STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HOBE SOUND CITIZENS ALLIANCE, ) INC., and MARY A. MERRILL, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 99-4554GM
)
MARTIN COUNTY, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
) HOBE SOUND LAND COMPANY, LTD., )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal hearing was held in this case before
Larry J. Sartin, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 6 and 7, September 26, and October 4, 2000, in Stuart, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire
Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197
Stuart, Florida 34995-1197
For Respondent: David A. Acton
Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397
For Intervenor: Raymond W. Royce, Esquire
Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP
625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 Post Office Box 3208
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3208 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, Amendment No. 98-3, is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about September 28, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County adopted Amendment No. 98-3 to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, through the passage and adoption of Ordnance No. 553. Amendment No. 98-3 modified the land use designation on the future land use map of 24.5 acres of land from Institutional to Low Density Residential.
On October 28, 1999, Petitioners, the Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc., and Mary A. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), challenging Amendment No. 98-3 pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections
163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 99-4554GM and was assigned to the undersigned.
By Notice of Hearing entered December 1, 1999, the final hearing of this matter was scheduled for February 8 and 9, 2000.
On December 2, 1999, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd., filed a Petition to Intervene. The Petition was granted by Order entered December 9, 1999.
On December 14, 1999, Martin County filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike Impertinent Material. Martin County sought an order dismissing or striking portions of the Petition for Administrative Hearing in which Petitioners challenged a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement between Martin County and the Department of Community Affairs. That agreement designated the area in which the property which is the subject of this proceeding is located a "sustainable communities designation area" pursuant to Section 163.3244, Florida Statutes. On December 16, 1999, Martin County filed a Motion for More Definite Statement and a Motion to Strike Impertinent Material. By Order entered January 24, 2000, the Motion to Dismiss or Strike Impertinent Material was granted, the Motion to Strike Impertinent Material was granted, in part, and the Motion for More Definite Statement was granted. The portions of the Petition challenging the Sustainable Communities Designation
Agreement between Martin County and the Department of Community Affairs were stuck. Petitioners were given until February 1, 2000, to file an amended petition.
On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. The Amended Petition was filed in conformity with the Order of January 24, 2000, dismissing Petitioners' original Petition.
On February 10, 2000, an Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance was entered. The final hearing was rescheduled for July 6 and 7, 2000, by Notice of Hearing entered May 4, 2000. Additional hearing time was scheduled and conducted on September 26, 2000, and October 4, 2000.
At the final hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Jack Cox, Esquire, Treasurer of Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc.; Mary A. Merrill, President of Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc.; Maggy Hurchalla; Janet Gettig, Martin County Commissioner; and Donna Sutter Melzer, Martin County Commissioner. Petitioners offered three exhibits, marked for identification as Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
Petitioners' Exhibits 2 and 3 were received in evidence. Petitioners' Exhibit 1 was withdrawn.
Martin County presented the testimony of Steve Heuchert, Martin County Senior Planner; Gary N. Roderick, Environmental Administrator with the Southeast District of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection; Howard M. Tupper, a Martin County Principal Planner; and Nicki van Vonno, Growth Management Director of Martin County. Martin County also offered eleven exhibits, marked for identification as Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 7, 7A, and 8 through 10. All were offered and received in evidence, except Respondent's Exhibit 8, which was offered for demonstrative purposes only.
Intervenor presented the testimony of Howard L. Searcy, P.E.; and James P. Brown, Managing Director of Intervenor. One exhibit, marked as Intervenor Exhibit 1, was offered and received in evidence.
Twelve exhibits, identified as Joint Exhibits 1 through 12, were offered and received in evidence.
A transcript of the final hearing was ordered following the close of the final hearing. The Transcript, consisting of seven volumes, was filed on December 7, 2000. Proposed recommended orders were, therefore, to be filed on or before December 27, 2000. The time for filing proposed recommended orders was extended to January 16, 2001, and then to January 29, 2001, with the agreement of parties.
Petitioners filed Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order on January 29, 2001. Respondent filed Respondent Martin County's Proposed Recommended Order a day late, on January 30, 2001. Martin County also filed a Motion for Leave to File
Proposed Recommended Order out of Time by One Day, requesting that its post-hearing submittal be accepted, even though late. Petitioners opposed Martin County's requested one-day extension by filing Petitioners' Motion to Strike. In the Motion to Strike, Petitioners argued that they were prejudiced because Martin County had an additional day to prepare its post-hearing submittal. This argument assumes that each of the parties worked on their post-hearing submittals an equal amount of time and that, by filing its order a day later, Martin County gained an additional day. This argument is rejected. Martin County's request that its post-hearing submittal be accepted is hereby granted.
Intervenor filed a Proposed Recommended Order adopting the post-hearing submittal filed by Martin County.
The post-hearing submittals of the parties have been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties.
Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Alliance"), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. The Alliance was organized in July 1998 primarily to respond to proposed land use designation changes for the property that is the subject of this proceeding and for other property.
The Alliance has three officers (a President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and an eight-member Board of Directors. The officers and directors of the Alliance all reside in Martin County, Florida. The members of the Board of Directors are from different neighborhoods in Martin County.
The Alliance maintains a mailing list of approximately
500 individuals who are considered "members" of the Alliance.
These individuals have all expressed interest in the activities of the Alliance, but have not taken any formal steps to join the Alliance, such as paying dues or completing an application for membership. In fact, the Alliance does not collect dues or have a membership application.
Petitioner, Mary A. Merrill, is an individual who resides in an area of unincorporated Martin County, Florida, known as "Hobe Sound." Ms. Merrill serves as President of the Alliance.
During the process of adopting the amendment which is the subject of this matter, Ms. Merrill and the Alliance made comments and objections.
Respondent, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. The County is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County,
and on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a portion of Okeechobee County.
Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Partnership"), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. The Land Partnership's general partner is Hobe Sound Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Company") and the limited partners are a number of trusts organized for the benefit of various members of the Reed family. The Land Partnership is the owner of the property which is the subject of this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property").
The County's Comprehensive Plan.
General
The County has adopted a comprehensive land use plan as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
The Martin County Florida Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 1999/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
The Future Land Use Element
The Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE"), consisting of the
following: Section 4-1, "Background Information"; Section 4-2, "Analysis of Land Use Features"; Section 4-3, the "Future Land Use Map and Map Series"; Section 4-4, "Goals, Objectives and Policies"; Section 4-5, "Performance Standards"; and Section 4- 6, "Implementation Strategies."
Sections 4-1 and 4-2 consist of what the County refers to as "narrative" sections which the County gives less weight to in determining whether an amendment to the Plan is "in compliance" than it gives Section 4-4, which contains the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. These narrative sections of the Plan, however, are not "data and analysis." They were adopted as a part of the Plan. See the second unnumbered page of the Plan.
