the REAR was sufficient, subject to the conditions noted below, Respondent adopted Plan amendments by Ordinance 23-1997, as adopted
    October 13, 1997; these amendments are contained in Petitioner Exhibit 13, which, as already noted, is part of the Plan.
    However, Petitioner Exhibit 13 is a composite exhibit and contains plan language that Respondent did not adopt. It is not entirely clear from the exhibit exactly what Respondent is adopting because Ordinance 23-1997 does not contain, identify, or describe the Plan amendments, nor is a copy of the Plan amendments attached to the ordinance.
  8. As incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13, the adopted Plan amendments precede the ordinance. These amendments change the Public Facilities Element (PFE), Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements Element (CIE), including the schedule of capital improvements, and substitute a comprehensive set of definitions for the sets of definitions that previously were contained in several of the elements.
  9. Incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13 between the adopted Plan amendments and the ordinance are a small number of pages concerning legal advertising and regional plan review, but these pages, which are irrelevant to the present case, were not adopted. Following the ordinance are additional pages concerning advertising and county plan review and a set of documents entitled, "Section A, Summary of Proposals for Plan Amendment Group 97-01." It is unclear to what Section A is supposed to be attached, but most likely Section A contains the proposed
    amendments that Respondent submitted to the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. In any event, Respondent never adopted Section A, as such.
  10. About six months later, Respondent adopted the Plan amendment that is the subject of this case. By Ordinance 5-1998, adopted April 13, 1998, Respondent adopted "amendments" to the Plan.
  11. The finding that this ordinance contains the subject Plan amendment is not entirely free of doubt because it is based on inference and implied stipulation; as is apparently Respondent's practice, the actual amendment is in no way identified in Ordinance 5-1998. The ordinance states only that a "copy of [the] amendment is filed in the office of the City
    Clerk . . .." Nothing in the record actually describes the contents of Ordinance 5-1998, but the parties and reviewing agencies, such as the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, have treated this ordinance as the one that adopted the redesignation of the Parcel, so the administrative law judge will too.
  12. The title of the adoption ordinance is: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (97-1)." This is the only reference to "97-1" in the ordinance.
  13. Respondent attached several documents to the submittal package to Petitioner. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2 in the minutes of the City Commission meeting at which Respondent adopted the ordinance; however, the ordinance does not mention this amendment number. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2, Map Amendment 1, in the resolution of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, which approved an amendment changing the designation of 198 acres on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The amendment is identified as proposed Amendment 98-1 in Respondent's responses to the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of Petitioner, although the context of these responses reveals that they pertain to the redesignation of 198 acres from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial.
  14. The submittal package also includes a map that shows the area to be redesignated Industrial from Suburban Density Residential and a staff report that includes a textual and graphic analysis of the land uses surrounding the Parcel.
2. Background
  1. The west boundary of the Parcel abuts Jim Johnson Road and a main north-south railroad line, the south boundary abuts an east-west railroad line, and the east boundary abuts Coronet Road. The Parcel is designated Suburban Density Residential, although, according to the staff report, a poor legal description leaves some doubt as to whether the westernmost part of the Parcel might already be designated Industrial. This recommended order treats the entire Parcel as Suburban Density Residential.
  2. The Parcel lies at the extreme southeast corner of Plant City. The surrounding land in Plant City is entirely Industrial. The Parcel lies at the southeast corner of one of the two largest areas designated Industrial in Plant City. Both of these areas are in the city's southern half, which is otherwise devoted to medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses. The vast portion of low-density residential, which is designated Suburban Density Residential, is in the city's northern half, which also includes some commercial, medium- and high-density residential uses.
  3. The staff report analyzes the surrounding existing land uses within this Industrial area of Plant City. On the eastern half of the north border of the Parcel is "expansive wooded fenced pasture land" with one single-family home and some stored mobile homes. On the western half of the north border and the northern half of the west border is a Food Lion distribution
    center on a 150-acre parcel. Immediately west, across Jim Johnson Road, is a developed industrial park.
  4. On the east border is a golf course, a power plant, and vacant, wooded land. On the south border, within Plant City, is a small area of Suburban Density Residential not proposed for redesignation. This area appears to be wooded and adjoins another wooded area that adjoins a residential area a short distance to the east. On the south border, within unincorporated Hillsborough County, of which Plant City is a part, are low- density residential uses in an area designated in the Hillsborough County plan for up to six dwelling units per acre. (All references to density shall state a ratio with the number of dwelling units followed by the number of acres; in this case, the density is 6:1).
  5. The Parcel contains fenced pasture land, one single- family residence, and a rail spur leading from the south border to the south boundary of the Food Lion distribution center. The Parcel contains three areas of wetlands totaling about 37 acres. The wetlands are at the south and west side of the Parcel, the middle of the Parcel, and the east side of the Parcel.
  6. The wetlands are contiguous and convey water to the upper part of the Howell Branch, which empties into the South Prong of the Alafia River. The Alafia River runs west through Hillsborough County and empties into Hillsborough Bay or upper Tampa Bay. The record provides no basis to infer that the
    railroad track running along the southern boundary of the Parcel has impounded stormwater runoff. To the contrary, the presence of culverts and elevated tracks suggest that the spur crossing the Parcel and ending at the Food Lion property does not cut off the flow of surface water. However, the record does not contain much detail as to the level to which the onsite wetlands function as natural drainage or habitat.
  7. The economic value of the Parcel would be enhanced if its designation were Industrial rather than Suburban Density Residential. However, the record does not permit the inference that development would take place sooner in the event of such a redesignation.
  8. Jim Johnson Road is scheduled to be expanded to four lanes from a point to the north down to nearly the south end of the Food Lion parcel. At this point, Jim Johnson Road, which continues farther south as a two-lane road, intersects the eastern terminus of the four-lane extension of Alexander Street.
  9. The Parcel is not presently served by central wastewater, but, by 2000, such service should be extended to within one-half mile of the Parcel. The nearest lift station operated at only nine percent of capacity in 1988.
  10. The unadopted text accompanying the Plan states that Plant City, which is about 20 miles east of Tampa and 10 miles west of Lakeland, has experienced "steady industrial growth over
    the past years with almost total utilization of its industrial park . . .." Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20.
  11. The central business district of Plant City is at the intersection of State Road 39 and U.S. Route 92. When this central business district began to form over 100 years ago, it occupied the intersection of important rail lines traveling
    north-south and east-west--the two lines that continue to operate in the vicinity of the Parcel.
  12. Decades later, the interstate highway system added to Plant City's industrial development. Interstate 4, which runs east-west, passes just north of the central business district. Interstate 75, which runs north-south, is a little over 10 miles west of Plant City.
  13. In the 1970s, Respondent annexed the land in the southwest part of the city for the mixed-use planned residential development known as Walden Lake. In the same decade, Respondent annexed the land in the western part of the city for industrial uses in the vicinity of the city airport.
  14. Ensuing industrial development in the Walden Woods Business Center, of which the Parcel is a part, has resulted in the location of a distributor of bottled detergents on a two-acre parcel, a boxmaker on a 20-acre parcel, and an automated operation to upgrade used cars on another 20-acre parcel.
  15. In the 1980s, as the western industrial lands developed, Respondent facilitated the industrial development of
    land in the eastern part of the city. Recent industrial development has shifted toward the east, absorbing land between Plant City and Lakeland.
  16. The unadopted text in the Plan predicts strong industrial growth in the future:
    Recent events have indicated that Plant City will have a significant expansion in its industrial base through the location of major industrial employers to the east of the city providing jobs and revenue to Plant City.
    This will, of course, have an effect upon the facilities of Plant City in maintaining current levels of service and the concurrent provision of facilities with the impacts of development as the City's currently adopted plan requires. Due to the impact that industrial developments have upon adjacent land uses, including residential areas, the City will require all future industrial developments to be planned development.
    
