STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1856TL
)
ORANGE COUNTY and CITY OF )
APOPKA, )
)
Respondents, )
)
GEORGE and NANCY McCLURE, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on March 22 through March 24, 1982, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Gary
P. Sams and George Meros, Jr., Tallahassee, Florida, and Harry A. Evertz and Douglas Bagge, St. Petersburg, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, Florida Power Corporation; Kaye Collie, Orlando, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Orange County, Florida; Raymond A. McLeod, Apopka, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, City of Apopka; and Roger Kelly, Orlando, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Intervenors, George and Nancy McClure.
These matters are consolidated appeals to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("LWAC") that were initiated in accordance with Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, by Florida Power Corporation ("FPC"). FPC had filed applications for development approval with Orange County, Florida, and the City of Apopka, Florida. The applications related to an electrical power transmission line being proposed by FPC which would run through the jurisdictional boundaries of Orange County and the City of Apopka. By Orders dated December 22, 1980, and May 7, 1981, Orange County denied the application. FPC thereafter filed a Petition and Notice of Appeal with the LWAC. By Order rendered June 17, 1981, the City of Apopka denied the application for development approval. FPC filed a Petition and Notice of Appeal from that Order with the LWAC.
On July 22, 1981, the LWAC forwarded the Orange County appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer and the scheduling of a hearing. The City of Apopka appeal was forwarded to the Division on August 17, 1981. Orange County filed a Motion in Opposition to the Petition and FPC filed a Motion to Consolidate the two proceedings. The Motion in Opposition was denied and the Motion to Consolidate was granted by Order entered September 18, 1981.
The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted commencing on January 11, 1982. FPC filed a Motion to Amend its Petition which was granted by Order entered November 13, 1981. George McClure filed a Motion to Intervene in the proceeding. The Motion to Intervene was granted by Order entered December 23, 1981. FPC filed a Request for Continuance of the hearing on December 29, 1981. All parties concurred in the motion and the hearing was rescheduled to be conducted as set out above. A Motion to Intervene was filed on behalf of Nancy McClure and granted by Order entered March 17, 1982. The parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation which clearly identified the issues. The Prehearing Stipulation was received in evidence at the final hearing as Hearing Officer's exhibit Number 1.
At the final hearing the following witnesses testified on behalf of FPC: Earl R. Greene, Jr., FPC's Manager of Transmission and Distribution Planning; Gustave W. Schaefer, FPC's Licensing Administrator; Harry L. Conner, a Project Engineer employed by FPC; Carlos J. Marin, a Project Planner and Project Architect employed with a private consulting firm; David
K. Voigts, FPC's Manager of Environmental Affairs; Cliff Guillet, the Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council; George Koszulinski, the Manager of Project Permitting for a private development company; Jim Harp, the Assistant Chief Engineer of Florida Gas Transmission Company; Harry E. Brown, a senior engineer employed in FPC's Transmission Standards Section; Edwin L. Cartensen, a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Radiation Biology and Bio-Physics at the University of Rochester; and Morton W. Miller, an Associate Professor of Radiation Biology and Bio-Physics at the University of Rochester. Orange County called the following witnesses:
Hugh M. Lokey, the Orange County Engineer; Alice R. Gilmartin, a Senior Planner employed in the Orange County Planning Department; and Tracey Watson, the Planning Director for Orange County. The City of Apopka called James A. Sellen, a partner in a planning consulting firm as its only witness. One session of the hearing was devoted to testimony and presentations from members of the public at large who were not parties to this proceeding. The session was attended by approximately ninety to one hundred people. Forty members of the public at large testified. The names and addresses of these persons are set out in the
transcript of the hearing and are on forms that the witnesses filled out which have been received in evidence as Hearing Officer's exhibit Number 2.
Hearing Officer's exhibits 1 and 2, FPC exhibits 1 through
65 and 69 through 74, and public exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. There were no exhibits marked or offered as FPC exhibits 66, 67 and 68. Subsequent to the hearing, FPC filed a Motion for Official Recognition, requesting that a section of the City of Apopka's Zoning Ordinance relating to public notice be received into evidence as FPC exhibit Number 75. The other parties to this proceeding have filed nothing in opposition to the motion, and have not objected to receipt of the exhibit. The Motion for Official Recognition is therefore granted; the Ordinance Provision has been marked as FPC exhibit Number 75 and is hereby received into evidence.
All of the parties have submitted posthearing legal memoranda. Only FPC has submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings upon the proposed findings and conclusions are set out in Appendix III to this Recommended Order. The issues in this proceeding are whether the orders of Orange County and the City of Apopka denying the applications for development approval submitted by FPC should be affirmed or reversed and, if reversed, whether the development orders should be approved with amendments, and what, if any, conditions should be imposed upon approval of the development orders.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Parties and History of Proceeding
FPC is an electrical utility company supplying power to customers in portions of Orange, Lake, Seminole and other Florida counties. FPC is proposing to construct a 230 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line from FPC's "Piedmont" substation located in Orange County to FPC's "Sorrento" substation located in Lake County, Florida. The proposed transmission line would run through portions of Orange County and the City of Apopka. Orange County and the City of Apopka denied applications for development approval for the portions of the transmission line that extend through their borders. Orange County and the City of Apopka have appeared in this proceeding in support of their orders denying the applications for development approval and in opposition to FPC's petition.
