The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether DER properly asserts jurisdiction over the site in question, and whether Petitioner (Vatalaro) is entitled to a permit to fill that site.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in 1986, Billie Vatalaro purchased approximately eleven acres within an approximately 20-acre wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse in east Orange County, Florida. Approximately five acres of the Vatalaro parcel are in the lake itself. In June 1987, personnel from Orange County's planning department and environmental protection department visited the site in response to reports of illegal filling. Correspondence ensued, and meetings were held among Mrs. Vatalaro and her sons and the staff from Orange County. In the meantime, some activity on the site continued, including clearing of trees and vegetation and sometime in January 1988, Mrs. Vatalaro obtained from the Orange County building department building permits and septic tank permits for two houses on approximately 1/2 acre of the property. In early February 1988, the Orange County Environmental Protection Department requested the involvement of DER. Jurisdiction Pamela Thomas is an environmental specialist with DER in the Orlando office. She first visited the site on February 8, 1988, with DER's enforcement officer, a staff person from Orange County, Mrs. Vatalaro, and Mrs. Vatalaro's sons, Russ and Ron Vatalaro. She performed a jurisdictional determination on the occasion of that visit, and returned for subsequent visits on July 20, 1988 and February 22, 1989. Jurisdictional determinations were made pursuant to Rule 17-4.022 F.A.C. (Since renumbered as 17-3.022). This required locating the water body of the state, Lake Rouse, and a determination of whether there is a connection of the water body to the adjacent wetlands. The vegetation is then examined to determine whether canopy, sub-canopy or ground cover will be analyzed. Within the rule are two tests, one used when submerged species predominate, the other used when the wetland vegetation is more transitional. Ms. Thomas located Lake Rouse and found no berms or other barriers between the lake and the wetlands. She also performed transects, visually sampling segments of the area and determined there was continuity between the lake and landward to the site in question. She found a full mature canopy in the uncleared area and loblolly bay, a submerged species, dominated. This area, between the lake and cleared site met the first ("A") test in Rule 17-4.022, F.A.C. The submerged plus transitional species were greater than 50 percent of the vegetation, the submerged species was greater than 10 percent and exceeded the upland species present. Because a portion of the area had been cleared, it was necessary to attempt to reconstruct what vegetation had existed prior to clearing. The cleared area included tall spindly pine trees spaced to indicate that other trees had been growing between them. The pine trees which did not have fill next to them were sitting on hummocks, a common phenomena in wetlands. Within the disturbed area Ms. Thomas found two bore holes where previous soil borings had been done. She and the DER enforcement officer determined by examining those holes that substantial fill had been placed in the cleared area. Root mat was more than ten inches below the surface and water was standing in the bottom of the holes. In order to reconstruct what vegetation had been present in the cleared area, Ms. Thomas completed a series of three feet by ten feet visual transects fanning out into the thicket from the cleared area. The dominant species were Ioblolly bay (gordonia), sweet bay and dahoon, all submerged species. It was apparent that the predominance of trees that had been removed were submerged species, mainly Ioblolly bays. As reconstructed, the biomass in a transect would have been greater than the sum of the biomass of the pine trees. This reconstruction was further validated on subsequent visits to the site when juvenile loblolly bay trees were found seeded and thriving in the disturbed area, but no pine seedlings were found, even though there was adequate time for that to occur. DER staff also viewed aerial photographs provided by the Valataros, taken in 1984, prior to major clearing and in 1987, after the clearing. The photographs are on a scale of 1 to 300 and do not indicate a drastic change in the area that would reflect that the cleared area had been mostly pine trees. The photographs are not of such quality that a conclusive determination can be made on them alone. David Kriz is an area resource soil scientist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. He visited the site with representatives of DER and Mrs. Vatalaro on July 20, 1988, at the request of DER. He performed three soil borings, the first in an area of bay trees outside the area cleared for the house. This boring revealed Samsula muck, a hydric soil, indicative of being saturated or flooded. The second boring was taken within the area designated for the house pad. This yielded about fifteen inches of fill, then St. Johns soil, an organic sandy layer, which can be hydric if inundated for more than thirty days in a year. It was impossible to determine whether this specimen was hydric, because this surface had been disturbed and filled. The third boring was taken just off the pad, but still in the cleared area. It yielded about nine inches of sandy fill and Samsula muck below, similar to the first boring, and clearly a hydric soil. St. Johns fine sand also appears on the site in a USDA soil conservation map of Orange County. The map is a good guide, but cannot be relied upon without ground tests in specific sites as the scale on the map is 1 to 20,000. Although distinct soil zones are indicated, in fact there are transitional areas between soil types in the zones, which means that in a transitional zone there may be either wet or dry areas. It would be virtually impossible to determine the soil type prevalent in Mrs. Vatalaro's cleared half acre, without the borings. DER properly concluded that it has jurisdiction over the site. Petitioner's expert, William Dennis, concedes that most of the Vatalaro property is within DER's jurisdiction, including a substantial portion of the cleared area, most notably the 43 by 100 foot cleared finger extending south from the cleared area designated for the house. In performing his jurisdictional analysis, Dr. Dennis concentrated on the cleared area. He did not complete transects. He counted and measured trees, and with the aid of a compass, sited them on a chart, received in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit #13. Within the cleared area he found a predominance of pines, and upland species (71%) and some submerged and transitional species (4.8% and 24.2%, respectively). This, he concluded, failed the jurisdictional test described in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Dennis also examined the aerial photographs and determined there was a vegetation break extending approximately 30 feet into the thicket from the northwest corner of the cleared area. He counted and measured trees in that area and found 14.8% submerged species, 35.4% transitional species, and 49.8% upland species. That area failed the jurisdictional "A" test because the submerged species did not outnumber the upland species present. Extrapolating from this finding, he concluded that the upper part of the cleared area designated for placement of the house, is outside of DER's jurisdiction. This conclusion is unreliable. The aerial photographs, particularly the pre-clearance photographs from 1984, are not crisp and clear. It is also possible that in looking at an aerial photograph, the tallest trees, the pines, would overshadow the other species which are also four inches or greater in diameter breast height (DBH) and are, therefore, equally significant. Rule 17.4.022(1)(c), F.A.C. provides that belt transects be used when the line demarcating the landward extent of waters of the state cannot be determined visually or by photo interpretation. DER, but not Mr. Dennis, relied on belt transects. Rule 17.4.022(I)(d), F.A.C. provides that other methods may be used as long as the department and