    Plant City is expected to maintain a suburban, commuter and local job market through the planning period. Job growth in the reserve area will create more nearby employment opportunities for the city's residents with the workforce travelling shorter distances to employment centers in the immediate area.
    Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20.
  17. The testimony at the hearing established that Plant City occupies the I-4 technology corridor. Aided by the efforts of the University of South Florida, in Tampa, and the University of Central Florida, in Orlando, this corridor is designed to attract high-tech manufacturing. Plant City and Lakeland are important segments of this corridor because they have sufficient utilities to serve such manufacturers.
  18. Persons involved in the marketing and developing of industrial land contend that, from a marketing standpoint, there is a shortage of affordable, usable industrial land in Hillsborough County. Land in Tampa is expensive, and relatively little land exists in unincorporated Hillsborough County. One broker/developer estimated that there has not been so little land of this type in this area since the early 1980s--a situation exacerbated by the conversion of some industrial office parks to office and residential uses.
  19. Respondent has enjoyed favorable newspaper publicity concerning its industrial growth. In its Responses to Petitioner's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments, dated March 23, 1998 (ORC Response), Respondent's staff summarized numerous newspaper articles noting the number of high-paying jobs attracted to Plant City by its proximity to Interstates 4 and 75, the Tampa port and railroad lines, 75 percent of all food- distribution sites in Florida, a new technical-education center, major universities in Tampa and Orlando, and Respondent's pro- industrial policies, including reduced fees on new construction to pay for infrastructure. ORC Response (part of Petitioner Exhibit 4), pp. 9-12.
  20. The unadopted text in the Plan analyzes the relationship of allocations to future needs by residential and nonresidential categories. As of 1990, the projected population for Plant City for 2010 was 27,700, and the residential
    designations on the FLUM accommodated a buildout population of 29,921.
  21. For nonresidential calculations, Respondent determined the potential employment-generating capacity of Respondent's available Commercial and Industrial land by considering square feet per acre, vacancy rates, and employees per square foot. Respondent concluded that the Commercial and Industrial future land use designations could accommodate an additional 36,694 employees to its employment base by 2010.
  22. Referring to the employment capacity stated in the preceding paragraph, the unadopted text concludes:
    This capacity is significantly greater than the estimated employment growth potential for the city and could potentially contribute to a dramatic change in the city's future socio- economic profile.
    
    Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 32.
  23. As Petitioner considered the subject FLUM amendment, it became readily apparent that Petitioner and Respondent differed as to the extent of analysis required to support the conversion of 198 acres of Suburban Density Residential to Industrial.
  24. In its REAR, Respondent updated its acreage allocations by future land use category, showing 1989 and 1995 acreages. From 1989 to 1995, Suburban Density Residential increased from 1215 acres, or 9.8 percent of the City, to 2272, or 15.7 percent of the City. (Annexations raised the total acreage in the City from 12,344 acres to 14,452 acres.) During the same period,
    Industrial increased from 3573 acres, or 28.9 percent, to 4385 acres, or 30.2 percent. After Suburban Density Residential, the largest percentage change during this period was Environmentally Sensitive, which decreased from 1958 acres, or 15.9 percent, to 1433, or 9.9 percent.
  25. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the REAR states that the Conservation Element in the Plan, "as implemented through the City's Land Development Code and the requirements and processes of the Environmental Protection Commission," is "consistent with the new State requirements." Petitioner
    Exhibit 8, p. 9. The REAR asserts that the Conservation Element protects wetlands through discussion in the unadopted text of the Plan and "outlines wetlands protection strategies in the adopted portion of the [Conservation Element], Objective C and Policies C.1-C.9. Wetlands protection is also addressed in the FLUE [Future Land Use Element]." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9.
  26. However, the REAR promises an expanded Conservation Element with mapping of the wetlands on the FLUM. The REAR contends that:
    [u]pon adoption of revised [Plan] provisions, all wetlands in the City will be protected by the [P]lan, by existing or revised Land Development Code provisions, by the [Environmental Protection Commission's] Wetlands Rule (which includes more stringent protection for more types and sizes of wetlands than that available at any other level of government), by the state through its Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) process, and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in accordance with the
    requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and various other laws and procedures. The City believes that this system will ultimately offer an extremely high level of [P]lan-based wetlands protection.
    
    Petitioner Exhibit 8, pp. 9-10.
  27. The REAR contains a table showing proposed changes to the Plan. Among the proposed changes is FLUE Policy 6.B.4, which was proposed to provide:
    The City may allow wetland encroachment as a last option only when other options to avoid wetland impacts are unavailable. When this occurs, the City in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, shall ensure the permitted activities are compatible with maintaining the area as a viable productive vegetative and wildlife habitat that protects its natural function based on the following criteria:
    1. allow only minimum impact projects such as piers, docks, walkways in wetlands;
    2. require development to be transferred to adjacent uplands outside wetland areas;
    3. restrict density in wetland areas to one residential unit for each identified wetland area.
      
      Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 32.
  28. Petitioner determined that the REAR was in compliance, although on the condition that Respondent agree to work on the issues of wetlands, urban sprawl, and transportation.
  29. The Plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997, did not address many of the issues discussed in the EAR and REAR. Notably, the Plan amendments did not include the revised FLUE Policy 6.B.4, quoted above.
  30. Following Respondent's transmittal of the subject Plan amendment, Petitioner submitted objections, recommendations, and comments. In its ORC Response, Respondent stated:
    The consideration of this plan amendment does not rest on a need to show a demand generated by residents of the City for more industrial land. The City has shown that it has provided for, and can continue to provide for, adequate provision of residential and other uses.
    
    ORC Response, p. 3.
  31. Using updated figures, the ORC Response states that Respondent had an excess residential designation of over 12,000 persons by 2015. The designation change of the Parcel would still leave an excess residential capacity of 10,443 persons. Using an updated population projection of 36,300 persons by 2015, the removal of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential reduces Plant City's residential overallocation, in 2015, from
    33.1 percent to 28.77 percent--which is still in excess of Petitioner's 25-percent guideline for residential overallocations.
  32. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the ORC Response states that a developer could not develop Industrial land until it showed that "environmental damage would not occur" and compliance with the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, County Environmental Protection Commission, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ORC Response, p. 5. Citing a provision of Respondent's land
    development regulations, the response adds that Respondent would require a "detailed site plan." Id.
  33. The ORC Response acknowledges that Petitioner was seeking the adoption of additional Plan provisions, in accordance with Rule 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code, to "exclude future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland function." ORC Response,
    p. 5.
  34. The ORC Response assures that Respondent will propose language requiring the developer to document the environmental conditions at the time of a proposed Plan amendment, rather than at the time of the issuance of a development permit, as the Plan reportedly provides at present. The ORC Response adds that, at the time of the issuance of a development permit, the new language will require that "an environmental review would ensure than the proposed development, under the applicable land use category, does not impact any natural resources located on the site. The protection rests with the site plan review process, detailed in the City's Land Development code." ORC Response,
    p. 5.
  35. Addressing transportation issues, the ORC Response relies on the concurrency provisions of the Plan to ensure that adequate traffic capacity will exist to serve the industrial development of the Parcel.
  36. Addressing buffering issues, the ORC Response assures that adequate buffering with nearby residential areas will result from the requirement, in the land development regulations, that the developer provide adequate buffering through a "detailed site plan."
3. The Plan
  1. The definitions define Industrial as:
    
    The future land use plan category used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas in the City that are potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding area, particularly in terms of non-objectionable levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor, and for convenience commercial uses that are limited to serving the development. All new development and major expansions of existing uses are subject to site plan review with the intent to integrate and minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses. No new residential development is allowed.
    Development in these areas is subject to the
    Goals, Objectives and Polices of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto which allows [sic] up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 and a maximum commercial area limited to 10 [percent] of the planned development industrial building square footage.
    
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-21.
  2. The definitions define Suburban Density Residential as:
    
    The future land use plan category generally used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas that are best suited for single family detached residential uses although other housing approaches and compatible related uses such
    as churches and public utilities serving the neighborhood can be integrated in the area, subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto. A density range of 0-4 dwelling units per gross acre may be achieved within SDR.
    
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-39.
  3. The definitions section defines "Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas (E), Future Land Use Category" as:
    The future land use plan category is generally used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element, those areas in the City that are potentially environmentally sensitive and thereby subject to classification as Conservation or Preservation areas under the provisions of the Conservation . . . Element The
    Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas future land use plan category on the Future Land Use map is generalized and not exhaustive of all environmentally sensitive sites. Therefore, actual on-site environmental evaluations must occur for any specific project review, and development of any lands containing environmentally sensitive areas is restricted by applicable federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations and by the applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer also to the definitions of Preservation Area and Conservation Area and to the polices, land use category description, and density computation provisions related to environmentally sensitive areas). In conjunction with on- site environmental evaluation, the adjacent land use designation shall provide guidance as to the development potential that may be considered once environmentally sensitive areas are surveyed and mapped on site.
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-16.
  4. The definitions define "Environmentally Sensitive" as:
    
    Descriptive of lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g., wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation.
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-15.
  5. The definitions do not define "Preservation Area," except to refer to "Conservation Area." Petitioner Exhibit 13,
  1. B9-31. For "Conservation Area," the definitions state: Means land designated to:
    1. protect the following preservation areas from any further development, except in extreme cases of overriding public interest:
      --Critical habitat for species of endangered, threatened, or rare status;
      --Class I and II waters;
      --Unique environmental features such as springs, steep natural slopes, cavernous sinkholes, and major natural rock outcrops.
    2. be environmentally sensitive areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Land Development Code. Development of these areas is limited to conservation uses.
    3. be set aside specifically for the protection and safekeeping of certain values within the area, such as game, wildlife, forest, etc. Preserved areas may or may not be outdoor recreation areas, depending on the use allowed therein.
  Petitioner Exhibit 13, pp. B9-10 and 11.
  1. The definitions define "Conservation Uses" as:
    
    Activities within the land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of natural vegetative communities or wildlife habitats. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(30)]
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-11.
  2. The definitions define "Wetlands" as:
    
    those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological, or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, slough, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto. The delineation of actual wetland boundaries may be made by any professionally accepted methodology consistent with the type of wetlands being delineated but shall be consistent with any unified statewide methodology for the delineation of the extent of wetlands
    ratified by the legislature. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(149)]
    
    Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-43.
  3. The definitions define "Planned Development" as: "Development governed by the requirements of a site plan zoning district." Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-31.
  4. FLUE Policy 1.C.3 states:
    
    Higher intensity non-residential land uses that are adjacent to established neighborhoods shall be restricted to collectors and arterials and to locations external to established and developing neighborhoods.
  5. FLUE Goal 2 is:
    
    To sustain the viability of existing and emerging commercial and industrial park areas to achieve an integrated land use fabric which will offer a full range of employment, shopping, and leisure opportunities to support the city's residential areas.
  6. FLUE Policy 2.A.3 provides:
    
    Buffer residential uses from the negative impacts of non-residential development (physical, visual, or auditory), through the use of walls, berms, landscaped areas.
  7. FLUE Objective 2.E is:
    