The Intervenors, George McClure and Nancy McClure, own property on Sandpiper Road in Orange County, Florida. Their property is adjacent to one of the transmission line routes proposed by FPC.
On or about July 11, 1980 FPC submitted its initial applications for development approval for the Piedmont-Sorrento transmission line to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. The Council heard formal presentations and conducted a public hearing. On April 25, 1980, the Planning Council recommended approval of the application with certain modifications. The proposed transmission line would traverse the boundaries of Orange County, Seminole County, Lake County, and. the City of Apopka. FPC filed applications for development approval in each. On June 3, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County approved the application. On June 10, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County approved the application. On December 22, 1980, Orange County denied the application for development approval, and suggested three alternative partial modifications of the proposed route. FPC filed a modified application utilizing one of these proposed routes. On May 7, 1981, Orange County rejected the alternative route and directed FPC to avoid intrusion into any residential areas. The City of Apopka entered an order denying the application for development approval on June 17, 1981, and suggested the same route modifications that had been suggested by Orange County in its original order denying FPC's application. FPC filed appeals from the adverse orders of Orange County and the City of Apopka to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission and this proceeding ensued.
Need for Proposed Transmission Line
Increasing population and a resulting increase in demand for electric power that has occurred in Orange and Lake Counties has resulted in a need to construct a 230 kV transmission line between FPC's Piedmont Substation which is located in Orange County near to Apopka, Florida; and FPC's Sorrento Substation which will be constructed in Lake County, Florida, near to the cities of Eustis, Tavares, and Mt. Dora. Electrical power is presently provided to the Eustis, Tavares and Mt. Dora region of Lake County and the Zellwood, Plymouth region of Orange County by a 69 kV transmission line. Increased population in these regions has resulted in an increased demand for electric power, and the
69 kV line is no longer adequate to provide power to the region. During peak use periods, the 69 kV line operates at 96 to 98 percent of its capacity, which is over industry standards. There have been three outages in the region as a result of the inadequacy of the 69 kv line. One of these occurred in April, 1980, in Eustis and lasted from 45 minutes to more than two hours. A second occurred in December, 1980, in Umatilla and lasted from 48 to 52 minutes. A low voltage problem occurred in December, 1981, and lasted for several hours. Outages and low voltage episodes are likely to recur unless the system is
upgraded. By the winter of 1983-84, low voltage can be expected to occur in the area whether or not there are any failures in the power distribution system.
In addition to this short-term need, there is a long- range need for additional power in the Orange County area. In order to assure that adequate power is provided to Orange County over the next decade, it is necessary to establish a connection between Orange County and FPC's outlying generation facilities in Silver Springs and Crystal River. The proposed 230 kV transmission line between Piedmont and Sorrento would form an integral part of that system assuring adequate and reliable power for Orange County.
Construction of a 230 kV transmission line from Piedmont to Sorrento is the most effective method in terms of operation and cost for meeting present electric power needs in Lake County and northern Orange County. Constructing the line appears to be the only method for meeting both these immediate power needs and longer-range power needs throughout Orange County.
One alternative to construction of a 230 kV line would be to upgrade the present 69 kV line which serves the region. It appears that such an upgrading would resolve present power shortages for only a year or two, after which a 230 kV power source would be needed. Furthermore, upgrading the 69 kV line would do nothing to meet the longer-range needs of Orange County. In addition, since the present system is taxed to near capacity, power shortages would be inevitable during the time that the 69 kV transmission line was being upgraded.
It has been suggested that the 230 kV transmission line could be constructed along the route of the present 69 kV line. This alternative is not feasible from a reliability perspective. Once the 230 kV line is in place, the present 69 kV line would serve as a backup source of 0 Running the two lines along the same route would mean that a storm or other event creating an outage on one line would be likely to create an outage on the other. If the two lines are run along the same route, there is no significance in having a backup source of power.
There are substations other than the Piedmont Substation from which power could be provided to the Sorrento Substation. Power sources to the north or the east of the Sorrento Substation do not present viable alternatives to the Piedmont Substation because they are considerably farther from the Sorrento Substation, thus increasing the cost of providing a transmission line to Sorrento, and because they would not serve the long-range function of the Piedmont-Sorrento line to provide additional power to Orange County. One of these power sources is located in
Silver Springs, Florida. It is approximately three times farther from Sorrento than is Piedmont, and would increase the cost of the transmission line by approximately 1.5 million dollars.
Providing power to Sorrento from substations at Springlake or Wekiwa would also be more expensive, not meet the long-range needs in Orange County, and would necessitate routing the transmission line either adjacent to existing lines, or so that they would cross existing lines thus decreasing the reliability of the system. It was suggested during the public testimony that power could be served to the Sorrento Substation from the DeBary Substation located northeast of Orange County. Existing transmission lines which run from the DeBary Substation would create a potentially dangerous overload situation if DeBary were connected to Sorrento. Furthermore, this routing would not serve the longer-range needs of Orange County. It was suggested during the public testimony that Sorrento could be provided power from a substation operated by the Sumter Electric Cooperative. This alternative is not a viable solution because the suggested substation is a distribution station, not a transmission station, and is not capable of providing power. Even if it could, the proposal would not meet the longer-range needs of Orange County.