applicant both agree in writing, to the method used. DER did not agree with Dr. Dennis' method. Counting trees in an area that has been disturbed is not a reliable means of establishing what existed prior to clearance when substantial evidence suggests that the clearing left the pines but eliminated the predominant submerged and transitional species. Section 403.8171(5), F.S. provides a "back-stop" to the vegetative jurisdictional determination by providing that "...in no case shall [the landward extent of the waters of the state] extend above the elevation of the 1- in-10-year recurring flood event or the area of the land with standing or flowing water for more than 30 consecutive days per year calculated on an average annual basis, whichever is more landward." The petition in this proceeding raised the issue of the jurisdictional backstop but the application and evidence at a hearing fails to include sufficient information to substantiate that this alternative applies. Generally, a study would be required, and the applicant has not provided such. The Merits of the Application The wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse, within which the Vatalaro property is located, comprises approximately 20 acres. It is the only mature forested wetland of its quality within a large region of east Orange County. This wetland provides a filtration function contributing to the water quality of Lake Rouse and to the waters of the region. The Lake Rouse wetland also provides flood abatement capacity via its soil and plants. The effects of the loss of this capacity in other severely impacted wetlands along the State Road 50 corridor have become evident. The altered areas are no longer able to provide water holding capacities. Wildlife which are residents of the area and which use the area as a stopover will be impacted by alteration of the habitat which they currently rely upon for food, cover, nesting and resting. Examples of those wildlife are ducks and other birds, raccoons, deer and opossums. Even though the proposed project will comprise only 1/2 to 3/4 an acre of the wetland, the impact is significant considering the unique quality of the wetland. Dr. Dennis agrees that alteration of the site would change the habitat value of the area and would impact the functions of the wetlands. He argues, however, that the effects of this project are minimal compared to the development which has already occurred in surrounding areas. Although the applicant has a building and septic tank permit and a Corps of Engineers permit, the regulations for those permits are not the same as the balancing criteria which DER must consider. The Orange County Planning and Environmental Protection Departments recommend denial of the project. No evidence was presented with regard to mitigation proposed or agreed to by the applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application for fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael D. Jones, Esquire 996 Westwood Square Suite 4 Oviedo, Florida 32765 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should grant the application of Daniel Borislow, LLC, for an after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and issue ERP 50-09272-P.
Findings Of Fact In 2007, Borislow bought 6.2 acres of land near the corner of Congress Avenue and Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach. Borislow proceeded to create a soccer field on the property. The project required the addition of fill, the grading and leveling of the field and a shellrock driveway/parking area, and the installation of sod, an irrigation system, an exfiltration trench for water quality treatment, and lighting. Later in 2007, Borislow's activities came to the attention of SFWMD, which cited Borislow for conducting activities requiring an ERP without applying for and obtaining one. To resolve the enforcement action, Borislow agreed to apply for an after-the-fact ERP. Initially, SFWMD estimated primarily from aerial photography that 0.71 acres of wetlands were filled and impacted. During the permitting process, SFWMD's estimate of direct wetland impacts was reduced to 0.50 acres, and the mitigation required for direct and secondary2 wetland impacts was determined using the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP).3 It was determined that Borislow's purchase of 0.2 of a freshwater herbaceous wetland credit in the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank would offset the project's wetland impacts. SFWMD staff determined that all ERP criteria were met.4 Spots stipulated that there are no water quality issues, that no wetland-dependent endangered or threatened species of special concern have been observed at or in the area of the project site, and that the potential use of the site by such species is minimal.5 Spots contends: SFWMD underestimated the extent of impacted wetlands (and, therefore, the amount of mitigation did not offset the wetland impacts); reasonable assurance was not given that the project will not flood the Spots property to the north, in violation of permitting criteria in Florida Administrative Code6 Chapter 40E-4 and SFWMD's Basis of Review for ERPs (BOR); and reasonable assurance was not given that water storage and conveyance capabilities would not be adversely impacted, in violation of the permitting criteria in Rule Chapter 40E-4 and the C-51 basin compensating water storage requirements of Rule Chapter 40E-41, Part III. In normal permitting, existing wetlands are delineated in accordance with Rule Chapter 62-340. In this after-the-fact permit application, former wetlands had to be estimated. Spots reasonably contends that Borislow should not benefit from having filled wetlands without an ERP. But the evidence proved that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were properly estimated. Contrary to the contention of Spots, the wetlands were not estimated on the basis of a single aerial photograph. There were numerous aerial photographs over several years, which the experts could interpret and use to make a reasonable estimate of the extent of the former wetlands on the site. Ironically, while criticizing SFWMD's alleged reliance on a single aerial photograph to determine the extent of the former wetlands, Spots relied on a single aerial photograph to claim that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were deep and larger than 0.5. acres. The photograph appeared to show standing water only on the Borislow property, but it is possible that standing water on the Spots property was obscured by vegetation. In addition, it is impossible to determine the depth of the water from the aerial photograph, and there was no evidence as to the rainfall preceding the aerial photograph. Spots provided no other evidence to support its claim that more mitigation is needed to offset the wetland impacts. On the issue of flooding the Spots property, the evidence was clear that, contrary to the drawings in the ERP, the highest elevations in the northwest corner of the Borislow property are several feet south of the Borislow/Spots property line,7 and several feet higher than the elevation at the property line,8 causing surface water to flow down this slope from the Borislow property onto the Spots property. The evidence proved that no such "back-flow" existed in that location before the project. This "back-flow" can be prevented from crossing the property line by placing a swale or railroad tie or some other similar vertical retaining wall near or on the property line. Borislow has agreed to an additional ERP condition that this be done. The Borislow property is in sub-basin 30 of the C-51 basin. Spots and its engineering expert criticized the engineering calculations used by the experts for Borislow and SFWMD to provide reasonable assurance that the project did not result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the basin. Spots contended that the calculations incorporated pre- development elevations taken from a 2005 aerial photograph. However, the more persuasive evidence was that the elevations used in the calculations actually came from survey information on surrounding properties, including the Spots property and Summit Boulevard, plus the control elevation in nearby Lake Worth Drainage District