The FLUE establishes 13 separate and distinct land-use categories. These land-use categories determine the uses to which property subject to the Plan may be put. The Plan's Future Land Use Map and Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), depicts all property subject to the Plan and depicts the land use category assigned to all property in the County.
Among the land use categories established in the FLUE pertinent to this proceeding is the "Institutional" land use category. To distinguish this category from the "Institutional-
County" land use designation of the FLUE, the category is referred to as the "General Institutional" category.
Property designated as General Institutional is subject to the following sub-categories or intensities of use: "retirement home, churches, schools, orphanages, sanitariums, convalescent, rest homes, cultural organizations, military, colleges, hospitals, federal, municipal, utilities, and rights- of-way."
Section 4-4.M.1.h.(3). of the FLUE, provides the following Policy governing the use of General Institutional property:
General Institutional - The General
Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities such as, but not limited to schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. . . .
While Institutional use is reserved for the above uses, this shall not prohibit for- profit medical offices and other ancillary facilities owned by a non-profit hospital as long as they are part of a Planned Unit Development. . . .
. . . .
The Plan also establishes land use categories in the FLUE for the residential use of property. All land which is designated for residential development on the FLUM is subject to Section 4-4.M.1.e. of the FLUE:
The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resource and plan for fiscal conservancy.
There are seven types of designated residential land use categories created by the Plan. Those uses include the following: 10 units per acre for "high density;" 8 units per acre for "medium density;" 5 units per acre for "low density residential;" 2 units per acre and 1 unit per acre for "estate density;" .5 units per acre for rural areas. There is also a "mobile home density" category. The lowest density of .5 units per acre is reserved for those areas that are designated as rural. The estate density categories are used for areas are located "generally on the fringe of the urban service districts and generally are not accessible to a full complement of urban services." Sections 4-4.M.1.e.(1) and (2) of the Plan.
Of primary pertinence to this proceeding is the residential land use designation of "Low Density Residential."
Residential land designated "Low Density Residential" is limited by Section 4-4.M.1.e.(3). of the FLUE as follows:
Low Density Residential Development. The low density residential designation is reserved for land accessible to existing urban service centers or located in the immediate expansion area. Densities permitted in this area shall not exceed five
(5) units per gross acre. Review of specific densities shall be directed toward preserving the stability and integrity of established residential development and toward provided equitable treatment to lands sharing similar characteristics. Design techniques such as landscaping, screening and buffering shall be employed to assure smooth transition in residential structure types and densities. Generally, where single family structures comprise the dominant structure type within these areas, new development on undeveloped abutting lands shall be required to include compatible structure types on the lands immediately adjacent to existing single family development.
Excessive Residential Property and the Active Residential Development Preference Planning System.
Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that the County has designated an excessive amount of land for residential use. This section of the Plan indicates that, at the time the Plan was adopted, there was a projected need for 26,231 acres of land to accommodate the projected population of the County to the Year 2005. It also indicates that, as of the date of the Plan, 35,834 acres of vacant land had been
designated for residential use, well in excess of the amount of land necessary to meet demand.
Despite the requirements of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, requiring appropriate planning for residential needs within a local government's jurisdiction, the Plan was approved by the Department as being "in compliance" with the designation of an excessive amount of land for residential use in the County.
Instead of requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with planning for future residential land use needs, the County and the Department entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifying that the Plan include a requirement that the County undertake the collection of more current land use data and refine the various land use predictive factors it had been using. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement also required that the County institute an Active Residential Development Preference Planning System (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP System"), to monitor the timing and location of residential development in the County.
Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan provides a Policy dealing with future residential land use requirements for the County. The Policy reports the over-allocation of vacant land designated
for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy specifically provides, in part:
While the current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is, an active residential development "125% test" will be used in conjunction with location and land suitability requirements in the review and approval of future land use and/or project requests. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, location within the Primary, or Secondary Urban Service District; consistency with the Capital Improvement Element; protection of natural resources; and adequate provision of facilities and services at the adopted level of service.
The Policy goes on to provide that residential development in the County will be maintained at 125 percent capacity through the ARDP System and describes other measures to reduce the amount of excessive residential property to be developed in the County.
Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991.
Consistent with Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan, the County has adopted the ADRPP System.
Environmental Protection Considerations in the FLUE
Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten the "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." Therefore, the Policy provides that any such development is to be planned to minimize
the threat by "assuring that the environmentally sensitive and threatened habitats are preserved." The Policy also provides:
Certain areas in Martin County are recognized and beginning to be identified by federal, state and local programs as environmentally sensitive. These areas provide special value in producing public benefits, including: recreational opportunities, life support services, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, scenic values, water purification, water recharge and storage, and sensitive habitats critical to the survival of endangered wildlife and plants.
Urban development in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas can significantly reduce their environmental values. Additionally, there are important public health concerns associated with development in these areas, particularly in relation to potable water and waste disposal in low lying areas. . . .
Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation.
Coastal Management Element
Section 8.4 of the Plan establishes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The area subject to this Element is described on maps adopted as part of the Element, including the map depicted in Figure 8-1. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal management area established by the Element.
Section 8.4.A.2.a. of the Plan provides "land use decisions guidelines" requiring a consideration of the impacts of development on fish, wildlife, and habitat, including cumulative impacts. These guidelines, however, apply to development within the coastal management area established by the Plan.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Chapter 9 of the Plan establishes the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Element are set out in Section 9-4 of the Plan.
Section 9-4.A. of the Plan establishes the following Goal:
The goal of Martin County is to effectively manage, conserve and preserve the natural resources of Martin County giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries and wildlife with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon.
Section 9-4.A.2.a. of the Plan requires that the County continue to enforce and improve its Wellfield Protection Ordinance. The Wellfield Protection Ordinance is intended to regulate land use activities within the zones of influence of major wellheads.
Section 9-4.A.2.b. of the Plan provides the following:
New potable water wells and wellfields shall be located in areas where maximum quantities of regulated materials (e.g. hazardous and toxic materials) do not exceed the proposed criteria of the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. At the time future wellfield locations are identified, establishment of incompatible land uses within the zones of influence of such wells shall be prohibited.
Objective 9-4.A.9. of the Plan provides for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitat. Policy 9-
4.A.9.a. of the Plan provides the following:
Land use decisions shall consider the effects of development impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat and the cumulative impact of development or redevelopment upon wildlife habitat. In cases where rare, endangered, threatened or species of special concern are known to be present, a condition of approval will be that a preserve area management plan be prepared at the time of site plan submittal. . . . To ensure adequate protection, protected plants and animals, which cannot be provided with sufficient undisturbed habitat to maintain the existing population in a healthy, viable state on site, shall be effectively relocated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.