Description of Proposed Transmission Line and Alternatives
The proposed Piedmont to Sorrento transmission line would be approximately fifteen miles long. The proposed route traverses rural and residential areas. FPC proposes to use wooden "H" frame structures through rural areas. These structures will require approximately 100 feet of lateral right- of-way. Through residential areas, FPC proposes to use single concrete or steel poles designed to support 3 transmission lines. The poles will be located on public rights-of-way in order to minimize costs by eliminating the need to acquire right-of-way. Tree cutting rights would need to be procured in the same locations. The poles would be approximately 90 to 100 feet tall. In areas where electric power distribution lines (lines which carry power from a substation to consumers) are also present, the transmission line poles would also be used to hang the distribution lines with smaller wood distribution poles located between the transmission line poles. The bottom base of a steel or concrete transmission pole would be 24 to 30 inches in diameter as contrasted to distribution poles which have a diameter at their base of from 16 to 18 inches. The lowest line or conductor along the-transmission line would be an average of approximately 50 to 55 feet above ground, and a minimum of 45 feet above ground. Guy lines would be needed to support poles in places where the line either veers or turns a corner. Alternatively, poles of very large diameter, as much as eight feet at the base, would need to be utilized. The system is being designed to withstand winds in excess of 120 miles per hour.
Only approximately three and one-half miles of the total proposed transmission line route is in dispute. This is a portion of northern Orange County, including a portion of the City of Apopka. It is primarily a residential area. FPC attempted to develop a route which would not cross any residential areas. It does not appear that any such route exists. Thus, while the disputed area could be avoided, that avoidance would increase the cost of the transmission line by increasing its length, and would have an impact upon residential areas other than those which have become the subject matter of this proceeding.
Several members of the public who testified suggested that the power line be laid underground. This alternative appears cost-prohibitive. The total cost of the Piedmont to Sorrento transmission line proposed by FPC would be approximately
4.5 million dollars. The portion of the line which runs through the disputed area would constitute approximately one million dollars of that amount. Running lines underground through the disputed area would cost approximately eleven million dollars, thus increasing the total cost of the project by more than three times and cost of the line through the disputed area by more than ten times. Furthermore, even an underground system would be somewhat disruptive of the residential areas. Oil would need to be pumped through the pipes and pumping stations would be required for that purpose. Other underground pipes and systems located in the area could be severely impacted, and the impact of construction of an underground line would be severe.
Alternative Routes through Disputed Area
FPC has proposed five alternative routes for the disputed portion of the Piedmont-Sorrento transmission line which runs through northern Orange County and the City of Apopka. The first alternative ("Thompson-Sandpiper route") would run from the Piedmont Substation west along State Road 436 to the Thompson Road intersection. The line would then run north along Thompson Road to the intersection with Sandpiper Road, then west along Sandpiper Road to the intersection with State Road 435, then north along State Road 435. This is the route proposed by FPC in its original applications filed with Orange County and the City of Apopka.
The second alternative route ("gas line route") would run along State Road 436 to the intersection with Thompson Road, north along Thompson Road to the intersection with Votaw Road, then west along Votaw Road to the intersection with the Florida Gas pipeline. The electric transmission line would then run along the pipeline easement, paralleling the pipeline to the
point where it intersects with Ustler Road, then north along Ustler Road to the intersection with Welch Road. The transmission line would then run west along Welch Road to the intersection with State Road 435, then north along State Road
435. This is the route proposed by FPC in its amended application filed with Orange County.
The third alternative route ("Thompson-Welch route") would run west along State Road 436 to the intersection with Thompson Road, north along Thompson Road to the intersection with Welch Road, west along Welch Road to the intersection with State Road 435, then north along State Road 435.
The fourth alternative route ("Piedmont-Welch route") would run along State Road 436 to the intersection with Piedmont- Wekiwa Road. The line would then run north along Piedmont-Wekiwa to the intersection with Welch Road, then west along Welch Road to the intersection with State Road 435, then north along State Road 435.
The fifth alternative route ("State Park route") would run west along State Road 436 to the intersection with Piedmont- Wekiwa Road then north along Piedmont-Wekiwa into Wekiwa Springs State Park. The line would follow an old railroad grade through the park to the intersection with Poncan Road, then would run along Poncan Road to State Road 435, then north along State Road 435.
The five alternative routes proposed by FPC are clearly depicted on a large color-coded aerial photograph which was received into evidence at the hearing as FPC exhibit Number 14, and on smaller maps which were received into evidence as FPC exhibits 39 through 43. Copies of exhibits 39 through 43 are attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix I.