L-5 Canal. Elevations for the former wetlands on the Borislow property were assumed to be 10 feet NGVD9 based on the actual elevations of the existing wetlands on the Spots property. The testimony of the experts for Borislow and SFWMD as to the source of the elevations used in the calculations is accepted. The engineering calculations developed by Borislow's expert and accepted by SFWMD indicated a net increase in water storage capacity as a result of grading and leveling the property.10 The calculations compared pre-development and post- development storage capacity between the water table11 and the 100-year storm elevation, which was calculated to be 14.1 feet NGVD. The evidence did not adequately explain how grading and leveling the Borislow property would increase water storage; it would seem that no change in water storage would result. The engineering calculations assumed that no fill was deposited on the property. However, the evidence was that 150 to 300 truckloads of fill, each with 17 to 18 cubic yards, for a total of 2,625 to 5,250 cubic yards, were delivered to and placed on the property. If 300 truckloads were used, this would represent as much as an acre-foot of fill.12 Although the fill would have some water storage capacity, adding that much fill to the property logically would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. This loss was not quantified, or compensated.13 Borislow testified that the fill was used to construct a 13-foot high, 330-foot long, 30-foot wide berm along the western perimeter of the property and another large berm along the northern and southern perimeters of the soccer field.14 But other evidence does not support Borislow's testimony. According to the drawings in the ERP, there are a total of 370 feet of berms, which are required to be a minimum of six inches high to maintain elevation 13.4 feet NGVD to contain the peak stage of a 10-year, 3-day design storm.15 Based on the ground level photographs in evidence, the berms do not appear to be anywhere near 13 feet high or 30 feet wide. In any event, the evidence does not prove that the fill deposited on the property was higher than 14.1 feet NGVD. Regardless of the exact dimension of the berms, it appears that the fill was deposited in a way that would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. SFWMD seems to suggest in its PRO that the fill should be disregarded because there were no records to confirm the dates it was delivered, or the amounts delivered, and because it might have been delivered to an adjacent property.16 But the burden of proof was on Borislow. See Conclusion of Law 16, infra. There was no evidence to prove that Borislow had the fill deposited on an adjacent property. It is more likely that the fill was deposited on the Borislow property in large part to fill the former wetland, which probably was lower than 10 feet NGVD. Spots also charged that Borislow's project essentially obstructs the previous flow of surface water from the wetlands on the Spots property into the wetlands on the Borislow property, such that surface water now backs up on the Spots property. This appears to be true. Since it appears that the wetlands on the Borislow property were lower than the wetlands on the Spots property, grading and leveling would have that effect; adding fill would exacerbate the effect. Spots also argued that the evidence did not provide reasonable assurance on the ability of Borislow's system to recover from a 10-year, three-day storm event, so as to be able to again retain the surface water runoff from a successive storm of that magnitude and duration 12 days later. But the persuasive evidence was to the contrary, primarily due to the major drainage features in the vicinity--namely, the C-51 and the L-5 canals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny Borislow's after-the-fact ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January 1994.
The Issue Whether Application #01109-L and Application #01109-J for a public water supply system to serve approximately 17,500 acres of land in Lee County, Florida, should be granted and a permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that a water use permit be issued to the applicant pursuant to Applications #01109-J and #01109-L for a total annual allocation of 1.64 BGY for ten (10) years subject to the thirty-one (31) limiting conditions attached to the "Florida Cities Water Company" report, which report is a part of the record of this case. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer 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 18th day of January, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ross A. McVoy, Esquire 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Terry F. Lenick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney County of Lee Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On January 15, 1993, Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., (Westinghouse) filed a Petition with the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), seeking establishment by rule of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District (CDD) in an unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida. The Secretary certified that the contents of the Petition were complete and on March 12, 1993, forwarded the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On May 3, 1993, Westinghouse filed an Amended Petition with the FLWAC Secretary. The Amended Petition revised related provisions contained in Paragraph 10 and Exhibit 7 of the original Petition. The amendments address delivery of water, wastewater and irrigation service within the CDD and set forth the obligations of the proposed CDD and the Collier County Water-Sewer District related to the construction, ownership and operation of interim and permanent facilities for such services. The FLWAC Secretary determined that the contents of the Amended Petition were complete and on May 21, 1993, forwarded the Amended Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Notice of the date and location of the public hearing was published in the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper in Naples, Florida on May 13, 20, 27 and June 3, 1993. A copy of such notice was served upon the Department of Community Affairs as required by Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code. Notice of the hearing was published by the FLWAC's Secretary in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 14, 1993, as required by Rule 42- 1.010(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Westinghouse submitted a copy of the Petition to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") on February 26, 1993 and submitted a copy of the Amended Petition to the Board on April 16, 1993. As required by Section 190.005(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, Westinghouse paid the $15,000 filing fee to the Board. A public hearing before the Board was held on May 4, 1993. Such hearing is optional pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Upon completion of the hearing, the Board adopted Resolution No. 93- 187 through which it determined that the establishment of the CDD was in the best interests of the county and its citizens and that the county was supportive of the establishment of the CDD. A transcript of the county hearing was filed with the FLWAC on May 4, 1993. If approved by the FLWAC, the CDD will be an independent special purpose local government as authorized by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, with power to plan, finance, construct, operate and maintain the community infrastructure (except as to certain water and sewer services discussed elsewhere herein) within the jurisdiction of the CDD. The CDD will manage and finance basic services for the residential community known as Pelican Marsh. The 2,075 acres of the community development to be serviced by the CDD is located north of the City of Naples within an unincorporated area of Collier County. To the north of the CDD lies unimproved land, residential subdivisions and Immokalee Road (County Road 846). To the east is unimproved land and the site of a proposed extension of Livingston Road. To the south is Vanderbilt Beach Road (County Road 862), the site of a proposed extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and Pine Ridge subdivision. To the west is North Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41). The land within the proposed CDD is currently zoned as "Urban Residential", "Activity Center" and "Proposed Activity Center". Westinghouse has entered into the record, as Exhibit "C", an Application for Public Hearing for Rezone and Conditional Use Requests and a draft Planned Unit Development document for a portion of the community consisting of approximately 1086.5 acres. The draft Planned Unit Development document authorizes a mixture of land uses, including single and multi-family housing, limited to 780 dwelling units and a 27-hole golf course with clubhouses. Westinghouse has acknowledged in its Amended Petition that the Collier County Water-Sewer District is the permanent supplier of all water, wastewater and irrigation service in the CDD and that the CDD shall be obligated to convey all water, sewer and irrigation facilities to the County and its Water-Sewer District upon completion. Westinghouse also acknowledges certain rights and obligations of the CDD with respect to the construction and operation of interim water, wastewater and irrigation facilities. The cost of such facilities will be borne by the CDD through various types of financing mechanisms. Only those persons who receive the benefit of the services will pay the costs involved in provision of the facilities. Summarization of Testimony and Evidence Mr. Louis H. Hoegsted is Executive Vice President of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., the corporation that filed the Petition and Amended Petition in this matter. Mr. Hoegsted has general responsibility for planning the Pelican Marsh community, including the filing of the petitions. Westinghouse, a Florida corporation, has developed the community of Pelican Bay in Collier County, Florida. Mr. Hoegsted was involved as the company representative in the formation and operation of the former Pelican Bay Improvement District, created by special act of the Florida Legislature. Pelican Bay was merged by Collier County into the County Water-Sewer District. Mr. Hoegsted identified Westinghouse's Composite Hearing Exhibits "A" through "R". All of the below-described documents were prepared under the supervision of Mr. Hoegsted. The exhibits identified by Mr. Hoegsted are as follows: Composite Exhibit "A" includes four exhibits numbered "A-1" through "A-4". Exhibit "A-1" is a General Location Map, which identifies the site of the proposed CDD. Exhibit "A-2" is a Boundary Map of the area to be served by the CDD. Exhibit "A- 3" is a Boundary Map of the land area included within the jurisdiction of the CDD. Exhibit "A-4" is a copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Map, as amended June, 1993. Exhibit "B" is the Preliminary Development Agreement of May 20, 1993 executed between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Westinghouse. Exhibit "C" is a copy of a draft Planned Unit Development document which upon adoption would establish the zoning for a portion of the proposed development. Composite Exhibit "D" is made up of 12 separate exhibits identified as Exhibits "D-1" through "D-9" with subparts. Exhibit "D-1" is the Petition filed with the FLWAC in this case. Exhibit "D-2" is a map showing the location of the land area to be serviced by the CDD. Exhibit "D-3" is a metes and bounds description of the CDD. Exhibit "D-4" is composed of the written consent of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. and the Manatee Fruit Company, as owners of land within the CDD. (Also filed as Exhibit "R-1" is an additional consent of the remaining land owners within the CDD.) Exhibit "D-5" (including subparts a-c) is composed of drawings showing the Collier County waste water service system, potable water service system and the drainage outfalls. Exhibit "D-6" is the proposed schedule and cost estimates for construction of CDD infrastructure. Exhibit "D-7a" is a copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Exhibit "D-7b" is a copy of the Department of Community Affairs compliance letter related to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Exhibit "D-8" is an acknowledgment by Westinghouse that Collier County is authorized to regulate the provision of water and sewer facilities within the CDD. Exhibit "D-9" is a Statement of Economic Impact for the CDD by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Composite Exhibit "E" consists of 12 exhibits identified as "E-1" through "E-9" including subparts. Composite Exhibit "E-1" includes the Amended Petition filed with the FLWAC in this case. Exhibit "E-2" is a map showing the location of the land area to be serviced by the CDD. Exhibit "E-3" is a metes and bounds description of the CDD. Exhibit "E-4" is composed of the written consent of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. and the Manatee Fruit Company, as owners of land within the CDD. Exhibit "E-5" (including subparts a-c) is composed of drawings showing the Collier County waste water service system, potable water service system and the drainage outfalls. Exhibit "E-6" is the proposed schedule and cost estimates for construction of CDD infrastructure. Exhibit "E-7a" is a copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Exhibit "E-7b" is a copy of the Department of Community Affairs compliance letter related to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Exhibit "E-8" is an acknowledgment by Westinghouse that Collier County is authorized to regulate the provision of water and sewer facilities within the CDD. Exhibit "E-9" is a Statement of Economic Impact for the CDD by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Composite Exhibit "F" includes four items. Exhibit "F-1" is the prehearing stipulation filed in this case. Exhibit "F-2" is a Memorandum of Agreement between Westinghouse and Collier County related to the provision of water, wastewater and irrigation facilities and services within the proposed CDD. Exhibit "F-2a" is a draft copy of an interlocal agreement related to the provision of water, wastewater and irrigation facilities and services within the proposed CDD. Exhibit "F-2b" is a copy of Collier County Resolution No. 93-187 indicating that the Board of County Commissioners supports the establishment of the CDD. Composite Exhibit "G" consists of two items: Exhibit "G-1", a Westinghouse letter dated February 26, 1993 submitting the Petition to Collier County; and Exhibit "G-2", a Westinghouse letter dated April 16, 1993 submitting the Amended Petition to Collier County. Exhibit "H" is a photocopy of the $15,000 check from Westinghouse to Collier County constituting the filing and processing fee. Composite Exhibit "I" includes Exhibit "I-1", a letter dated February 26, 1993 transmitting the Petition to David Coburn of the FLWAC, and Exhibit "I-2" a letter dated May 3, 1993, transmitting the Amended Petition to Mr. Coburn. Composite Exhibit "J" includes four exhibits. Exhibit "J-1" is Mr. Coburn's letter of notification dated March 12, 1993 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) transmitting the Petition for DCA review. Exhibit "J-2" is Mr. Coburn's letter of notification dated March 15, 1993 to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) transmitting the Petition for SWFRPC review. Exhibit "J-3" is Mr. Coburn's letter of notification dated May 5, 1993 to the DCA transmitting the Amended Petition for review. Exhibit "J-4" is Mr. Coburn's letter of notification dated May 5, 1993 to the SWFRPC transmitting the Amended Petition for review. Composite Exhibit "K" consists of two exhibits, "K-1" and "K-2", both letters from Mr. Coburn to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings transmitting the Petition and Amended Petition, dated March 12 and May 21, 1993, respectively. Composite Exhibit "L" includes six exhibits. Exhibit "L-1" is a certified copy of the notice of publication of receipt of Petition and notice of hearing as published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Exhibits "L-2" through "L-6" are the tear sheets from the Naples Daily News setting forth notice of the hearing held in this case. Exhibit "M" consists of excerpts from