    Support the downtown, stadium, community college, hospital, airport and the industrial areas of the city as the major employment and regional attractors of the Plant City area.
  8. FLUE Policy 2.E.1 states that Respondent will ensure that "adequate transportation, water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities will be provided concurrent with the impacts of development "
  9. FLUE Policy 6.A.4 provides:
    
    The City shall regulate land use and development in all areas subject to flooding by prohibiting all development within the 100 year floodplain which is not in strict conformance with the provisions of the City of Plant City Flood Hazard Ordinance.
  10. FLUE Policy 6.A.6 is:
    
    The City shall investigate incentives to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive lands.
  11. FLUE Objective 7.A states:
    
    In all actions of the City, urban sprawl shall be discouraged and a compact urban pattern of development shall be provided for in a manner which will promote the full utilization of existing public infrastructure and allow for the orderly extension and expansion of municipal facilities in a fiscally responsible manner.
  12. FLUE Policy 7.A.3 provides:
    
    The City shall permit new development which lies contiguous to existing urbanized lands only if public facilities are available or can be provided concurrent with the impacts of the development. All development shall be consistent with and maintain the adopted levels of service.
  13. FLUE Objective 7.B restates the concurrency requirement at the time of "approving new development and redevelopment." FLUE Policy 7.B.1 prohibits the issuance of "development orders or permits" that would result in "a reduction of the level of service (LOS) established for public facilities as adopted in the Capital Improvements Element." FLUE Objective 7.E restates the commitment to serve all new development and redevelopment with
    public facilities at or above the adopted LOS standard. FLUE Objective 7.F again restates this commitment, as it pertains to roads.
  14. The Goal of the Conservation Element is to:
    
    Preserve, conserve, restore, and appropriately manage the natural resources of the City of Plant City, in order to maintain or enhance environmental quality for present and future generations.
  15. Acknowledging the role of land-use planning in protecting natural resources, the Conservation Element states:
    In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources, while allowing for orderly economic growth, are needed.
    Petitioner Exhibit 22, Conservation Element, pp. 63-64.
  16. The Conservation Element contains 12 objectives under eight categories--air quality, surface water, soil, hazardous materials, flora and fauna, natural preserves, land uses, and minerals. The objectives are specific and measurable.
  17. However, the policies in the Conservation Element are vague and unlikely to contribute significantly to the attainment of the Conservation objectives. Only 11 policies (A.7, B.1, B.7, C.2, E.2, E.6, E.7, F.6, H.2, H.4, and L.1) specifically describe a program or activity that will assist in the attainment of any objective. The remaining policies require Respondent only to "cooperate" (14 times), "promote" (9 times), "participate"
    (5 times), "request" (4 times), "support/encourage" (4 times), "assist" (3 times), and even "consider requiring" (1 time).
    Other policies promise compliance with the law, public education, and recommendations. Six policies promise some action in the land development regulations or the "land use planning process"-- evidently referring not to the preparation of the Plan, but to some part of the permitting process that may be described in the land development regulations, but is not described in the Plan.
  18. Several of the Conservation provisions more directly affect the present case. Acknowledging that "more stringent regulations for stormwater discharges should be considered," Conservation Objective B states:
    By 1990, discharges to all natural surface water bodies in the City of Plant City shall meet or exceed State water quality standards
    . . ..
  19. Cognizant that increased growth will continue to pressure wetlands, a "significant percentage" of which have already been lost, Conservation Objective C states: "By 1992, no net loss of natural wetland acreage and 100-year floodplain
    storage volume shall occur in the City." However, Conservation Policy C.3 implements this promise through reliance on the activities of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and the previously described, unspecified permitting process that appears to be part of Respondent's land development regulations.
  20. Conservation Policy C.4 defers to "appropriate environmental regulatory agencies" the responsibility of developing a comprehensive wetland mitigation and restoration program. Conservation Policy C.9 states that Respondent will cooperate with Hillsborough County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to develop comprehensive floodplain management regulations for the 100-year floodplain.
  21. In the restated 1990 plan, Public Facilities Element (PFE) Objective 1.C provided:
    By 2000, the City will implement mandatory requirements for discontinuing the use of all septic tanks[,] providing sanitary sewer facilities for the affected residents is available.
  22. In the 1987 amendments, Respondent weakened this objective by substituting for it the following:
    The City shall encourage the discontinuance of all on-site wastewater systems and private water wells upon the availability of public sanitary sewer facilities and public water utilities for the affected residents.
  23. However, PFE Policy 1.C.1, also part of the 1987 amendments, somewhat limits the circumstances under which
    landowners may continue to use onsite wastewater disposal systems.
  24. PFE Objective 1.A states:
    