All of the routes proposed by FPC are feasible from an engineering standpoint. The only route which offers any significant adverse regional impact is the State Park route. Each of the proposed routes would run through residential areas. Running a transmission line through residential areas would have an adverse impact upon the area. While no competent testimony was offered to establish the extent to which placing the transmission lines in residential area might reduce property values, it is self-evident that the only effect the lines could have on property values would be adverse. The proposed routes which would most severely impact residential areas are Alternative 1 (Thompson-Sandpiper) , Alternative 3 (Thompson- Welch) and Alternative 2 (gas line) . Thompson Road is a collector street" which feeds into State Road 436. Older homes are located along Thompson Road, especially south of Sandpiper
Road. These homes were constructed at a time when setback requirements were less stringent than at present, and the homes are located within twenty to twenty-five feet from the Thompson Road right-of-way. There are more homes located along Thompson Road south of Sandpiper Road than along any other portion of the five alternative routes. Homes along Thompson Road north of Sandpiper Road are typically set farther back from Thompson Road, but nonetheless typically face Thompson Road. There are numerous residences along Sandpiper Road. While these residences are typically set back farther from the road than those along Thompson Road south of Sandpiper, they are oriented toward Sandpiper Road. The Thompson-Sandpiper and Thompson-Welch routes would have the most severe residential impacts of any of the alternatives, especially in those areas along Thompson Road south of Sandpiper Road. The gas line route would have the same impact upon residences located along Thompson Road south of Votaw Road. In addition, the portion of the line which runs along Votaw Road would traverse an area where residences are very close to the road right-of-way, within thirty feet. There are several homes which are located in close proximity to the gas line and which would be adversely impacted in esthetic sense by location of the transmission line along the gas line easement.
Alternative routes 4 (Piedmont-Welch) and 5 (State Park) also traverse residential areas, however, the adverse impact upon these residential areas would be less than that of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Piedmont-Wekiwa Road is an arterial road which feeds into State Road 436. The portion of Piedmont- Wekiwa Road south of Votaw Road has been developed in the same manner, although less profoundly, as areas along Thompson Road south of Sandpiper Road. There are numerous residences south of Votaw which face Piedmont-Wekiwa Road, and are located within twenty-five feet of the road right-of-way. North of Votaw Road, however, most of the residences have been constructed in subdivisions. Rather than fronting on Piedmont-Wekiwa Road, these residences are oriented toward interior roads which feed into Piedmont-Wekiwa Road While the transmission line would be visible from many of these residences, the effect would be less visually displeasing than the effect from residences which are located directly adjacent to the transmission line. Development along the northern portion of Piedmont-Wekiwa Road and along Welch Road has not been profound. There are scattered residences which are oriented toward the roads, but they are, with some exceptions, set further back from the road than the older residences south of Votaw Road. If the State Park route were followed, the portion of the line which runs through the state Park would have no impact upon residences. As the line leaves the State Park to the north, however, and runs along Poncan Road, there would be residential impacts similar to those along Welch Road.
The proposed State Park route would have the most significant adverse regional impact of any of the proposed routes. Wekiwa Springs State Park has been set aside as an area to be maintained in basically its natural condition. It is used by bikers and by persons throughout the region who are interested in observing this area of Florida as it existed in its natural condition. A portion of the Florida Trail, a hiking trail, runs through the park. From fifteen to twenty acres of vegetation would need to be cleared in order to run the transmission line through the State Park. The clearing would cause many animal species, including deer, quail, gopher turtles, indigo snakes and scrub jays, to relocate. Gopher turtles, indigo snakes and scrub jays are "threatened species" which find habitat within the park.
From an engineering perspective each of the proposed routes is feasible, and presents no significant impediments. The FPC engineer who testified stated a preference to avoid Piedmont- Wekiwa Road and Welch Road, because of the possibilities that these roads might eventually be widened. There are no present plans to widen these roads, however, and they are not scheduled for widening in any current five-year plan of Orange County. While some landowners along the two roads have expressed an interest in improving them, there has been no movement toward accomplishing that. The FPC engineer was concerned that if the roads are improved, the transmission line would need to be moved to make room for the improvements. Provision can be made along Piedmont-Wekiwa Road to construct poles in such a manner that they can be moved. Poles can be located along the northern edge of Welch Road, eliminating almost any possibility that they would need to be moved. The engineer's concerns are not profound.
On balance, the most preferred alternative route is Alternative 4, the Piedmont-Welch route. From an engineering standpoint the route is as viable as any of the alternatives. Using the route would result in no significant adverse regional impacts. Residences along Piedmont-Wekiwa Road and Welch Road would be adversely affected by location of the transmission line along the route, however, fewer residences would be impacted less profoundly than would be the case with routes following Thompson Road, Votaw Road, and Sandpiper Road.
The second most preferred route would be Alternative 2, the gas line route. This route is feasible from an engineering perspective, and would result in no significant adverse regional impacts. Fewer residences would be affected with this route than with either the Thompson-Sandpiper or Thompson-Welch routes. Alternatives 1 (Thompson-Sandpiper) and 2 (Thompson-Welch) are feasible from an engineering perspective, but offer the most severe impacts upon residential areas.