the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The complete official copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan was filed with the Hearing Officer prior to the hearing and is transmitted with the record established during the hearing. Exhibit "N" is a letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs to Collier County stating that the DCA had determined that the relevant Comprehensive Plan Amendment was in compliance with state law. Exhibit "O" is a copy of the State Comprehensive Plan for the State of Florida appearing in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Exhibit "P" consists of a white paper dated March, 1993 and prepared by Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, a political economist. The report addresses growth management considerations and the proposed establishment of the Pelican Marsh CDD. Composite Exhibit "R" consists of two parts. Exhibit "R-1" is an additional consent of the remaining land owners within the CDD. (Exhibit D-4 contains the originally filed consent documents.) Exhibit "R-2" is an updated estimate of proposed infrastructure construction costs and deadlines. As Executive Vice President of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., Mr. Hoegsted directed the planning and preparation of the Petition and Amended Petition filed in this matter. The consultants who reviewed the project on behalf of Westinghouse were directed to assume that the CDD would provide all services and facilities which it was able to provide under Sections 190.011 and 190.012, Florida Statutes, with the exception of the County's provision of water, wastewater and irrigation services and facilities. (As addressed elsewhere herein, the County Water and Sewer District is to be the sole provider of water, wastewater and irrigation water within the Water-Sewer District boundaries in accordance with Collier County Ordinance Nos. 78-10, 79-33, 88-76, 90-86 and 90-87.) The consultants were directed to consider the factors enumerated in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Based upon review of their analysis, Mr. Hoegsted asserts that all statutory criteria have been satisfied. There is no evidence to the contrary. The Statement of Economic Impact prepared for the CDD by Fishkind & Associates, Inc., includes an analysis of economic costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the Petition, estimates the impact of the CDD on competition in the open market and describes the source of information and methodology used in preparing the statement. According to the statement, the creation of the CDD will not constitute a significant burden to either the State of Florida or Collier County. There is no evidence contrary to that contained within the Fishkind report. Thomas R. Peek is a professional engineer with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc., an engineering consulting firm located in Naples, Florida. Mr. Peek was accepted as an expert in civil engineering related to provision of infrastructure development in Southwest Florida communities. Mr. Peek is familiar with the CDD and with the status of the development approvals and related land development permits and approvals from local and state authorities for the Pelican Marsh community. He is knowledgeable as to the steps involved in engineering basic systems, facilities and services for community developments. He opined that there is a high probability for quality long term infrastructure maintenance by an independent special district government. Mr. Peek testified that he had reviewed the Amended Petition and attachments and that they contained no information inconsistent with engineering considerations raised by the state or the Collier County Comprehensive Plans. It is anticipated that the CDD will be requested to provide water management, utilities, roads, landscaping and street lighting. Mr. Peek is unable to predict whether the CDD will be asked to exercise any additional powers pursuant to Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes. Such additional powers relate to certain public improvements and community facilities as parks, fire prevention, schools, security, and mosquito control. Mr. Peek opined that the land within the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functionally interrelated community and is amenable for a CDD, that there are no land features or facilities which could make the benefits of the CDD difficult to provide, and that the CDD will not be inconsistent with the Collier County local government comprehensive plan. There is no evidence contrary to that provided by Mr. Peek. His testimony is accepted. Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith is a political science professor and provost of the Broward County campus of Florida Atlantic University. He was accepted as an expert in political science and in alternative ways to provide community infrastructure. Dr. deHaven-Smith reviewed the Petition from a general infrastructure and growth management policy perspective. He further addressed the relevant statutory criteria. Based on his review he prepared a report, "Growth Management Considerations in the Proposed Establishment of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District". The report is identified as Westinghouse Exhibits "D-9" and "E-9". According to Dr. deHaven-Smith, Collier County has experienced substantial growth in recent years, requiring a rapid expansion in infrastructure for transportation, water, waste water treatment, law enforcement, recreation, and many other services. Community development districts play an important role in growth management by facilitating large scale, high quality development and relieving local governments of the burden of paying for and managing many of the services and public works that such developments require. According to Dr. deHaven-Smith, to the extent that there are weaknesses in the state's growth management system, community development districts provide a means of appropriate controlled development. Even though the state has adopted a state comprehensive plan, the need for CDDs exists, especially in areas such as Collier County where growth is at a rate twice that of other Florida communities. Accordingly, Dr. deHaven-Smith opined that the CDD is a good tool in the growth management process. Dr. deHaven-Smith described the manner in which the CDD would operate and carry out the powers prescribed in the development order for Pelican Marsh District. He opined that, relative to the alternatives for providing the infrastructure necessary for the Pelican Marsh community, the CDD mechanism is the most appropriate alternative. He further noted that although the CDD has a range of specific and general powers, it is controlled by substantive and procedural limitations and would be subservient to Collier County. Dr. deHaven-Smith reviewed the statutory factors and related information that must be considered in order to establish a CDD. He opined that all statements within the petitions are true and correct, that the creation and establishment of the CDD is not inconsistent with applicable portions of the state and local comprehensive plans, that the area of land within the CDD is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community, that the CDD is the best alternative for delivering community development services and facilities, that the services and facilities are compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, and that the area to be served is amenable to separate special-district services and facilities. There is no evidence contrary to the witness' testimony which is hereby accepted. David Crawford is Director of Planning and Governmental Relations with Westinghouse Bayside Communities, Inc. He has 15 years experience in the planning of infrastructure provision for community development and has been involved in the preparation of comprehensive plans for several Florida counties. He testified as to the permitting and development approval status of the Pelican Marsh community and the physical characteristics and situations to be found within the area of the proposed CDD, including two existing roadways, a drainage canal, an outfall and various utilities which cross the property. Mr. Crawford described the state comprehensive