Potable Water Service Element
Chapter 11 of the Plan establishes a Potable Water Service Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 11-4.
Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan provides that, by 1991, the County was to establish programs to conserve and protect
potable water resources within the County. The specific components of the programs are provided. None of those provisions are relevant to this matter.
Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element
Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 13-4.
Section 13-4.A.1. of the Plan establishes the following Objective:
Martin County will maintain existing ground water and surface water quality, improve areas of degraded ground water and surface water quality and prevent future contamination of ground water supply sources.
Section 13-4.A.2. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: "Enhance the quantity of ground water recharge and maintain desirable ground water levels."
The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, recognize the significance of ground waterrecharge and groundwater levels in the County. Preservation of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels is a significant goal of the County.
None of the Policies established to carry out the foregoing Objectives specifically eliminate the use of vacant land located near wells for residential purposes.
Plan Amendment Adoption Procedures
Procedures for the adoption of amendments to the Plan are established in Section 1.11, "Amendment Procedures," of the Plan.
Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan provides the following procedures for evaluating changes to the FLUM:
In evaluating each land use map amendment request, staff begins with the assumption that the 1982 Land Use Map, as amended, is generally an accurate representation of the Board of County Commissioners and thus the community's intent for the future of Martin County. Based on this assumption, staff can recommend approval of a requested change providing consistency is maintained with all other Elements of this Plan if one of the following four items is found to be applicable.
That past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses and there is adequate availability of public services; or
That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or
That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation.
That the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need which enhances the health, safety or general welfare of County residents.
In the event that staff can not make a positive finding regarding any of the above items, then staff would recommend denial. (Emphasis added).
The Plan requires that the Director of the County's Growth Management Department, after review of a proposed amendment, submit recommendations to the Local Planning Agency for consideration. The Local Planning Agency is required to certify its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board").
Miscellaneous Provisions of the Plan.
Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that requires that the County revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. The
evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
The County's Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement.
The County and the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), entered into a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Agreement").
The Designation Agreement was entered into pursuant to Section 163.3244 of the Act. Pursuant to the Designation Agreement, the Department designated the County as a "sustainable community."
Among other things, the designation of the County as a sustainable community eliminates the need for the County to have the Department review and comment on amendments to the Plan that affect areas within the urban growth boundary or "Primary Urban Services District" created by the Plan.
The Subject Property.
The Subject Property is a parcel of real property located in the Hobe Sound area of unincorporated Martin County.
The Subject Property consists of approximately 24.5 acres of land.
The land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM is General Institutional.
The Subject Property is undeveloped, vacant land. It is comprised of sandy soils, native upland scrub habitat with native Sand Pine groundcover. The Subject Property was described in an Executive Summary of the proposed plan amendment considered by the County as follows:
The parcel is located in an area considered to be one of the last contiguous large areas of native upland scrub habitat in Florida.
Groundcover is almost entirely native Sand Pine with some primitive trails and small areas of disturbed land. Endangered species found on the parcel include the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoise. Sand Pine is considered to be endangered, unique or rare and the Comprehensive Plan policy 9- 4.A.7.f(2) states that "Where possible, increased conservation (twenty-five (25) percent of the total upland area) of native upland habitats which are determined to be endangered, unique or rare in Martin County, or regionally rare will be required by Martin County."
The Subject Property is bounded on the north by Saturn Avenue, a two-lane residential street; on the south and west by undeveloped land; and on the east by U.S. Highway One, a multi- lane divided highway. The property to the north is designated Low Density Residential; the property to the east is designated
for commercial uses; and the property to the south and west is designated General Institutional.
While located relatively close to the Intercoastal Waterway, the Subject Property is not located on the "coast."
The Subject Property was previously owned by the Hobe Sound Water Company, a privately owned water utility. At the request of Hobe Sound Water Company, the Subject Property was designated as General Institutional. No wells currently are located on the Subject Property.
The Subject Property was acquired from the Hobe Sound Water Company by the Land Partnership.
The undeveloped land located to the south of the Subject Property is owned by South Martin Regional Utilities (hereinafter referred to as "SMRU") and is utilized for a water plant and wells. SMRU acquired this land and the remainder of the land used by the Hobe Sound Water Company from the water company. There are five wells located on the property to the south of the Subject Property.
The property to the west of the Subject Property is also owned by SMRU but is not being utilized for wells.
The property acquired by SMRU was, and remains, designated as General Institutional.
The Subject Property serves as a significant ground water recharge area because of the porous nature of the soils of the Subject Property.
The Subject Property is located within the Primary Urban Services District of the Plan.
The Subject Amendment and Its Review.
The amendment at issue in this proceeding was initiated by the Land Partnership after it acquired the Subject Property from the Hobe Sound Water Company. At the time of the acquisition of the Subject Property, the Land Partnership knew or should have known that it was designated for General Institutional use.
The Land Partnership requested a change in the land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM from General Institutional to Low Density Residential or "the most appropriate land use designation."
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the staff of the County's Growth Management Department. Among other things, the staff considered whether any of the four items specified in Section 1-11.C.2 of the Plan applies to the amendment. The staff determined that the first and fourth items listed in finding of fact 41 did not apply, that the second item was somewhat applicable, and that the third item applied to the amendment.
The proposed amendment was also reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "TCRPC"). Comments concerning the proposed amendment were prepared by the TCRPC, but were withheld because review by the TCRPC is not required due to the sustainable communities designation for the County. The draft comments of the TCRPC, however, raised objections to the proposed amendment due to concerns over the potential endangerment to the wellfields in the area and the potential destruction of critical habitat and vegetation. No copy of the TCRPC's regional plan was offered in evidence in this case. Nor did anyone associated with TCRPC testify about the draft comments.
The Department also informally reviewed the proposed amendment. Rather than prepare an Objections, Comments, and Review report on the proposed amendment, the Department prepared informal comments, which it provided to the County. Those comments were responded to by the County.
Hearings to consider the proposed amendment were conducted by the Local Planning Agency. On January 21, 1999, the Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted.
The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 98-3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The
Amendment was adopted by the Board on September 28, 1999, as a
part of Ordinance No. 553. The evidence failed to prove that any relevant procedure for adopting the Amendment was violated by the County.
The Amendment changed the land use designation for the Subject Property from General Institutional to Low Density Residential on the FLUM. This designation would allow the development of the Subject Property for a maximum of 122 residential units.
Data and analysis supporting a potential increase of
122 units of additional residential property did not exist when County adopted the Amendment. Nor does such data and analysis exist now.
ARDP System Data.