    By February 1, 1990, the City . . . will implement procedures to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, capacity consistent with the level of service standards is available or will be available when needed to serve the development.
  25. PFE Policy 1.A.1 adopts LOS standards of 89 gallons per capita per day for residential sewer, 7 gallons per employee per day for commercial sewer, and 43 gallons per employee per day for industrial sewer.
  26. Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policy A.1 adopts LOS standards for city roads. TCE Objective B requires Respondent to adopt land development regulations to ensure that transportation improvements further the provisions of the FLUE. TCE Policy D.1 is to provide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the impacts of growth consistent with the requirements of the provisions of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE).
  27. CIE Objective 1 is to set LOS standards for each public facility and identify the capital improvements needed to ensure that the adopted LOS standards are met. CIE Objective 2 is to provide needed public facilities that are within Respondent's ability to fund. CIE Policy 2.B attempts to allocate the costs of additional public facilities between existing and new development; ensuing policies largely assign the responsibility for curing deficiencies to existing development and adding
    capacity to new development. CIE Objective 3 is to provide needed public facilities to compensate for depletion and to accommodate new development and redevelopment.
4. Ultimate Findings of Fact
1. Adequacy of Ordinance
  1. On its face, Ordinance 5-1998 provides no basis whatsoever for inferring that it implements a change in the Parcel's designation on the FLUM. The contents of the ordinance presumably emerges only upon examination of the original ordinance file kept in the City Clerk's office.
2. Supporting Data and Analysis--General
  1. Need for Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation
    1. As for the need for more Industrial land, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support this Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial.
    2. Petitioner contends that this change in designation is not supported by the data and analysis because it results in an overallocation of Industrial. This argument fails for several reasons.
    3. First, Petitioner failed to prove any standards by which to determine an overallocation of Industrial, at least given the circumstances of this case.
    4. Already characterized by considerable industrial development, Respondent has successfully promoted more industrial
      development. Perhaps most important, Respondent's unique locational advantages promise more industrial development, given Respondent's proximity to the major population areas of East Central Florida, the Tampa Bay area, and Southwest Florida and its proximity to the large-scale transportation facilities of two major interstates, two rail lines, the Tampa port, and the airports of Tampa and Orlando.
    5. Second, under these unique circumstances, Petitioner failed to prove that market demand coupled with the need for larger blocks of land do not justify the new Industrial designation for the Parcel.
    6. Third, Petitioner failed to prove that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is not supported by the data and analysis because this redesignation reduces an overallocation of residential land while adding to employment opportunities for present and future residents of Plant City.
      2. Wetlands and Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation
    7. As for the protection of wetlands, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support the Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial.
    8. This finding is not based on the strength of the wetland-protection provisions in the Plan. To the contrary, the Plan is remarkably free of such provisions.
    9. Rather, this finding is based on the lack of evidence that an Industrial designation would more greatly imperil the wetlands than does the Suburban Density Residential designation.
    10. The record provides little basis to compare the effects on the wetlands of the Industrial intensity of .5 FAR as opposed to the Suburban Density Residential density of 4:1. Respondent's contentions that it permits only light industrial are more notable for their recurrence, rather than their support, in the record. The Plan contains no such limitation.
    11. In fact, the Plan's definition of Industrial minimally limits uses only in terms of common-law nuisance--e.g., noise, vibration, sound, and dust; nothing in the definition or elsewhere in the Plan limits Industrial uses in terms of effects on wetlands or other natural resources. Perhaps Respondent's land development regulations may further restrict industrial uses, but such easily-amended land use restrictions are irrelevant to a Plan case.
    12. Respondent also contends that Industrial requires site- planning. The Plan permits Respondent to require site-plan review, but does not require it to do so. Presumably, Respondent would be free to do so for a large-scale residential development, even though its Plan does not expressly mention the possibility.
    13. Although the Plan does not prohibit Industrial use of septic tanks, it is more likely that 4:1 residential development would rely on septic tanks than would .5 FAR industrial
    development. The three wetlands in question would likely fare better in the absence of a proliferation of nearby septic tanks, as would be permitted under Suburban Density Residential.
3. Internal Inconsistency
  1. Future Land Use Element
    1. Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 7.A, 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F, and the policies supporting these objectives, as well as FLUE Policies 2.A.3 and 2.E.1.
    2. These Plan provisions address buffering residential uses from nonresidential uses, urban sprawl, the efficient provision of public facilities, conformance to adopted LOS standards, and concurrency.
    3. As for buffering, the buffering requirement of FLUE Policy 2.A.3 is sorely tested by the presence of a railroad line running through the Parcel. Converting the designation of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial, to the railroad track, serves the purpose of this policy. The problem here is not the railroad track, but the Suburban Density Residential designation; if anything, FLUE Policy 2.A.3 militates for the elimination of an arguably inappropriate residential designation immediately south of the railroad line.
    4. As for urban sprawl, the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial does not encourage the kind of inefficient land uses targeted by the Plan provisions
      discouraging urban sprawl, nor does the redesignation encourage an inefficient or costly extension of infrastructure.
    5. This recommended order has already found a viable functional relationship between the Parcel, if designated Industrial, and the larger region of which the Parcel and Plant City are a part. This is the key finding on the urban-sprawl issue.
    6. This order cites Petitioner's rule as it identifies the indicators and relevant development controls that are relevant to an urban-sprawl analysis. Although the Plan is nearly free of useful development controls, all of the urban- sprawl indicators suggest either that the new Industrial designation, as compared to the Suburban Density Residential designation, will discourage urban sprawl or have no effect on urban sprawl.
    7. The greater weight of the indicators suggests that the new designation will discourage urban sprawl. These indicators are the encouragement of a functional mix of uses, absence of excessively large areas of single use, absence of Industrial uses in excess of demonstrated need, absence of development forms (such as leapfrog and radial) suggestive of premature development, absence of poor accessibility among related uses, and achievement of a separation of rural and urban uses. Inconclusive indicators involve the protection of natural resources, agriculture, and open areas, the effective use of
      existing and future public facilities, and the discouragement of infill development.
    8. The commitment of FLUE Objectives 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F and FLUE Policy 2.E.1 to provide each public facility at its adopted LOS concurrent with new development is not compromised by either designation. A designation of Suburban Density Residential or Industrial is merely a future land use designation; it is not a development order. When Respondent issues a development order for the Industrial Parcel, the Plan's adequate concurrency provisions ensure that public facilities must be available at the time of the impacts of development.
    9. However, Petitioner correctly contends that concurrency is no substitute for the correlation or coordination of future land uses with the planned availability of public facilities. If Respondent's planning strategy were to rely on concurrency to time the issuance of development orders for the Parcel, then Respondent would be inviting a sudden and possibly catastrophic disruption of its real estate market and economy. At its worst, such a planning strategy would probably cause the plan to fail to achieve consistency with the criterion of
      financial feasibility, but Petitioner makes no such allegation in this case.
    10. On the present record, though, it is equally possible that Respondent will timely revisit its schedule of capital improvements in order to serve the Parcel with the necessary
      public facilities, such as roads, or Respondent may timely exact money from its taxpayers, the developers, or the ultimate purchasers through the wide variety of means available to fund infrastructure.
    11. In any event, Respondent's planning strategy for public facilities is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with the cited Plan provisions under the present circumstances, including the unambiguous requirements of the Plan's concurrency provisions, relatively small area involved (198 acres), economic likelihood in a tight market for industrial land that Respondent can exact from the developer and/or purchasers sufficient contributions to meet the demands of concurrency, and planned extension of central wastewater into the general area by 2005. Another distinguishing factor is that, according to Respondent's unrebutted analysis, only a worst-case development scenario would violate the traffic LOS standards and trigger concurrency.
      2. Conservation Element
    12. Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C and J, and the policies supporting these objectives.
    13. Conservation Objective C is to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or 100-year floodplain storage, and Conservation Objective J is to ensure the protection of the functions of the
      natural environment. The policies under these objectives are so vague as to be irrelevant.
    14. The focus in this case is not on the Plan itself, but on the Plan amendment; the sole question is therefore whether Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is inconsistent with objectives to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or floodplain and to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment.
    15. As already noted, despite clear deficiencies in the Plan in its treatment of these natural resources, Petitioner has failed to prove how this redesignation negatively impacts any of these natural resources.
      3. Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements
    16. For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with TCE Objective B, the TCE policies supporting this objective, TCE Policy D.1, CIE Objectives 1, 2, and 3, or the CIE policies supporting these objectives.
4. Inconsistency with Other Criteria
  1. Future Land Use Map
    1. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of depicting on the future land use map conservation uses (Rule
      9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) and wetlands and floodplains (Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code).
    2. The FLUM does not depict any conservation uses or floodplains. As for wetlands, the FLUM, according to its legend, depicts only those larger than 40 acres.
    3. Placing these omissions in the context of the entire Plan does not alter this inconsistency finding. When not omitted, Plan provisions addressing natural-resources criteria are vague. Many of such Plan provisions repeatedly relegate to the land development regulations or delegate to federal, state, regional, or local agencies the responsibility for protecting wetlands and other natural resources.
    4. Especially for a relatively small municipality like Respondent, the entire FLUM must contain these required natural resources. Even if Respondent had added the missing natural resources to the 198-acre area subject to this amendment, the omission of these natural resources from the rest of the FLUM would have rendered the Plan amendment inconsistent with the criteria covered in this section. The requirement of depicting on the FLUM wetlands, floodplains, and conservation uses includes the requirement that FLUM graphically inform as to their size, scale, and proximity--relative to all other items required to be depicted on the FLUM and relative to the site that is the subject of a plan amendment.
  2. Provisions Protecting Wetlands and Floodplains
    1. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code), an objective protecting and conserving the natural functions of floodplains and wetlands (Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)6, Florida Administrative Code), and a policy protecting wetlands (Rule 9J- 5.013(3), Florida Administrative Code).
    2. Although stronger Plan provisions protecting natural resources might have saved this flawed FLUM amendment, a FLUM amendment does not raise issues concerning the consistency of other Plan provisions, as such. As already noted, Conservation Objectives C and J ensure the protection of wetlands and floodplains and their natural functions. Although no policy provides effective protection of wetlands, this is a deficiency of the Plan, not the Plan amendment. The failure of the Plan to contain the required policy protecting wetlands does not affect the change in designations.
      3. Urban Sprawl
    3. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of supporting data and analysis because it fails to discourage urban sprawl, establish an efficient land use pattern, coordinate land uses with the availability of facilities and
      services, protect agriculture and natural resources, ensure a separation between urban and rural land uses, promote a mixed-use development or compact urban form, and avoid the designation of vast areas of single-use development, overallocation of Industrial land, and leap-frog development of rural areas at great distances from urban areas.
    4. Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of objectives to discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8, Florida Administrative Code) and to use innovative land development regulations and mixed uses (Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)10 and (4)(c), Florida Administrative Code) and a policy to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code). Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code).
    5. For the reasons already discussed, the Plan amendment is not inconsistent with these urban-sprawl provisions.
      4. Transportation Facilities
    6. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to update the Capital Improvements and Traffic Circulation elements at the time of adopting the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of basing the Plan amendment on a land use suitability analysis (Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code); including all of the required elements in a future land use map (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida
      Administrative Code) (except with respect to the omitted items already found to result in an inconsistency); basing the Plan amendment on data concerning needed transportation improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code); basing the Plan amendment on analysis concerning the fiscal implications of public-facility deficiencies and a prioritization of needed public facilities by type of facility (Rule 9J-5.016(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code); including objectives to use the capital improvements element to accommodate future growth (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)1, Florida Administrative Code), to coordinate land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements that maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code), to demonstrate the ability to provide or require the provision of the improvements identified as necessary elsewhere in the Plan and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed Respondent's ability to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code); and to coordinate the transportation system with the FLUM and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve these areas
      (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code); and including a policy to set peak-hour LOS standards to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code).
    7. For the reasons already discussed, the Plan is not inconsistent with these provisions.
5. Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan
Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes.