plan and how the establishment of the CDD would be consistent with and facilitate certain enumerated policies in the plan. Mr. Crawford stated that the CDD will not be inconsistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. With respect to state concurrency requirements, Mr. Crawford asserted that the CDD is the best method to provide sustained infrastructure to a community. Mr. Crawford stated that the CDD is a responsive, efficient, timely and economic means of providing services to a community's future population without over-burdening the existing residents. He asserted that the land within the CDD is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functionally interrelated community and that the land area in the CDD is amenable to separate special-district government. According to Mr. Crawford, the establishment of the CDD will not create any incompatibility with the existence of any regional systems, services or facilities. In Mr. Crawford's opinion, the establishment of the CDD will not overburden the Collier County government with respect to providing maintenance over the long-term infrastructure to the proposed development nor overburden the taxpayers of Collier County. Furthermore, he opined that the CDD will not be a needless or unacceptable proliferation of local government in view of the six factors required to be considered for its establishment under Chapter 190. Mr. Crawford testified that it is not premature to establish the CDD before issuance of the final development order under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Because infrastructure construction activities require construction permitting from the county, it is unlikely that the CDD would construct infrastructure inconsistent with the eventual development order to be issued by the county. There is no evidence contrary to the testimony of Mr. Crawford and it is accepted. Gary L. Moyer serves as district manager for twenty-three community development districts throughout the state. As a district manager, he coordinates the planning, financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure provided to new community developments. Mr. Moyer was accepted as an expert in district management and government. Mr. Moyer reviewed the factors used in FLWAC's determination regarding whether the petition should be approved. He concluded that all criteria were satisfied. Within the context of his expertise, Mr. Moyer opined that all statements in the Amended Petition to be true and correct, that the CDD is compatible with all state and local comprehensive plans, that the land area of the CDD is of sufficient size and compactness and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community, that the CDD is the best alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the development, that the CDD is not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, and that the area to be served is amenable to separate special-district government. Mr. Moyer noted that the CDD will be subject to the same checks, balances and accountability as other general purpose governmental entities. The CDD Board of Supervisors is governed by state ethics laws, "Government in the Sunshine," public records law and statutes related to accountability of public officials. Mr. Moyer noted that, once established, the CDD becomes a "partner" with local government in achieving the goals and objectives of the community. Mr. Moyer stated that the operations of the CDD must be in accordance with local government's comprehensive plan and construction standards. He further noted that the CDD must supply planning documents to the local government to ensure consistency with the local comprehensive plan. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Moyer's testimony is accepted as being credible on these issues.
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, and without evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Section 190.005(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes. The creation and establishment of the CDD is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the Collier County comprehensive plan, as amended. Section 190.005(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes. The area of land within the CDD is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Section 190.005(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes. The CDD, in accordance with applicable state and local law and the Memorandum of Agreement executed by Westinghouse and Collier County, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the CDD. Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes. In accordance with applicable state and local law and the Memorandum of Agreement executed by Westinghouse and Collier County, the community development services and facilities of the CDD will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Section 190.005(1)(e)5., Florida Statutes. The 2,075 acre tract of land that will be served by the CDD is amenable to separate special-district government, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and the Memorandum of Agreement between Westinghouse and Collier County. Section 190.005(1)(e)6., Florida Statutes. DONE and ISSUED this 10th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1490 APPENDIX "A" NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES Louis H. Hoegsted Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 500 Naples, Florida 33963 Thomas R. Peek Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek 3200 Bailey Lane at Airport Road Naples, Florida 33942 Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith 5935 North West 96 Drive Parkland, Florida 33076 David Crawford Westinghouse Bayside Communities 9200-101 Bonita Beach Road, South West Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Gary Moyer 10300 North West 11 Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33071 APPENDIX "B" LIST OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Composite Exhibit "A" Exhibit "A-1" is a large General Location Map, which outlines the general location of the proposed Pelican Marsh community within Collier County. Exhibit "A-2" is a Boundary Map of the development to be served by the CDD. Exhibit "A-3" is a Boundary Map of the land area to be included within the jurisdiction of the CDD. Exhibit "A-4" is a copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Map, as amended June, 1993. Exhibit "B" Exhibit "B" is the Preliminary Development Agreement, dated May 20, 1993 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Westinghouse. Exhibit "C" Exhibit "C" is a draft of Planned Unit Development document which may establish the zoning for a portion of the proposed development. Composite Exhibit "D" Exhibit "D- 1" is the Petition filed with the FLWAC. Exhibit "D-2" is a map showing the location of the land area to be served by the CDD. Exhibit "D-3" is a metes and bounds description of the CDD. Exhibit "D-4" is composed of the written consent of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. and the Manatee Fruit Company, as owners of land within the CDD. (Exhibit "R-1" is the additional consent of the remaining land owners within the CDD.) Exhibit "D-5" is composed of drawings showing the Collier County waste water service system, potable water service system and the drainage outfalls. Exhibit "D-6" is a proposed schedule of the deadlines and cost estimates to construct CDD infrastructure. Exhibit "D-7" is a copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Exhibit "D-7b" is a copy of the Department of Community Affairs compliance letter related to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Exhibit "D-8" is an acknowledgment by Westinghouse that Collier County is authorized to regulate the provision of water and sewer facilities within the CDD. Exhibit "D-9" is a Statement of Economic Impact for the District by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. Composite Exhibit "E" Exhibit "E-1" is the Amended Petition. Exhibits "E-2" through "E-9" are identical to Exhibits "D-2" through "D-9" except for a minor change to the Acknowledgement in Exhibit "E-8". Composite Exhibit "F" Exhibit "F-1" is the Prehearing Stipulation signed by Collier County and Westinghouse with attachments