Since the implementation of the ARDP System the County has been collecting and analyzing data concerning residential development in the County. No timely annual update of that data and analysis had been prepared prior to the adoption of the Amendment. The most recent data available was from 1995.
During the adoption process for the Amendment, at the request of a member of the Board, an ad hoc report containing data and analysis concerning residential development in the County was prepared and presented to the Board.
A full and detailed report was prepared subsequent to the adoption of the Amendment. The report, the ARDP Memorandum
of June 7, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP Memo"), was reviewed and approved by the Board. The report was also received in evidence during this de novo proceeding and has been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
Pursuant to the ARDP Memo for the five-year period 2000-2004, there is a need for 6,252 residential units needed to serve population increases. The 125 percent cap of the ARDP System on new residential units allowed in the County is
7,816 units. This amounts to an additional 1,564 units authorized by the ARDP System over the actual number of units needed based upon population projections.
The number of approved/unbuilt units and other offsets against the number of allowed new residential units for the County during this period totals 7,015 units.
Consequently, there are 801 units (7,816 minus 7,015) available for development through the end of 2004. These available units are more than sufficient to cover the additional units which may arise as a result of the development of the Subject Property pursuant to the Amendment.
For the five-year periods of 2005-2009 and 2010-2014, there are 6,314 and 6,578 units available for development through the end of these periods, respectively.
Despite the foregoing, the approval of an addition of
122 units of residential property will increase an already excessive designation of property for residential use.
The Impact of the Amendment.
The most significant impact of the Amendment is to further increase the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County.
An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the amount of the increase in the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County.
The Amendment will also negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals. Development of the Subject Property, however, as Low Density Residential or General Institutional has the potential for the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat. That negative impact is not inconsistent with what the Plan allows.
The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a ground water recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of
ground water in and around the Subject Property as a result of development.
The only action that will preserve the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area would be to keep the property undeveloped. Neither the current land use designation of General Institutional nor the proposed land use designation of Low Density Residential will ensure that the Subject Property remains undeveloped.
An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the negative impacts of the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area.
The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes "urban sprawl" as defined in the Plan.
The Need for a FLUM Amendment.
In order for the Amendment to be approved, since it is an amendment to the FLUM, it must be shown that one of the four items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan is met.
The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment.
The remaining two items of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan are:
That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or
That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation.
While there has been an increase in the amount of development to the north of the Subject Property, the area immediately around the Subject Property has not changed. The evidence failed to prove that any change in the character of the area surrounding the Subject Property "has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. . . ." The second item listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan has not been met.
The County's determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property:
Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The latter two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property.
Although the fact that the Land Partnership knew or should have known of the land use category of the Subject Property and the limitation of the uses to which it could put the property before it purchased it, it still appears reasonable to conclude that the third item of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan applies to the Amendment.
I. Petitioners' Challenge.
On October 28, 1999, the Alliance and Ms. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division challenging the Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Pursuant to the Amended Petition, Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act, the TCRPC's strategic regional policy plan, and portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioners also alleged in the Amended Petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3194, and 163.3244 of the Act. These allegations are not relevant to the determination of whether the amendment is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), 163.3187(3), and 163.3244(5) Florida Statutes (2000).
Section 163.3244 of the Act.
Section 163.3244 of the Act authorizes the Department to enter into an agreement with a limited number of local governments authorizing their participation in a "sustainable communities demonstration project." The intent of the sustainable communities demonstration project is expressed in Section 163.3244(1) of the Act:
It is the intent of the Legislature that this demonstration project shall be used to further six broad principles of sustainability: restoring key ecosystems; achieving a more clean, healthy environment; limiting urban sprawl; protecting wildlife and natural areas; advancing the efficient use of land and other resources; and creating quality communities and jobs.
In determining whether to accept a local government for the demonstration project, the Department was required to consider whether the local government had established an urban development boundary or functionally equivalent mechanism, the local government's comprehensive plan, and the extent to which the local government had the support of its regional planning council.
If all or a part of a local government is selected for participation in the demonstration project, the local government is entitled to certain statutorily designated "benefits," including the ability to adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) All comprehensive plan amendments affecting areas within the urban growth boundary or functional equivalent shall be adopted and reviewed in the manner described in ss. 163.3184(1), (2), (7), (14), (15), and (16) and 163.3187, such that state and regional agency review is eliminated. . . .
Section 163.3244(5)(a) of the Act. The foregoing procedure eliminates the requirement that plan amendments be transmitted to the Department for Departmental, intergovernmental, regional,
local government review. The Department is specifically prohibited from issuing an objections, recommendations, and comments report on any proposed plan amendment. It also eliminates the procedures for challenging plan amendments provided in Section 163.3184(8)-(13) of the Act.
In place of the procedures for challenging plan amendments provided in Section 163.3184 of the Act, the following procedure is established in Section 163.3244(5)(a) of the Act:
. . . affected persons, as defined in
s. 163.3184(1)(a), may file a petition for administrative review pursuant to the requirements of s. 163.3187(3)(a) to challenge the compliance of an adopted plan amendment.
The process for filing a petition for administrative review of Section 163.3187(3) of the Act governs challenges to small-scale amendments. That process, which is adopted by reference in Section 163.3244(5)(a) of the Act, is as follows:
. . . . Any affected person may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to
ss. 120.569 and 120.57 to request a hearing to challenge the compliance of a small scale development amendment with this act within 30 days following the local government's adoption of the amendment, shall serve a copy of the petition on the local government, and shall furnish a copy to the [Department]. . . . The parties to a hearing held pursuant to this subsection
shall be the petitioner, the local government, and any intervenor. . . .
The County and the Department have entered in to an agreement, the Designation Agreement, designating the County as a sustainable communities demonstration area.
The Subject Property is located within an urban growth boundary, the Primary Urban Services District. The process for adopting the Amendment was, therefore, governed by Section 163.3244(5)(a) of the Act. The process for challenging the Amendment is governed by Section 163.3187(3) of the Act.
Standing.
Section 163.3244(5) of the Act provides that "affected persons" may challenge plan amendments adopted pursuant thereto. The terms "affected person" are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a) of the Act:
"Affected person" includes the affected local government; persons owning property, residing, or owning or operating a business within the boundaries of the local government whose plan is the subject of the review . . . . Each person, other than an adjoining local government, in order to qualify under this definition, shall also have submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the local government during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan or plan amendment and ending with the adoption of the plan or plan amendment.
The evidence in this case proved that Ms. Merrill owns property located in the County. The evidence also proved that Ms. Merrill, through counsel, made oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the adoption process prior to time the Amendment was adopted.