The State Park route is the least preferred alternative because it does little to minimize impacts upon residential areas, and adversely impacts the region from an environmental and natural resources perspective.
Potential Adverse Impacts upon Residential Areas
There is no inherent inconsistency in locating a 230 kV transmission line in a residential area. Local ordinances in Orange County and the City of Apopka do not prohibit the placing of transmission lines in residential areas. Applicable building codes and electrical safety codes contain no such prohibition. While there is an obvious esthetic problem, it is the same sort of problem that is presented by the location of electrical distribution lines in residential areas. There are 230 kV transmission lines located in numerous residential areas in Florida, including in Orange County. The adverse esthetic factor can be minimized by using poles with the broadest possible span, by minimizing the use of guy wires, and by utilizing poles with "earthtone" colors.
Members of the public who testified expressed concerns about the health impact of locating electrical transmission lines in such close proximity to people's homes. Considerable research has been conducted regarding the impact of electric and magnetic fields upon living organisms. The research reveals that there is no detectable impact from fields of a magnitude such as will result from the transmission lines proposed by FPC.
Electrical power transmission lines generate electric fields and magnetic fields. The electric field results from voltage in a conductor or wire. The electric field's strength is a function of voltage in the wire and distance from the wire.
The higher the voltage in the wire, the higher the electric field strength. The further one gets from the wire, the lower the electric field strength. The commonly used unit for measuring electric field strength is kilovolts per meter (kV/m) . A magnetic field is produced around a transmission wire if current flows through the wire. The strength of the magnetic field is a function of current and distance from the wire. The unit of measure is the "gauss".
The electric field strength produced by a transmission line such as proposed by FPC in the residential communities would be approximately .75 kV/m directly under the wire ten feet above ground. Even thirty feet above ground directly under the wire, the highest reading would be likely to be less than 1 kV/m. The lowest wire in residential areas is proposed to be approximately
40 feet above ground. Even if the wire were only 25 feet above
ground, the electric field strength would not be likely to exceed
1.5 kV/m. If electric distribution lines were attached to the same poles as the transmission line, so that they ran beneath the transmission line, the electric field strength would be reduced because much of the field would be dispersed by the distribution lines.
Assuming that the electric field strength would be on the order of 1 kV/m, which is a safe assumption, the electric field would have no measurable impact upon residents. Biologic organisms are good conducting objects. They tend to draw an electric field to them. For example, the electric field around a person's head is likely to be 10 to 20 times higher than the field in that space before the person entered it. Electric field strengths inside of conducting objects, however, are very much less than the fields outside the objects. The electric field strength inside an organism will be less than the strength outside before the organism entered the field by a factor of one hundred thousand. Thus, if the electric field strength is 1 kV/m, the field strength inside an organism that enters the field would be 1/100,000 of that. The electric field strength inside of a person standing directly under the transmission line proposed by FPC would be approximately 1/100,000 kV/m or 1/100 V/m. Research indicates that it would require a minimum of 10 V/m to cause any excitation or observable impact upon cells of living organisms. An electric field strength such as would result from FPC's proposed transmission line has no measurable impact whatever upon cells or organisms. It has been demonstrated that there are no measurable impacts resulting from field strengths very much greater than would result from FPC's proposed transmission lines. One study was conducted respecting the effects on persons who resided for long periods of time in an area where the electric field strength was approximately 50 times greater than that which would result from these proposed lines. No effect was observed.
As to magnetic fields, the magnetic field strength resulting from a line such as that proposed by FPC, ten feet above ground directly under the wire, would be likely to be in the area of .0056 gauss. Ten meters above ground directly under the wire, the magnetic field strength might reach .0176 gauss. If distribution lines underlaid the transmission lines, the magnetic field strength would be increased because the magnetic field generated by distribution lines is typically greater at ground level than that generated by transmission lines. Such readings are insignificant. Research indicates that to produce any measurable affect whatever upon a mammal, a magnetic field would need to have a strength of approximately 100 gauss. The magnetic field strength which results from electric power lines is far too weak to have any impact.
Several members of the public at large expressed concern about possible effects of the transmission line on television and radio reception. Transmission lines such as proposed by FPC to run through the residential areas have an impact upon broadcast reception which results primarily from the presence of the structures themselves. The interference is the same sort of interference that results from any other structures that might interfere with radio or television signals. It appears that problems that might develop with television or radio reception as a result of the transmission poles and lines can be corrected either by installing a proper antenna or by properly orienting existing antennas. It does not appear that any reception difficulties would require more than a reorientation of antennas by which residents presently receive television and radio signals. FPC has offered to assist any residents who experience reception difficulties by assisting in the proper orientation of antennas and, if necessary, by purchasing appropriate antennas.
Several members of the public expressed particular concern about potential hazards that would result from placing the transmission line along the present gas pipeline easement. Gas pipelines and electric transmission lines have been placed so that they run along the same easement in other locations without incident. The electric field generated by the transmission lines would not be sufficient to cause any ignition of gas that might leak from the pipe. While the fears are understandable, it does not appear that they have a basis in fact.