and filed in this case. Exhibit "F-2" is a Memorandum of Agreement between Westinghouse and Collier County related to the provision of water, wastewater and irrigation facilities and services within the proposed CDD. Exhibit "F-2a" is a draft copy of an interlocal agreement related to the provision of water, wastewater and irrigation facilities and services within the proposed CDD. Exhibit "F-2b" is Resolution No. 93-187 of Collier County indicating that the Board of County Commissioners supports the establishment of the CDD. Composite Exhibit "G" Exhibit "G-1" is a letter from Westinghouse to Collier County, dated February 26, 1993, submitting the Petition to the county. Exhibit "G-2" is a letter from Westinghouse to Collier County, dated April 16, 1993, submitting the Amended Petition to the county. Exhibit "H" Exhibit "H" is a photocopy of the $15,000 check constituting the filing and processing fee from Westinghouse to Collier County. Composite Exhibit "I" Exhibit "I-1" is a transmittal letter from Attorney Kenza van Assenderp to David Coburn of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission dated February 26, 1993 which accompanied the Petition. Exhibit "I-2" is a transmittal letter from Attorney Kenza van Assenderp to David Coburn of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission dated May 3, 1993 which accompanied the Amended Petition. Composite Exhibit "J" Composite Exhibit "J" consists of four letters of notification from David Coburn, Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Southwest Regional Planning Council transmitting the Petition and Amended Petition. Composite Exhibit "K" Exhibit "K-1" is a letter dated March 12, 1993 from David Coburn to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings transmitting the Petition. Exhibit "K-2" is a letter dated May 21, 1993 from David Coburn to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings transmitting the Amended Petition. Composite Exhibit "L" Exhibit "L-1" is a certified copy of the notice of publication of receipt of Petition and notice of hearing as published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Exhibits "L-2" through "L-6" are the tear sheets from the Naples Daily News setting forth notice of the hearing held in this case. Exhibit "M" Exhibit "M" consists of excerpts from the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The complete official copy of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan was in the possession of the Hearing Officer at the time of the hearing and is transmitted with the record established during the hearing. Exhibit "N" Exhibit "N" is a letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs to Collier County wherein notice was given of its determination that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was in compliance with state law. Exhibit "O" Exhibit "O" is a copy of the State Comprehensive Plan for the State of Florida appearing in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Exhibit "P" Exhibit "P" is a March, 1993 report prepared by Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith regarding growth management considerations and the proposed establishment of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. Exhibit "R" Exhibit "R-1" is an additional consent of the remaining land owners within the CDD. (Exhibit D-4 contains the originally filed consent documents.) Exhibit "R-2" is an updated estimate of proposed infrastructure construction costs and deadlines. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenza Van Assenderp, Esquire Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 33962-4976
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
Findings Of Fact Ivanhoe is a planned unit development on approximately 864 acres in Broward County extending from Griffin Road on the north, Southeast 148th Avenue on the east, Sheridan Road on the south, and with the westwardly boundary approximately one-fourth mile east of Dyke Road. A planning consultant testified concerning the conceptual site development plan for Ivanhoe prepared pursuant to the Broward County Zoning Code and Land Use Plan. The planned unit development anticipates just less than 2,323 dwelling units (the density limit imposed by the Broward County Land Use Plan), to consist of single family units, townhouses, cluster homes, apartments, and some recreation and commercial land uses. The developers of Ivanhoe will not construct the ultimate dwellings but will develop the land for construction of residences and other buildings by builders. Ivanhoe is to be developed in three phases. The first phase is expected to be platted and ready for ultimate development by 1983, the second phase in 1985, and the third phase in 1988. South Broward is a Florida corporation formed solely to provide utility service to Ivanhoe, and if necessary, adjacent property. The corporation is not presently funded or in operation, but it has retained consulting engineers and management consultants experienced in planning, designing, and operating water and sewer utility systems in Florida. One hundred percent of the capital stock of South Broward is owned by Hugh F. Culverhouse. Mr. Culverhouse also owns other water and sewer utilities in Florida regulated by the Commission. The evidence in the record (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) establishes that South Broward's shareholder possesses substantial assets and net worth, and that he has the financial capability to provide whatever capital is needed in order to construct the required utility facilities and to operate a sound utility company. Although South Broward's utility consultant recommended a 50-50 to 60-40 ratio of equity to contributions-in-aid-of-construction, the shareholder is able to invest all of the capital necessary to construct and operate the entire utility system, or whatever ratio of equity to CIAC the Commission may require, should he be willing to do so. In order to determine alternate means of providing utility service to Ivanhoe, South Broward's consulting engineer prepared a preliminary report setting forth various alternatives and his cost estimates for each. These general engineering plans are sufficiently flexible to meet the changing requirements of the appropriate governmental agencies. However, the preparation of complete, detailed plans is premature until such time as certificates are issued by the Commission. At the present time, neither South Broward nor Cooper City Utilities possesses any permits from regulatory agencies relating to the facilities necessary to serve Ivanhoe. A representative from the Department of Environmental Regulation testified relative to licensing. There is nothing in South Broward's preliminary engineering report that would not allow the required permits to be issued. A representative from the Broward County Health Department, which agency reviews and approves engineering plans for potable water facilities in Broward County, also testified concerning licensing. The plans described in South Broward's preliminary report would be approved if they met all of the appropriate criteria when submitted. From this evidence, therefore, if detailed engineering plans are submitted by South Broward consistent with the general plans contained in the preliminary report, South Broward will be granted the necessary construction and operating permits for its proposed water and sewer systems. Ultimately, South Broward plans to utilize the Broward County regional wastewater treatment facility, to be constructed pursuant to Public Law 92-500 under what is known as a "201 Plan", to provide sewage treatment service to Ivanhoe. South Broward's management consultant presented evidence relative to the company's proposed capital structure, rates, the projected operating budget and manner of operation. South Broward's proposed rates would be in keeping with the rates of other utilities in the area, including Cooper City Utilities, even though South Broward would levy no plant contribution charge and would maintain at least 50-50 ratio of CIAC and invested plant. The past operational experience of South Broward's consultants and its sole stockholder demonstrate that South Broward will be operated in an efficient and sufficient manner. The