The evidence in this case proved that the Alliance is a "person" as defined in Section 163.3164(17) of the Act. The evidence also proved that the Alliance, through Ms. Merrill and counsel, made oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the adoption process prior to the time the Amendment was adopted.
The County has argued throughout these proceedings that Petitioners must, in addition to proving that they are "affected persons" under the Act, prove that their "substantial interests" have been affected by the adoption of the Amendment. In support of this argument, the County points out that Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act provides that an affected person must challenge a plan amendment by filing "a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to ss. 120.569 and
120.57 . . ." and that challenges pursuant to Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, only apply to "proceedings in which the substantial interest of a party are [sic] determined by an agency. "
The County's arguments concerning what constitutes a "substantial interest" for purposes of standing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, are correct and are supported by case law cited by the County in its post-hearing submittal. The County's argument that Petitioners must prove that their substantial interests have been affected by the Amendment is, however, incorrect.
The requirements concerning standing provided under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, are intended to apply where the law governing challenges to agency actions is silent. Those requirements are not intended to apply where, as here, there is a more specific provision governing who may challenge an agency action. See Education Development Center, Inc. v. Palm Beach
County, 751 So. 2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
In order to conclude that the Alliance is an affected person under the Act, it must prove the standing requirements for associations:
A substantial number of an association's members, although not necessarily a majority, must be substantially affected;
The subject matter of the proposed agency action must be within the association's general scope of interest and activity; and
The relief sought must be of a type appropriate for the association to receive on behalf of its members. Florida Homebuilders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); and Farmworkers Rights Organization, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services, 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The evidence proved that the Alliance's members are essentially its officers and directors. All of those individuals are residents of the County. Therefore, all of the members of the Alliance are "affected persons." The evidence also proved that the subject matter of the Amendment is within the Alliance's general scope of interest and activity and that the relief sought is of a type appropriate for the Alliance to receive on behalf of its members.
Ms. Merrill and the Alliance proved that they have standing to institute and participate in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3) and 163.3244(5) of the Act.
The evidence also proved that the County and the Land Partnership have standing to participate in this proceeding.
See Section 163.3187(3) of the Act.
Burden and Standard of Proof.
The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue in any proceeding before the Division of Administrative
Hearings. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d
831 (Fla. 1993); Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, 714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 19998); Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Department of Transportation v. J.W.C.
Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act imposes the burden of proof on the person challenging a plan amendment. Therefore, Petitioners have the burden of proof in this proceeding. See
Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 626 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1993).
The standard of proof imposed upon Petitioners is also provided in Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act:
In the proceeding, the local government's determination that the [amendment] is in compliance is presumed to be correct. The local government's determination shall be sustained unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is not in compliance with the requirements of this act. . . .
Petitioners were, therefore, required to overcome the presumption that the County correctly determined that the Amendment was "in compliance" by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Ultimate Issue: Is the Amendment "In Compliance."
The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Amendment is "in compliance." Section 163.3187(3) of the Act.
The term "in compliance" is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b) of the Act as follows:
"In compliance" means consistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, with the state comprehensive plan, with the appropriate strategic regional policy plan, and with chapter 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code, where such rule is not inconsistent with this part and with the principles for guiding development in designated areas of critical state concern.
A determination of whether a plan amendment is "in compliance" must be based upon a consideration of the comprehensive plan in its entirety, including any amendments thereto. Department of Community Affairs v. Lee County, 12 FALR 3755 (Fla. Admin. Comm. 1990).
The Issues Raised by Petitioners.
The issues which may be considered in this proceeding are limited to those issues alleged in the Amended Petition filed by Petitioners. See Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes; Rule 60Q-2.004(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; and Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, 96 E.R.F.A.L.R. 185 (Department of Community Affairs 1996). The issues raised in the Amended Petition which
may be considered are also limited to those relevant to a determination of whether the Plan, as amended by the Amendment, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b) of the Act. See Delk v. Department of Professional Reguilation, 595 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
The specific challenges raised by Petitioners are set out in paragraphs 6 through 13 of the Amended Petition. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition contains allegations concerning provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, with which Petitioners argue the Amendment is inconsistent. Paragraph 6.N. was struck. Paragraphs 7 through 10 and 13 of the Amended Petition contain allegations concerning provisions of the Plan with which Petitioners argue the Amendment is inconsistent, in violation of Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition contains allegations concerning comments made by the Department relating to alleged inconsistencies with the TCRPC regional plan.
Paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition contains allegations concerning deed restrictions which the Subject Property may be subject to. Those allegations are not relevant and were struck prior to the hearing of this matter.
Statutory Provisions.
The statutory provisions which Petitioners have cited in their Amended Petition include the following: Sections 163.3161(3), (5), and (7) of the Act; Section 163.3167(2) of the Act; Section 163.3174(4) of the Act; Section 163.3177(6)(a) and
of the Act; Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act; Section 163.3181(2) of the Act; Section 163.3187(2) of the Act; Sections 163.3194(1) and (3) of the Act; Section 163.3194(2) of the Act; and Section 163.3244 of the Act.
Except for the allegations concerning Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (c) 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act, none of the statutory provisions cited by Petitioners are relevant to the determination of whether the Amendment is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b) of the Act. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is not in compliance due to any inconsistency with Sections 163.3161(3), (5), and (7) of the Act; Section 163.3167(2) of the Act; Section 163.3174(4) of the Act; Section 163.3181(2) of the Act; Section 163.3187(2) of the Act; Sections 163.3194(1) and (3) of the Act; Section 163.3194(2) of the Act; and Section 163.3244 of the Act.
Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act requires that all comprehensive plans contain a "future land use plan element." The future land use plan element must establish land use categories and must depict the designated land use category of all property within the local government's jurisdiction on a
land use map or map series. The future land use plan, including the land use map or map series, must be based upon "surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services, the need for
redevelopment. "
Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act requires that public services, such as sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water facilities be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
Whether the Amendment is consistent with Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act is discussed, infra. Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
The rules of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, which Petitioners have cited in their Amended Petition include the following:
a. Rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (8), Florida Administrative Code;
b. Rules 9J-5.006(2)(a)-(c), (3)(b)1, 3, 4, and 9, and (5)(h)-(j), Florida Administrative Code; and
c. Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b)4-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 9J-5.005, Florida Administrative Code, establishes "General Requirements" which all plans must meet. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within a comprehensive plan and its support documents" are required to be "based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element."
Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, repeats the requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act that the future land use element must be supported by data and analysis.
Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, provide the following guidance as to whether "data and analysis" exist:
. . . . 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. . . .
. . . .
(c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing
sources. . . . The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies. Where data augmentation, updates, or special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local government,
appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies. . . .
Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the provisions of all plans are to be internally consistent.