Concern was expressed by members of the public as to whether it would be possible for residents located in close proximity to the transmission line to safely utilize swimming pools. Electric safety codes require that swimming pools not be placed directly under electric power transmission lines. Since the line proposed by FPC would run along existing public- easements, it does not appear that a swimming pool could possibly be located directly beneath the lines. Even if a pool were directly beneath a line, however, the electric field strength generated by the transmission line, would not be sufficient to cause any safety hazard.
One public witness, a homing pigeon enthusiast, expressed concern about the effect of the transmission line's electric field upon his pigeons. Research indicates that an electric field strength such as would result from FPC's proposed transmission line has only negligible impact upon the ability of homing pigeons to perform.
Notice Provided to Landowners and Residents
FPC's original applications for development approval submitted to Orange County and the City of Apopka were for the route which has been designated Alternative 1 in this proceeding (the Thompson-Sandpiper route). FPC duly notified all property owners along this route as to its application during the pendency of the matter before the local governments. FPC's modified applications to Orange County and the City of Apopka related to the routes which have been designated Alternatives 2 and 3 (the gas line and Thompson-Welch routes) FPC duly notified affected landowners and residents of these applications. The fourth and fifth alternatives (the Piedmont-Welch, and State Park routes) have been officially proposed by FPC only during the course of this appeal proceeding. In order to fully apprise all potentially affected persons of its alternative proposals, FPC obtained a list of landowners along the alternative routes and their addresses from Orange County personnel. Over 490 individual landowners abutting all five proposed routes had notice of the pendency of this proceeding and of the formal hearing in this proceeding mailed directly to them. FPC published a notice of the public hearing in the March 5, 1982, editions of the "Orlando Sentinel Star" and the "Apopka Chief". In addition, on March 8 or 9, 1982, signs providing further notice of the hearing were posted along each of the routes. It appears that landowners along Piedmont-Wekiwa Road and along Welch Road were not identified by Orange County in the list of landowners provided to FPC, and that therefore some individuals did not receive direct mail notice of the pendency of this proceeding. FPC was apprised of this possibility on March 17, 1982, and on March 18, hand-delivered approximately 70 notices to residences in that area. Naps and descriptions of each of the alternative routes were included in the mailed, published, posted, and hand-delivered notices.
Regional Impacts
It does not appear that the proposed transmission line would unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of any adopted state land development plan. No local regulations or zoning ordinances prohibit the placing of electric transmission lines in residential areas. The proposed transmission line is incompatible with local plans only to the extent that it is incompatible with residential areas. While it seems undesirable to have a transmission line in a residential area, the evidence does not reveal that electric transmission lines are incompatible with residential areas.
Each of the proposed transmission line routes except the State Park route, are compatible with the report and recommendations of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. It appears that the proposed transmission line would have an unfavorable impact upon the environment and natural resources of the region only if the State Park route were followed. It does not appear that the project would have any unfavorable impact upon the economy of the region, or that it would in any way affect the use of water, sewer, solid waste disposal or other public facilities. It does not appear that the proposed line would have any effect upon public transportation facilities or would have any impact upon the ability of people to find adequate housing. While the proposed transmission line would not create an additional demand for use of energy, it would serve to provide electric power to areas where electric power consumption is increasing as a result of increased population.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.57(1), 380,07(3), Florida Statutes.
Orange County filed a Motion in Opposition to the Notice of Appeal and Petition filed by Florida Power Corporation insofar as the appeal related to the Order entered by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County on December 22, 1980. The Motion was denied by the undersigned by Order entered September 18, 1981. That Order is hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Orange County Order dated December 22, 1980, related to FPC's original application for development approval. The Order included an invitation for FPC to file an application for an alternative route. FPC did file such an application, and Orange County denied it by Order entered May 7, 1981. Under these circumstances, an appeal timely taken from the May 7, 1981, denial of development approval should be considered timely as to the earlier Order. To hold otherwise would require an applicant to pursue an administrative appeal in connection with one application while pursuing an amended application before the local government. Such a procedure would not be justifiable.
The record in this proceeding establishes that denial of FPC's applications for development approval by Orange County and the City of Apopka was erroneous. In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for developmental approval, governmental agencies are called upon to balance the various impacts of the proposed development. Estuary Properties, Inc. v. Askew, 381 So.2d 1126, 1134 (1 DCA Fla. 1979), rev'd on other grounds Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc.,
399 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1981). The Piedmont to Sorrento
transmission line proposed by FPC would have favorable impacts upon the region. FPC is an electrical utility company which has a statutory obligation to meet its customers' energy needs, and to provide reliable service. The demand for electric power in Laker and Orange Counties has increased as a result of increasing population. Transmission lines presently in existence are inadequate to provide power to FPC's customers in the Eustis, Tavares, Mt. Dora region of Lake County. Power shortages have occurred already, and are likely to occur with increasing frequency unless an improved transmission line system is established. Population growth in Orange County also requires an increased capacity for transmission of electrical power. While Orange County demands are such as to exceed the capacity of existing transmission lines, it has been reasonably projected that there will be a need for increased transmission capacity in order to assure reliability of the system within the next two to five years. The 230 kV transmission line proposed by FPC is the best means of meeting the immediate electrical power needs in Lake County and providing the capacity to meet projected needs in Orange County. Other alternatives which have been proposed would be unjustifiably more expensive, and would fail to meet either one need or the other.