evidence presented establishes that South Broward possesses the engineering and operational capability to construct and operate the necessary facilities to provide service to Ivanhoe. However, there remains to be established the willingness of South Broward's shareholder to commit sufficient funds to the company for this purpose. There is no competent, direct evidence in the record to demonstrate this point, although the capability of Mr. Culverhouse to make available the necessary funding was not challenged at the hearing, and is found as a fact. South Broward being otherwise able to provide utility service to Ivanhoe, the willingness of its shareholder to provide adequate funding may be demonstrated ex-parte, if the evidence presented by Cooper City Utilities fails to establish that it can provide the service required by Ivanhoe more economically or efficiently than South Broward. In this circumstance, the protest should be dismissed; and the application then being unprotested, may be considered further without another hearing. Section 367.051(1), Florida Statutes. The service area of Cooper City Utilities is located within the municipal boundaries of Cooper City, Florida, with its nearest boundary approximately 2 miles from the closest boundary of Ivanhoe. This utility contends that the Commission should deny South Broward's application for certificates because it is more capable of providing service, and because granting a certificate to South Broward will encourage the proliferation of small water and sewage treatment plants, contrary to the public interest. In order to determine the merits of this protest, it is necessary to evaluate the financial ability of Cooper City Utilities, the capacity of its utility plant to serve the Ivanhoe development, and the feasibility of the plan of service proposed by this utility. For the year 1979, Cooper City Utilities sustained a combined loss in its water and sewer operations of approximately $390,000. As of December 31, 1979, it had a negative net worth or deficit of $952,000. In addition, Cooper City Utilities has filed a petition with the Commission seeking authority to borrow $450,000 for the purpose of meeting existing obligations -- to make refunds to developers, to make refunds of customer deposits, and to fund construction of future improvements to the existing utility plant. (Commission Docket No. 800562-WS). Further, the Supreme Court of Florida has recently denied certiorari to review Commission Order No. 8964 requiring Cooper City Utilities far to refund to its customers an additional amount of approximately $400,000. (Supreme Court Case No. 58,047, Order dated September 12, 1980). As a result, the utility consultant to Ivanhoe has recommended that Ivanhoe not consider connecting to Cooper City Utilities as a source of water and sewer service because of the financial instability of this utility. In summary, this utility is not presently capable of making a financial investment in the amount necessary to provide services to Ivanhoe. The only means by which Cooper City Utilities could construct the facilities necessary to serve Ivanhoe is for the developers to provide all of the funds to construct the facilities in the form of contributions-in-aid-of- construction. Under this utility's proposal, Ivanhoe would provide the funds for off-site facilities in the amount of approximately $575,000 a contribution to plant in the amount of approximately $467,500, and a contribution to the hydraulic share cost of existing off-site facilities of $297,500 ($175 per ERC for 1700 ERCs). The deputy clerk of the City of Cooper City, Florida testified concerning the zoning and land use of the remaining area within the service area of Cooper City Utilities. Based on the present development, zoning, platting, and land use, when the existing service area of this utility is fully developed, the customers will require approximately 1,256,000 gallons per day (based on an average daily flow) of the capacity of the utility's water and sewage treatment plants. This demand will utilize the entire capacity of the sewage treatment plant, which has a design capacity of 1.25 mgd. In addition, the maximum day throughput demand of the service area on the utility's water facilities will be approximately 2.826 mgd, which will utilize substantially all of the capacity of the water treatment plant, which has a throughput design capacity of 3.0 mgd. Thus, if Cooper City Utilities were to serve its existing certificated area and Ivanhoe, it would be required to build additional water and sewage treatment facilities. However, Cooper City Utilities does not have sufficient land at its treatment plant site to construct an expansion to its existing facilities, and it does not presently own or have access to enough land to construct the necessary 20 acres of evapopercolation ponds to provide an effluent disposal at its existing plant. South Broward contends that Cooper City Utilities is not a reliable source of utility service for Ivanhoe because the utility has been negotiating to sell its water and sewer systems to a municipal government in the area. Representatives of Cooper City Utilities have met with representatives of the cities of Sunrise, Cooper City, and Davie concerning the possible acquisition of the utility by these cities. Although there is not sufficient evidence in the record to permit a finding to be made on the matter of a sale of Cooper City Utilities to a municipality, the subject of such a possible sale is relevant to the issue of whether it is in the public interest to grant a certificate to South Broward pursuant to its application. If such a sale were consummated, Ivanhoe and the future residents of the development would be dependent for water and sewer services upon a municipality, the officials of which are not elected by them and who do not represent them. Cooper City Utilities also contends that certification of South Broward as a water and sewer utility would violate the policy of regulatory agencies to encourage the growth and expansion of existing community utility systems, and to discourage the proliferation of small water and sewage treatment facilities. However, the representatives of the regulatory agencies will approve the detailed engineering plans which South Broward submits if the same are in conformity with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code. Thus, this contention is not persuasive in disposing of the issues herein. The evidence fails to establish that Cooper City Utilities can make an economically feasible extension of its systems to serve the Ivanhoe development, or that it is more capable than South Broward of providing water and sewer service to Ivanhoe, or that it can provide such service more economically or efficiently than South Broward. Although this utility has never failed to provide adequate service, and Possesses sufficient treatment capacity to serve Ivanhoe at the present time, it will be required to expand its facilities in order to serve both its existing certificated territory, and also the Ivanhoe development. Its financial condition is such that it would not be able to finance this necessary expansion of its facilities. In addition, the possible sale of Cooper City Utilities to a municipal government makes it uncertain whether the utility is a reliable source of service. Therefore, this utility's protest is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant a denial of the application of South Broward.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of South Broward Utility, Inc., be granted conditionally, subject to a determination by the staff of the Commission that the company's sole shareholder is willing to commit adequate financing to the company to enable it to provide water and sewer service to Ivanhoe as proposed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the protest filed by the Cooper City Utilities, Inc. be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 30th day of October, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Ade, Esquire and William A. Van Nortwick, Jr., Esquire 300 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sundstrom, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Harrold, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