Finally, of relevance to this proceeding is Rule 9J- 5.005(8), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "procedural requirements" for the adoption of plans and plan amendments.
Rule 9J-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, contains requirements concerning the adoption of a future land use element for all plans.
Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the future land use element be based upon the following analyses:
An analysis of the availability of facilities and services as identified in the traffic circulation, transportation, 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;
An analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available:
Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in Paragraph (1)(b);
Soils;
Topography;
Natural resources; and
Historic resources;
An analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including:
The categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use,
The estimated gross acreage needed by category, and
A description of the methodology used;
. . . .
The consistency of the Amendment with this portion of Rule 9J- 5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code, is discussed, infra.
Rule 9J-5.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, sets out the goals, objectives, and policies which all future land use elements must contain. Petitioners have alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)1, 3, and 4, Florida Administrative Code. Those rule provisions require that objectives providing for the following must be contained in every future land use element:
(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:
1. Coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil
conditions, and the availability of facilities and services;
. . . .
Encourage the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community's character and future land uses;
Ensure the protection of natural resources and historic resources;
. . . .
The Amendment merely changes the land use classification of the Subject Property on the FLUM. It does nothing to modify the Goals, Objectives, or Policies of the FLUE, which has already been found to be "in compliance." The FLUE, therefore, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the portions of Rule 9J-5.006(b), Florida Administrative Code, cited by Petitioners merely because the FLUM is being modified by the Amendment. Petitioners have failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Finally, Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that plans and plan amendments be reviewed to ensure that they discourage "urban sprawl." Petitioners failed to prove that the Amendment allows urban sprawl. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 9J-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, contains requirements concerning the adoption of a sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater management, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element (hereinafter referred to as the "Sanitary Sewer Element") for all plans. Rule 9J-5.011(2), Florida Administrative Code, sets out the goals, objectives, and policies which all Sanitary Sewer Elements must contain.
Petitioners have alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b)4 and 5, Florida Administrative Code. Those rule provisions require that objectives providing for the following must be contained in every Sanitary Sewer Element:
(b) The element shall contain one or more specific objectives for each goal statement for each of the facilities or resources addressed in the element which address the requirements of Paragraph 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and which:
. . . .
Address conserving potable water resources; and
Address protecting the functions of natural groundwater recharge areas and natural drainage features. High recharge and prime recharge areas shall receive a level of protection commensurate with their significance to natural systems or their status as current or future sources of potable water.
As stated, supra, the Amendment merely changes the
land use classification of the Subject Property on the FLUM. It does nothing to modify the Goals, Objectives, or Policies of the Sanitary Sewer Element of the Plan, which has already been found to be "in compliance." The Sanitary Sewer Element of the Plan, therefore, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the portions of Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, cited by Petitioners merely because the FLUM is being modified by the Amendment. Petitioners have failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Plan Provisions.
Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part, the following:
The required elements and any optional elements shall be consistent with each other. All elements of a particular comprehensive plan shall follow the same general format (see "Format Requirements"). Where data are relevant to several elements, the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections.
Each map depicting future conditions must reflect goals, objectives, and policies within all elements and each such map must be contained within the comprehensive plan.
Petitioners have alleged that the Amendment violates this requirement.
In particular, Petitioners have argued that the Amendment is not consistent with Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, because of the inconsistencies of the Amendment with a number of provisions of the Plan. The provisions of the Plan which Petitioners have cited in their Amended Petition involve three general areas: (a) the need, or lack thereof, for residential property; (b) drainage facilities and potable water; and (c) the environmental sensitivity of the Subject Property. Petitioners have also alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the procedures for determining whether to adopt an amendment to the FLUM contained in
Section 1.11 of the Plan. The internal consistency of the Amendment and the Plan is discussed, infra.
Department Comments Concerning the TCRPC Regional Plan.
In paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition, Petitioners argue that the Department noted in its informal comments that the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the TCRPC regional plan providing "protection of potable water supplies."
Petitioners failed to offer any portion of the TCRPC regional plan into evidence. The evidence, therefore, failed to prove the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition. Other Issues Not Contained in the Amended Petition.
Petitioners have cited one statutory provision (Section 163.3174(4)(a) of the Act), one rule provision
(Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)13, Florida Administrative Code), and one provision of the Plan (Section 4-2.A.6(b)9 of the Plan) in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order which were not cited in the Amended Petition. Petitioners' reliance upon these provisions is rejected.
Petitioners cannot rely upon alleged inconsistencies which they have not put the County and Intervenor on notice that they must defend. See Hamilton v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 764 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); and
Lusskin v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 731 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Land Use Need Data and Analysis; Consistency with the Plan.
Petitioners have argued that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a) c) of the Act and that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because the Amendment is not based upon data and analysis as to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and projected population, the character of the Subject Property, the availability of public services, the need for redevelopment, nor the prime groundwater discharge function of the Subject Property.
Standing alone, the Amendment could be considered to be inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act and,
consequently, Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The data and analysis concerning the need for additional residential property in the County available indicate that there is an excessive amount of land in the County designated for residential use. Consequently, the Amendment, which has the effect of further increasing the amount of land designated for residential use, is unnecessary and lacks support in the data and analysis. The lack of need for additional residential property and, consequently, the lack of data and analysis to support an increase in residential property is documented in the Plan itself. More importantly, the County failed to have data and analysis which supported its adoption of the Amendment.
The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act concerning the need to support land use planning decisions with adequate data and analysis cannot, however, be read in a vacuum in this case. Those provisions must be considered in light of the provisions of the Plan which deal with the excess allocation of residential property in the County. Those provisions, which have been found to be "in compliance" by the Department, accept and ratify the excessive allocation of residential property in the County. The Plan, in effect, ignores the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Instead of complying with the requirements of the Act and the Rules requiring data and analysis to support the County's land use decisions concerning residential property, the Plan provides a methodology to deal with the excessive allocation of residential property in the County, including adoption of the ARDP System. That methodology requires that the County limit the actual development of the excessive property designated for future residential use to the amount of residential property actually needed, plus an additional
25 percent.
In light of the acceptance in the Plan of the excessive allocation of residential property in the County, whether data and analysis exist to support the Amendment's approval of additional residential property must be considered in light of the consistency of the Amendment with the Plan's methodology for dealing with residential property in the County.
Petitioners have alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with most of the pertinent provisions of the Plan dealing with the allocation of residential property in the County contrary to Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Petitioners have alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 4-2.A.6.c., 4-2.A.8., 4-4.A.1.a., 4-4.A.6. and 4-4.E.1. of the Plan.
Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan provides Policies concerning future residential land needs and vacant land. Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that there is excessive land designated for residential use allowed by the Plan but requires the adoption of the ARDP System in order to deal with that excess.
Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan also reports the over- allocation of vacant land designated for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy goes on to provide that the "current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is" and allows the development of land designated for future development as residential property to 125 percent of what is actually supported by data and analysis.
The Policies of the Plan, while accepting the excessive designation of residential property, establishes a methodology for limiting the development of that property. The methodology does not, however, limit the amount of land which may be designated as residential; it only ensures that the existing excessive residential property allowed by the Plan is developed in a reasonable way. Presumably, by following the ARDP System, the excess of residential property allowed under the Plan will eventually be eliminated.
What the Plan does not prevent or deal with is the impact of an increase in the already existing supply of
excessive residential property. ARDP should eventually reduce the excessive supply of residential land to a level consistent with need. If the County continues to increase the amount of land designated for residential without considering data and analysis, however, it will take more time for ARDP to work, if at all.
Until the existing excess of residential property designated under the Plan is reduced to a level where future residential land use designations are supported by data and analysis, the data and analysis do not support a further increase in residential property.
The Amendment, by authorizing the designation of more land for future residential development does not carry out the Plan's policies designed to alleviate the excessive property available for residential development in the County. The Amendment may, therefore, be inconsistent with Sections 4- 2.A.6.c., and 4-2.A.8. of the Plan. Whether it is, however, depends upon a consideration of Section 1.11 of the Plan, which is discussed, infra.
The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the other provisions of the Plan dealing with the land use decision of the County concerning the Subject Property cited by Petitioners:
Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991. In fact, the County complied with this Policy. An amendment to the FLUM such as the one involved in this case has no relation whatsoever to this Policy. The evidence, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this provision of the Plan.
Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that merely requires that the County to revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. An amendment to the FLUM has no relation whatsoever to this Policy. The evidence, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence
failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation and vacant land. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan.
The Appropriateness of a FLUM Amendment Pursuant to Section 1.11 of the Plan.
Section 1.11 of the Plan requires that amendments to the FLUM may be approved if one of the four specified "items" is found to be applicable. The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section
1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment. The evidence also proved that the second item listed in Section
1.11.C.2. of the Plan does not apply. Finally, the evidence proved that the third item does apply:
- That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation.
The determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the
type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property:
Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The later two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property.
In light of the foregoing conclusion, Section 1.11 of the Plan contemplates that a change in the land use classification for the Subject Property is necessary and appropriate. This conclusion, however, must be balanced with the inconsistency of the Amendment with the provisions of the Plan dealing with the lack of need for residential property.
I. Balancing the Plan's Provisions.
As stated, supra, the determination of whether a plan amendment is "in compliance" must be based upon a consideration of the comprehensive plan in its entirety, including any amendments thereto. Department of Community Affairs v. Lee County, 12 FALR 3755 (Fla. Admin. Comm. 1990).
Carrying out this determination in this case is a difficult one. On the one hand, the Amendment provides for an increase in residential property without data and analysis to support the increase. On the other hand, due to the current ownership of the Subject Property, Section 1.11 contemplates that a change in the land use designation of the property is appropriate.
In balancing these two competing requirements, the appropriate solution is to conclude that the Amendment, as adopted, is inconsistent with the Plan provisions dealing with the need for residential property and, consequently, Rule 9J- 5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, Section 163.3177(6)(a) of the Act, and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code.
The foregoing conclusion is based upon the fact that a less intense use of the property is available: estate density of one unit per acre. The Amendment allows a density of five units per acre. Allowing a lesser density by adopting a density of one unit per acre causes the least conflict between the provisions of the Plan dealing with residential need and Section
1.11 of the Plan. Having failed to authorize the lowest density reasonably possible, the County's Amendment is not in compliance.
Consistency with Provisions Dealing with Potable Water and Water Supply.
Petitioners have contended that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (c) of the Act because the Amendment does not "give consideration to prime groundwater recharge areas." The evidence failed to support this allegation.
The evidence proved that development of the Subject Property will not adversely impact the groundwater recharge capacities of the Subject Property due to regulatory requirements of the County and the South Florida Water Management District.
The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(a) and (c) of the Act due to the impact of the Amendment on groundwater recharge.
Petitioners also contended that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(2)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, because data and analysis concerning potable water and groundwater recharge does not support the Amendment. The evidence failed to support this argument.
The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a groundwater recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County
and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of groundwater in and around the Subject Property as a result of development.
Petitioners have also argued that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 9-4.A.2.a. and b., 9-4.A.9.a., and 11-4.A.5. of the Plan.
Sections 9-4.A.2.a. and b. of the Plan deal with protection of wellfields. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Amendment will have a negative impact on wellfields and, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with these provisions of the Plan.
Section 9-4.A.9. of the Plan requires a consideration of the impact on species and habitat. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this provision of the plan.
Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan required the County to establish programs to conserve and protect potable water resources within the County. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with this provision of the Plan.
Consistency with Provisions Dealing with Drainage Facilities.
Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act. This
provision requires that public services, such as sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water facilities must be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
The existence of drainage facilities is not required until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Amendment merely makes a change in the land use designation of the Subject Property on the FLUM. The availability of drainage facilities at the time the Amendment is adopted is not relevant to a determination of whether the Amendment is consistent with Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Act.
Petitioners have also alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 13-4.A.1. and 2., and 13-4.A.2.d.-g. of the Plan. Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The provisions cited by Petitioners establish Objectives and Policies to carry out this Element.
The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, cited by Petitioners recognize the significance of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels in the County.
The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Objectives and Policies of Chapter 13 of the Plan relied upon by Petitioners.
Consistency with Provisions Dealing with Environmentally Sensitive Habitat and Endangered Species.
While the Amendment will allow the development of the Subject Property, which will ultimately negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals, development of the Subject Property as Low Density Residential or General Institutional will have the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat.
The evidence presented in this case failed to prove, therefore, that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged by Petitioners. More to the point, Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, while mentioning environmental concerns, does so in the context of dealing with "urban sprawl." The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes urban sprawl.
Petitioners have also suggested that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 8-4.A.2.a. of the Plan because of the impact of the Amendment on the environmental features of the Subject Property. This Policy is part of the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The Subject Property is not in an area
subject to this Element. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 8-4.A.2.a. of the Plan.
Public Participation.
Finally, Petitioners have contended that the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(8), Florida Administrative Code. This Rule establishes procedural requirements for the adoption of plans and plan amendments. The evidence failed to prove that the adoption of the Amendment was contrary to any relevant provision of this Rule.
Final Order Authority.
Section 163.3244 of the Act, in allowing a challenge to the Amendment provides that the challenge is to be filed in accordance with Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act. Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act simply provides where the petition is to be filed and establishes the burden of proof.