Balanced against these positive impacts are the unfavorable impact that the transmission line would have upon residents of the disputed area in northern Orange County and the City of Apopka. This unfavorable impact can be obviated by avoiding the area and imposing the same adverse impact upon other residential areas, or by placing a line underground. Placing a line underground would unreasonably increase the cost of the proposed transmission lines and burden FPC's customers with that expense. The evidence establishes that there are no special health or safety hazards connected with placing an electric power transmission line in a residential area. The evidence establishes that electric power transmission lines have been placed in residential areas in other locations in Florida, including in Orange County, and that electric power transmission lines are not inherently incompatible with residential areas.
The only adverse impact is visual.
The positive impact that the proposed transmission line would have upon the region outweighs the adverse esthetic impact that the line would have upon the residential communities.
In evaluating an application for development approval, a regional planning agency is required under the provisions of Section 380.06(11)(a), Florida Statutes, to consider whether and the extent to which:
The development will have a favorable or unfavorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the region.
The development will have a favor- able or unfavorable impact on the economy of the region.
The development will efficiently use or unduly burden water, sewer, solid waste disposal, or other necessary public facilities.
The development will efficiently use or unduly burden public transpor- tation facilities.
The development will favorably or adversely affect the ability of people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
The development complies with such other criteria for determining regional impact as the regional planning agency shall deem appropriate, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the development would create an additional demand for, or additional use of, energy. . .
The transmission line proposed by FPC would not have any unfavorable impacts of the sort delineated in Section 380.06(11)(a), except with respect to one of the routes proposed by FPC through the disputed area. The fifth alternative route (the State Park route) would adversely affect the environment and natural resources of the region because it would interfere with a recreational area that has been designated for preservation in its natural condition.
In considering applications for development approval, local governments are required under Section 380.06(13), Florida Statutes, to consider whether and to the extent to which:
The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted state land development plan appli- cable to the area;
The development is consistent with the local land development regulations; and
The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency submitted pursuant
to subsection (41).
The proposed transmission line does not interfere with the achievement of the objectives of any adopted land development plan applicable to the area, and is not inconsistent with local land development regulations. The development is consistent with the reports of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Section 380.07 (4) , Florida Statutes, provides: The Florida Land and Water Adjudica-
tory Commission shall issue a decision
granting or denying permission to de- velop pursuant to the standards of this chapter and may attach conditions and restrictions to its decisions.
Balancing the positive and negative impacts of the proposed transmission line, and applying the standards set out in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the LWAC should issue a decision approving the development. It is appropriate that conditions be attached to the approval which would minimize the negative impact that the proposed line would have upon residential areas. The fourth alternative route proposed by FPC (the Piedmont-Welch route) would have the least impact upon residences of any of the proposed routes. The second alternative route (the gas line route) would be the second most preferable. The first and third alternatives (the Thompson-Sandpiper and Thompson-Welch routes) would have approximately the same impact upon residences, and the impact would be more profound than with Alternatives 1 or 2. The fifth alternative (the State Park route) would have the least impact upon residences, but should not be considered as a viable alternative because of the adverse impact to the environment and natural resources of the region that would result from utilization of the route.
Approving the proposed transmission line with the condition that the fourth alternative route (the Piedmont-Welch route) be utilized would not constitute a substantial deviation from the applications for development approval that were submitted by FPC to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Orange County and the City of Apopka. Landowners and residents along the Piedmont-Welch route were fully advised of
the pendency of this proceeding and of the possibility that the Piedmont-Welch route for the transmission line could be approved.
The LWAC should issue a decision granting FPC permission to construct the proposed transmission line, with the condition attached that the fourth alternative route through the disputed area (the Piedmont-Welch route) be utilized, and that the conditions for development approval set out by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council in its April 25, 1980, evaluation of the project be attached. These conditions are set out at pages 9 and 10 of the Regional Planning Council Report, which was received in evidence at the hearing in this matter as FPC exhibit Number 3.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby,
That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issue a decision granting FPC permission to develop the proposed Piedmont to Sorrento 230 kV electric power transmission line with the following conditions and restrictions imposed:
That the fourth alternative route (the Piedmont-Welch route) which is depicted on a map attached to this Recommended Order as a part of Appendix I be followed.
That corridor right-of-way clearance, construction and alignment proceed in a manner consistent with the information provided by FPC in the application for development approval. Any modifications to the proposed corridor should be evaluated by the local government of jurisdiction to determine if further regional review is warranted.
That during the construction phase, care be taken to limit vehicular traffic to the 100 foot right-of-way.
That the applicant undertake a program of grass reseeding immediately after construction to establish a vegetative cover on exposed sites caused by construction activities.
That in all areas along the 100 foot right-of-way, commercially valuable timber be harvested and utilized. If the applicant cannot find an interested buyer, this recommendation is waived. (A list of prospective buyers has been provided to the applicant.)
