and Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28-3, Florida Administrative Code.
For Petitioner: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire
On March 30, 1982, Petitioner, General Development Corporation ("GDC") , filed a petition with the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission"), to request that a Community Development District to be entitled the "Port LaBelle Community Development District" be adopted by rule pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (Exhibit 1).
On April 9, 1982, a letter from John Herndon, Secretary of the Commission, was transmitted to Chris Bentley, Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that the petition appeared to meet the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes (Exhibit 2).
On April 27, 1982, a Prehearing Order was sent outlining actions to be taken by the Petitioner and the Secretary of the Commission. On April 30, 1982, Petitioner transmitted a Notice published in the local newspaper to the Secretary of the Commission (Exhibit 3). On or about May 6, 1982, the Secretary of the Commission transmitted Notice as required by the Prehearing Order (Exhibit 4).
The hearing was duly held pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 190.005(1)(b) , Florida Statutes, on May 27, 1982, in the City of LaBelle, Hendry County, Florida. Appropriate notice of the hearing, as required by Section 190.005(1)(b) , Florida Statutes, was published for the required four- week period immediately prior to the hearing (Exhibits 5A, B and C).
Petitioner presented the testimony of six witnesses and Petitioner's Exhibits 1-24 were received into evidence. These testifying on Petitioner's behalf were: Carol Fox, Lee Stepanchak, Lawrence W. Mobley, Fred Stampfli, Charles Hunt and Dr. James Nicholas.
Three members of the general public made statements at the conclusion of Petitioner's testimony: Miriam Schreiner, a Hendry County resident; Joan Jefferson, Mayor of Stuart, Florida; and Robert Miller, Chairman of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. No other persons or organizations sought to intervene or to present oral or written comments on the Petition.
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:
All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct.
The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7).
The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners.
The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10.
General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B).
Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.)
The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres.
Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential,
and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A.
All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1)
The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B).
The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are:
C. C. Crump
Senior Vice President
General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131
(305) 350-1525
Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President
General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 350-1533
James E. Clark
Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 350-1531
Wayne L. Allen
Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 350-1261
Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President
General Development Corporation Highway 80 East
Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595
(813) 675-1712
The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District.
A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District.
Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23).
The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22).
Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district.
The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively).
The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B).
The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21).
The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government.
Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
In 1980, the Florida Legislature adopted the Uniform Community Development District Act of 1980, Chapter 190, Florida Statutes ("the Act"). Section 190.005(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes the creation of new community development districts. The Act constitutes the sole statutory authorization for establishing independent community development districts. The purpose of the Act is to implement a State new communities policy by authorizing creation of community development districts. The Act is intended to encourage controlled, economic, orderly and timely development and provision of basic services and infrastructures. The 1980 Act replaced the former new Communities Act, Chapter 163, Part V, Florida Statutes, which was determined by the Legislature not to have been an effective instrument to promote new community development. Section 190.002(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
The Act authorizes the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, to create a community development district to finance, maintain, and operate major improvements necessary for community development through the rule adoption procedures contained in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. District powers are provided in the Act, as well as requirements relating to disclosure and reporting of district financial obligations and operations, district accountability to local government, and duration and termination procedures.
Under the Act, planning, permitting, and other regulatory requirements are separate and distinct from the decision to create a community development district. The rule creating a community development district is not a development permit or order, and all federal, state and local government planning, permitting, and other regulatory requirements must be adhered to by any development within a community development district. Section 190.004(3), Florida Statutes.
Land use decisions are not an issue in a proceeding to create a community development district pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The rulemaking procedure focuses only on those factors necessary to be considered in
creating a special district financing mechanism to implement governmental land use authorization. Section 190,002(2)(c), Florida Statutes.
Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that: The Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission shall consider the record of the hearing and the
following factors and make a determination to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a community development district:
Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.
Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan.
Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.
Whether the district is the
best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.
Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity
and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable
to separate special-district government.
Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides, in part, as follows:
. . . A rule establishing a community development district shall:
Describe the external boundaries of the district and any real property within the external boundaries of the district which is to be excluded.
Name five persons designated to be the initial members of the board of supervisors
Name the district.