136. Section 187.201(20)(b)3, 9, 10, 13, and 15 establishes the following policies:
3. Promote a comprehensive transportation planning process which coordinates state, regional, and local transportation plans.
1. Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions.
2. Promote ride sharing by public and private sector employees.
13. Coordinate transportation improvements with state, local, and regional plans.

15. Promote effective coordination among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and redevelopment efforts.
1. Section 187.201(26)(a) states:
  
  Systematic planning capabilities shall be integrated into all levels of government in Florida with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement.
2. Section 187.201(26)(b)7 and 8 establishes the following policies:
  1. Ensure the development of strategic regional policy plans and local plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a region.
  2. Encourage the continual cooperation among communities which have a unique natural area, irrespective of political boundaries, to bring the private and public sectors together for establishing an orderly, environmentally, and economically sound plan for future needs and growth.
3. With respect to the adoption of ordinances by municipalities, Section 166.041(2) provides:
  Each ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in writing and shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith. The subject shall be clearly stated in the title. No ordinance shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Ordinances to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act or section or subsection or paragraph of a section or subsection.
4. In relevant part, Rule 9J-5.005 provides:
  
  (2)(a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Data or summaries thereof shall not be subject to the compliance review process. However, the Department will review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of determining whether the plan is based on the data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether the data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. . . .
  1. This Chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original data necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data base so long as methodologies are professionally accepted.
  2. . . . The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies.
5. In relevant part, Rule 9J-5.006 provides:
1. Land Use Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to Subsection 9J-5.005(2).
  1. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services as identified in the traffic circulation and sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge elements, to serve existing land uses included in the data requirements above and land for which development orders have been issued;
  2. An analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available:
    1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in Paragraph (1)(b);
    2. Soils;
    3. Topography;
    4. Natural resources; and
    5. Historic resources;
  3. An analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including:
    1. The categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use,
    2. The estimated gross acreage needed by category, and
    3. A description of the methodology used[.]
      