Section 163.3187(3)(b) of the Act provides the manner in which decisions on petitions filed pursuant to Section 163.3187(3)(a) of the Act are to be reviewed:
If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found not in compliance, the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found in compliance, the administrative
law judge shall submit the recommended order to the state planning agency.
Although Section 163.3244 of the Act does not specifically refer to Section 163.3187(3)(b) of the Act, the only reasonable interpretation of Section 163.3244 of the Act with regard to this issue is that the legislature intended that the provisions of Section 163.3187(3)(b) of the Act apply.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Commission enter a final order finding that the Amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197
Stuart, Florida 34995
David A. Acton
Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administration Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-1197
Raymond W. Royce, Esquire Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP
625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-3208
Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Barbara Leighty, Clerk
Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor
The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
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 should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 28, 2001 | Order on Administration Commission Jurisdiction and Forwarding Proceeding filed with the Administration Commission. |
| May 17, 2001 | Petitioners` Answer to Respondent`s Jurisdiction and Intervenor`s Briefs on Administration Commission Jurisdiction filed with the Administration Commission. |
| May 01, 2001 | Order Addressing Answer Briefs filed. |
| Apr. 26, 2001 | Hobe Sound Land Companny, LTD.`s Brief on Administration Commisison Jurisdiction filed. |
| Mar. 28, 2001 | Petitioners` Response to Intervenor`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 27, 2001 | Intervenor Hobe Sound Land Company, LTD`s Responses to Petitioners` Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 26, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Responses to Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 23, 2001 | Intervenor Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd.`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 19, 2001 | Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 15, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 06, 2001 | Notice of Prohibited Parties filed by D. Arduin |
| Feb. 27, 2001 | Recommended Order issued (hearing held July 6th and 7th, September 26th, and October 4th, 2000) CASE CLOSED. |
| Feb. 27, 2001 | Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out. |
| Feb. 26, 2001 | Exhibits 6 and 7 filed by C. Baris |
| Feb. 05, 2001 | Petitioner`s Motion to Strike Martin County`s Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 02, 2001 | Exhibits Filed at Hearing P-1,2, and 3., Joint 8,9,and 10 filed. |
| Jan. 31, 2001 | Appendix to Petitioners` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 31, 2001 | Petitioners` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 31, 2001 | Notice of Filing Petitioners` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 31, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 30, 2001 | Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, LTD.`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed by via facsimile). |
| Jan. 30, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 30, 2001 | Notice of Filing Respondent Martin County`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 30, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Leave to File Proposed Recommended Order out of Time by One Day (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 29, 2001 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 24, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 16, 2001 | Order Granting Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Extension of Time issued. |
| Jan. 12, 2001 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 05, 2001 | Order Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders issued. |
| Jan. 04, 2001 | (Proposed) Order Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 04, 2001 | (Joint) Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 07, 2000 | Transcript (Volume 1 through 7) filed. |
| Oct. 04, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames. |
| Sep. 29, 2000 | Ltr. to Judge L. Sartin from D. Acton In re: confirmation of room reservation (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 27, 2000 | Notice of Continuation of Hearing issued. (hearing set for October 4, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL, amended as to date). |
| Sep. 25, 2000 | Letter to Parties from David Acton (RE: notice of cancellation of hearing, until Tuesday 9/26/00 at 9:00am) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 19, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Filing Original Return of Service . (filed via facsimile) |
| Jul. 18, 2000 | Notice of Continuation of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 09/25-26/00:9:00 A.M.:Stuart) |
| Jul. 06, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames. |
| Jul. 05, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile) |
| Jul. 03, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Response to Plaintiffs` Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile) |
| Jun. 20, 2000 | Order Denying Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order sent out. |
| Jun. 19, 2000 | Notice of Taking Deposition-M. Hurchalla; Notice of Serving Intervenor`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners filed. |
| Jun. 09, 2000 | Petitioners` Response to Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 02, 2000 | Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Respondent Martin County (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 02, 2000 | Request for Production to Martin County (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 02, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| May 04, 2000 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for July 6 and 7, 2000; 9:30 a.m.; Stuart, FL) |
| Apr. 24, 2000 | Letter to R. Royce from V. Sherlock Re: Misrepresentation in letter; Letter to R. Royce from V. Sherlock Re: Copy of letter to Judge Sartin filed. |
| Apr. 21, 2000 | Letter to Judge Sartin from C. Baris Re: Response to correspondence dated April 4, 2000 filed. |
| Apr. 06, 2000 | Letter to Judge Sartin from R. Royce Re: Hearing dates filed. |
| Feb. 24, 2000 | (Petitioners) Status Report (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 24, 2000 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition; Subpoena Tecum for Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 17, 2000 | Order Denying Motion for Protective Order sent out. |
| Feb. 10, 2000 | Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance sent out. (Parties to advise status by February 28, 2000.) |
| Feb. 09, 2000 | Letter to Judge Sartin from D. Acton Re: Hearing Dates filed. |
| Feb. 04, 2000 | Intervenor Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd.`s Motion for Continuance of Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 02, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Unopposed Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 01, 2000 | Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet to Clerk from G. Sherlock Re: Request for subpoenas (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 01, 2000 | Petitioners` Reply to Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 01, 2000 | (V. Sherlock) Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 28, 2000 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 24, 2000 | Order sent out. (ruling on motions) |
| Jan. 24, 2000 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 24, 2000 | (Petitioner) Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 07, 2000 | Respondent`s Notice of Taking Deposition of Mary A. Merrill (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 27, 1999 | Petitioners` Response to Respondent Martin County` Motion to Dismiss or Strike (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 27, 1999 | Petitioners` Response to Respondent`s Motion to Strike Impertinent Material; Petitioners` Response to Respondent`s Motion for More Definite Statement (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 21, 1999 | Respondent`s Notice of Propounding First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Petitioner, Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc.; Respondent Martin County`s First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Petitioner, Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1999 | Respondent`s First Request for Production by Petitioner Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1999 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion to Strike Impertinent Material; Respondent Martin County`s Motion for More Definite Statement filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1999 | Respondent Martin County`s Motion to Dismiss or Strike filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1999 | Order Granting Intervention sent out. (Hobe Sound Land Company) |
| Dec. 06, 1999 | Respondent Martin County`s Response to Petition to Intervene (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 02, 1999 | (Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd.) Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1999 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for February 8 and 9, 2000; 9:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL) |
| Nov. 10, 1999 | Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 02, 1999 | Initial Order issued. |
| Oct. 28, 1999 | Petition for Administrative Hearing; (Exhibit A-B) (filed via facsimile). |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 27, 2001 | Recommended Order | Petitioners proved that land use map reclassification from institutional to residential use was not in compliance as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. |