That in areas to be clear-cut and where occasional trees are to be removed, brushy understory be left intact, particularly in sand pine scrub and oak pine scrub communities. These xeric areas provide habitat for a number of habitat-specific endangered or threatened species.
That if, during line construction or line clearance, the applicant should discover any artifacts which could have archaeologic or historic significance, further development activity will cease until a qualified assessment of the find can be made by the Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management.
RECOMMENDED this day of June 2, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Geroge N. Meros, Jr., Esquire Gary P. Sams, Esquire Richard D. Melson, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
K. Kay Collie, Esquire Scott E. Wilt, Esquire Assistant County Attorney
Orange County Legal Department
201 East Pine Street, Suite 1210 Orlando, Florida 32801
Raymond A. McCleod, Esquire McCleod, McCleod & McCleod Post Office Drawer 950 Apopka, Florida 32703
Betty Steffens, Esquire Office of General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Sam Owens, Jr., Esquire Roger A. Kelly, Esquire Fishback, Davis, Dominick
& Bennett
170 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Harry A. Evertz, Esquire Douglas Bagge, Esquire Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
John T. Herndon, Secretary Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission Office of Planning and
Budgeting
311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1856TL
) ORANGE COUNTY and CITY OF ) APOPKA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
GEORGE and NANCY McCLURE, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
APPENDIX I TO RECOMMENDED ORDER ALTERNATIVE ROUTES THROUGH DISPUTED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF APOPKA
PROPOSED BY THE FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION *
* NOTE: APPENDIX I contains exhibit maps FPC 39-43 which are available for review from the Division's Clerk's Office but are not a part of this document.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1856TL
) ORANGE COUNTY and CITY OF ) APOPKA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
GEORGE and NANCY McCLURE, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
APPENDIX II RECOMMENDED ORDER EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits
51 and 65.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73.
ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1856TL
) ORANGE COUNTY and CITY OF ) APOPKA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
GEORGE and NANCY McCLURE, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
APPENDIX III TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 120.59(2)
Florida Power Corporation has submitted a proposed recommended order which includes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings upon the pronosed findings and conclusions are set out herein in accordance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Paragraphs 1 through 12, 14 through 28, 33, 34, and 36 through 46 of the findings of fact proposed by FPC have been adopted in substance in the findings of fact set out in the Recommended Order, and are hereby adopted.
With the exception of the first sentence, the findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 of FPC's proposed findings has been adopted in substance in the findings of fact set out in the Recommended Order, and is hereby adopted. Except for the last sentence, the findings of fact set out in paragraph 29 of FPC's proposed findings have been adopted in the findings of fact set out in the Recommended Order, and are hereby adopted. Except for the last sentence, the findings of fact set out in paragraph 49 of FPC's proposed findings has been adopted in substance in the findings of fact set out in the Recommended Order and are hereby adopted.
The findings of fact set out in the first sentence of paragraph 13 of FPC's proposed findings are not relevant to the issues in this proceeding and are therefore rejected.
The findings of fact set out in the last sentence of paragraph 29 of FPC's proposed findings are not supported by the evidence. While the evidence does support a finding which has been incorporated into the findings of fact in the Recommended Order that placing the transmission line underground would have an adverse impact upon the residential areas, the extent of that impact was not made a matter of evidence.
The findings of fact set out in paragraph 35 of FPC's proposed findings are rejected, except that if the words ....
will comply..." are replaced with the words .... are being designed to comply..." then the proposed findings would be adopted.
The findings of fact set out in paragraphs 47 and 48 of FPC's proposed findings are hereby rejected as being contrary to the evidence and contrary to the findings of fact set out in the Recommended Order. Engineering problems connected with utilizing the fourth alternative route (the Piedmont-Welch route) have not
been established to be as profound as suggested by FPC in its proposed findings, and the impact upon residential areas of utilizing the fourth alternative route would be the least severe of any of the alternatives.
The last sentence of paragraph 49 of the findings of fact proposed by FPC is hereby rejected as not supported by the evidence. While it was not established that any member of the public was a competent property appraiser, members of the public are qualified to express their opinions as to the fact that property values could be decreased by placing an electric bower transmission line in their neighborhood. There was not competent evidence to establish the extent of such a decrease in property values.
The conclusions of law set out in paragraphs 50 through
58 of FPC's proposed conclusions of law have been adopted in substance in the conclusions of law set out in the Recommended Order.
The conclusions of law set out in paragraph 60 of FPC's proposed conclusions is adopted except insofar as the proposed conclusion relates to the fifth alternative route (the State Park route) through the disputed area.
Paragraph 61 of FPC's proposed conclusions of law is actually a factual finding, has no evidentiary support in the record, and is therefore rejected.
Paragraph 62 of FPC's proposed conclusions is rejected, except that if the words .... will be fully compensated..." are replaced with the words .... .are required to be fully compensated..", then the conclusion is adopted.
The conclusions of law set out in paragraph 63 are contrary to the conclusions of law set out in the Recommended Order and are therefore rejected
ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 02, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 02, 1982 | Recommended Order | Grant permission to build power corridor subject to specific conditions for preserving wildlife and the integrity of residential areas. |