      (3)(b) The element shall contain one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which address the requirements of Paragraph 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and which:
    4. Ensure the protection of natural resources and historic resources;

8. Discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl;

10. Encourage the use of innovative land development regulations which may include provisions for planned unit developments and other mixed land use development techniques;

2. Provision for compatibility of adjacent land uses[.]

Future Land Use Map. (a) The proposed distribution, extent, and location of the following generalized land uses shall be shown on the future land use map or map series:
1. Residential use;
2. Commercial use;
3. Industrial use;
4. Agricultural use;
5. Recreational use;
6. Conservation use;
7. Educational use;
8. Public buildings and grounds;
9. Other public facilities;
10. Historic district boundaries and designated historically significant properties meriting protection;
11. Transportation concurrency management area boundaries, if any such areas have been designated.
  1. The following natural resources or conditions shall be shown on the future land use map or map series:
    1. Existing and planned public potable waterwells and wellhead protection areas;
    2. Beaches and shores, including estuarine systems;
    3. Rivers, bays, lakes, flood plains, and harbors;
    4. Wetlands;
    5. Minerals and soils; and
    6. Coastal high hazard areas.
Review of Plans and Plan Amendments for Discouraging the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl.

Purpose. The purpose of this subsection is to give guidance to local governments and other interested parties about how to make sure that plans and plan amendments are consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan,
regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and the remainder of this chapter regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources.
Determination. The determination of whether a plan or plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl shall be based upon the standards contained in this subsection.
In general. The discouragement of urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The purpose of this subsection is to provide a general methodology for examining whether or not a plan or plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl. This subsection is organized into twelve paragraphs, Paragraphs (5)(a) through (5)(l). Nothing in this paragraph (5) shall be interpreted to require that a local government submit information beyond the information required by other provisions of this chapter.
Use of indicators. Paragraph (5)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl.
Methodology for determining indicators. Paragraphs (5)(h) through (5)(j)
describe the three major components of a methodology to determine the presence of urban sprawl indicators. Paragraph (5)(h) describes how land use aspects of a plan shall be analyzed. The land use element, including both the future land use map and associated objectives and policies, represents the focal point of the local government's planning effort. Paragraph (5)(i) describes the unique features and characteristics of each jurisdiction which provide the context of the analysis and which are needed to evaluate the extent, amount or frequency of an indicator and the significance of an indicator for a specific jurisdiction. Paragraph (5)(j) recognizes that land use plans generally may be significantly affected by other development policies in a plan which may serve to mitigate the presence of urban sprawl indicators based on the land use plan alone. Paragraph (5)(j) describes development controls which may be used by a local government to mitigate the presence of urban sprawl.
Analysis components. Subsection (5)(k) describes how the analysis components described in Subsections (5)(h) through (5)(j) are combined in a systematic way to determine the presence of urban sprawl indicators.
Primary indicators. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment:
1. Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.
2. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to
  occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development.
3. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments.
4. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems.
5. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils.
6. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.
7. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services.
8. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government.
9. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses.
10. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities.
11. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses.
12. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses.
13. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space.
Evaluation of land uses. The comprehensive plan must be reviewed in its entirety to make the determinations in (5)(g) above. Plan amendments must be reviewed individually and for their impact on the remainder of the plan. However, in either case, a land use analysis will be the focus of the review and constitute the primary factor for making the determinations. Land use types cumulatively (within the entire jurisdiction and areas less than the entire jurisdiction, and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction) will be evaluated based on density, intensity, distribution and functional relationship, including an analysis of the distribution of urban and rural land uses. Each land use type will be evaluated based on:
1. Extent.
2. Location.
3. Distribution.
4. Density.
5. Intensity.
6. Compatibility.
7. Suitability.
8. Functional relationship.
9. Land use combinations.
10. Demonstrated need over the planning period.
Local conditions. Each of the land use factors in (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality. These include:
1. Size of developable area.
2. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture).
3. Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category).
4. Facility availability (existing and committed).
5. Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl.
6. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the
  overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction.
7. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy.
8. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics.
9. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed).
10. Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction.
Development controls. Development controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determinations in (5)(g) above. The following development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl:
1. Open space requirements.
2. Development clustering requirements.
3. Other planning strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity, affecting the pattern and character of development.
4. Phasing of urban land use types, densities, intensities, extent, locations, and distribution over time, as measured through the permitted changes in land use within each urban land use category in the plan, and the timing and location of those changes.
5. Land use locational criteria related to the existing development pattern, natural resources and facilities and services.
6. Infrastructure extension controls, and infrastructure maximization requirements and incentives.
7. Allocation of the costs of future development based on the benefits received.
8. The extent to which new development pays for itself.
9. Transfer of development rights.
10. Purchase of development rights.
11. Planned unit development requirements.
12. Traditional neighborhood developments.
13. Land use functional relationship linkages and mixed land uses.
14. Jobs-to-housing balance requirements.
15. Policies specifying the circumstances under which future amendments could designate new lands for the urbanizing area.
16. Provision for new towns, rural villages or rural activity centers.
17. Effective functional buffering requirements.
18. Restriction on expansion of urban areas.
19. Planning strategies and incentives which promote the continuation of productive agricultural areas and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands.
20. Urban service areas.
21. Urban growth boundaries.
22. Access management controls.
Evaluation of factors. Each of the land use types and land use combinations analyzed in Paragraph (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of the features and characteristics of the locality, individually and together (as appropriate), as listed in Paragraph (5)(i). If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction.
Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies. Notwithstanding and as a means of addressing any provisions contained in rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8.,

9J-5.011(2)(b)3., 9J-5.003(140) and this

subsection, the Department encourages innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques in local plans. Planning strategies and techniques such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of

rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services, will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl.

In relevant part, Rule 9J-5.013 provides:

(2)(c) The element shall contain one or more policies for each objective which address implementation activities for the:

6. Protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, harbors, wetlands including estuarine marshes, freshwater beaches and shores, and marine habitats;
1. Policies Addressing the Protection and Conservation of Wetlands.
  1. Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved. The adequate and appropriate protection and conservation of wetlands shall be accomplished through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and which is based on supporting data and analysis.
  2. Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands. The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands are land use factors which shall be considered when directing incompatible land
uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands functions.
In relevant part, Rule 9J-5.016 provides:

The purpose of the capital improvements element is to evaluate the need for public facilities as identified in the other comprehensive plan elements and as defined in the applicable definitions for each type of public facility, to estimate the cost of improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility, to analyze the fiscal capability of the local government to finance and construct improvements, to adopt financial policies to guide the funding of improvements and to schedule the funding and construction of improvements in a manner necessary to ensure that capital improvements are provided when required based on needs identified in the other comprehensive plan elements. The element shall also include the requirements to ensure that an adequate concurrency management system will be implemented by local governments pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0055 of this Chapter.
1. Capital Improvements Data Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following data requirements pursuant to Subsection
  9J-5.005(2).
  1. The element shall be based on the public facility needs as identified in the other comprehensive plan elements and shall support the future land use element. Transportation facilities include facilities identified as existing or projected needs in any of the following elements: traffic circulation; mass transit; and port, aviation and related facilities.
2. Capital Improvements Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to Subsection 9J- 5.005(2).
  
  (b) The general fiscal implications of the existing deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility. This analysis shall be based on the needed improvements, as identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements, and shall address the relative priority of need among facility types, and shall support the future land use element[.]
3. Requirements for Capital Improvements Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
  1. The element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal and shall address:
    1. The use of the capital improvements element as a means to meet the needs of the local government for the construction of capital facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, to accommodate desired future growth and to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities;
      3. The coordination of land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements which maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs; [and]
      5. The demonstration of the local government's ability to provide or require provision of the needed improvements identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements.
In relevant part, Rule 9J-5.019 provides:

(4)(b) The [transportation] element shall contain one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which address the requirements of Subsection 163.3177(6)(j), Florida Statutes, and which:
2. Coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map or map series and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve these areas[.]
1. The element shall contain one or more policies for each objective which address implementation activities for the:
  1. Establishment of level of service standards at peak hour for roads and public transit facilities within the local government's jurisdiction as specified in Subparagraph 9J-5.007(3)(c)1. and
9J-5.008(3)(c)1. of this Chapter. For facilities on the Florida Intrastate Highway System as defined in s. 338.001, Florida Statutes, the local governments shall adopt the level of service standards established by the Department of Transportation by rule.
For all other facilities on the future traffic circulation map, local governments shall adopt adequate level of service standards. These level of service standards shall be adopted to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses as demonstrated by the supporting data and analysis in the comprehensive plan[.]
For the reasons stated in the findings of fact, Petitioner has not proved, by the applicable standard of evidence, any of the allegations, except those involving the omissions from the FLUM and the deficiencies involving the adoption ordinance.
Respondent's failure to include in the FLUM various natural resources required to be depicted is material. When measured against the criteria of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the Plan is weak in its treatment of natural resources, such as conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains. Textual material discloses Respondent's awareness of the shortcomings of its FLUM mapping. Respondent has had at least eight years to map these items on the FLUM and has failed to do it. On balance, these omissions constitute a clear inconsistency with the relevant criteria of Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (4).
The ordinance itself raises an interesting legal question. Given the absence of any hint as to the actual substance of the ordinance in its body, its title is insufficient. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent offered decisional authority suggesting that a title is sufficient if it places the reader on inquiry notice of the contents of the body of the ordinance. This authority applies if the body of the ordinance discloses the contents of the ordinance; the body of the present ordinance does not.
Four sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, refer to part of Chapter 166, Part I, Florida Statutes. They are Sections 163.3164(18), 163.3181(3)(a), 163.3184(15), and 163.3187(1)(c)2.a. The first three sections relate exclusively to the notice provisions of Section 166.041(3), rather than the
adoption provisions of Section 166.041(2). The fourth section relates to amendments involving small-scale development activities; despite language concerning the "procedures and public notice requirements" of Section 163.3184(15)(c), this section also pertains to notice, rather than adoption.
Section 166.041(3)(b) seems to assume that Section

166.041 is generally applicable to plan-adoption ordinances because this section expressly provides that the procedure for adopting emergency plan amendments is described in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Although Section 163.3184(1)(b) does not specify Section 163.041 as a basis for an in-compliance determination, the clear premise of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, is that local governments will adopt plans and plan amendments by ordinances that are valid and enforceable. If a local government fails to identify sufficiently the contents of an ordinance adopting a plan or plan amendment, so as to violate Section 166.041(2), then Petitioner should be able to rely on this formal violation as an additional basis for a determination that the plan or plan amendment is not in compliance, especially given the ease with which a local government can avoid such a

determination and, at the same time, avoid unnecessary confusion as to the contents of the ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is not in compliance due to the omissions of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains from the future land use map and the failure of the adoption ordinance to comply with Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ROBERT E. MEALE

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 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kathleen R. Fowler Assistant General Counsel David Jordan

Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Kenneth W. Buchman City Attorney

City of Plant City

212 North Collins Street Plant City, Florida 33566

Steven M. Seibert Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission

Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 98-002872GM

Issue Date	Proceedings
Jul. 02, 1999	Final Order Closing File filed.
Apr. 14, 1999	(C. Roopharine) Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs (filed via facsimile).
Jan. 20, 1999	Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/17/98.
Nov. 23, 1998	(K. Buchman) Proposed Final Order filed.
Nov. 20, 1998	Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Nov. 04, 1998	Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed via facsimile).
Nov. 04, 1998	(Respondent) Notice of Filing Future Land Use Map; Map filed.
Oct. 12, 1998	Notice of Filing Original Transcript; Transcript filed.
Sep. 18, 1998	Answer of the City of Plant City filed.
Sep. 17, 1998	CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Sep. 16, 1998	Answer of the City of Plant City filed.
Jul. 17, 1998	Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/17/98; 9:00am; Plant City)
Jul. 08, 1998	Joint Response to Scheduling Order filed.
Jul. 02, 1998	Initial Order issued.
Jun. 26, 1998	Petition of the Department of Community Affairs; Notice of Intent; Statement of Intent filed.

Orders for Case No: 98-002872GM

Issue Date	Document	Summary
Jul. 01, 1999	Agency Final Order
Jan. 20, 1999	Recommended Order	Plan amendment redesignating 198 acres from suburban density residential to industrial not in compliance for omission from future land use map of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains and formal deficiencies of adoption ordinance.

Source: Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs PLANT CITY, 98-002872GM (1998)

Docket for Case No: 98-002872GM

Orders for Case No: 98-002872GM

Jeff Goodman

Kathleen Fowler

Kenneth W Buchman

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs PLANT CITY, 98-002872GM (1998)

Docket for Case No: 98-002872GM

Orders for Case No: 98-002872GM

Lawyers who claimed

Jeff Goodman

Kathleen Fowler

Kenneth W Buchman

Counsels

Cites

Florida Laws (9)

Florida Administrative Code (10)

Similar Cases

Note

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.