The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Amend the Boundaries of the Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2007)1, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the local public hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue This proceeding concerns Lakepointe project, a development of regional impact (DRI) which was approved, with conditions, by Orange County. The developer contests certain of the conditions imposed by the County in its approvals of the DRI and the related rezoning. More specifically, the Petitioner has alleged that the County acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and contrary to the essential requirements of law by: eliminating free-standing commercial uses from the project and requiring that all commercial activities be internalized within office buildings and included within the office square footage; imposing a 10,000 square feet per acre limitation on all office development and reducing the total square footage from 805,000 to 756,000 square feet; limiting structures to 35 feet in height; requiring that all office buildings within the project be designed with "residential scale and character"; reducing the residential density and limiting the residential development to single family detached units on the north portion of the project in lieu of the multi-family, attached units proposed by Petitioner; and imposing uplands buffer requirements that reduce the amount of acreage available for development. Petitioner seeks to have the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a modified development order eliminating these conditions. Orange County and the City of Maitland contend that the challenged conditions are reasonable, given the facts and circumstances surrounding the project, and that they are consistent with the requirements of law. Certain ancillary issues raised by the parties were eliminated through rulings of the hearing officer during the proceeding. Petitioner sought to present extensive evidence that the process by which the County arrived at its conditions of approval was improper as it relied unduly on the demands of the City of Maitland whose jurisdictional boundaries abut the project. Petitioner claims that the City and County reached an agreement on the project which was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of section 163.3171, F.S. Although some evidence was permitted, and the issue is addressed in this recommended order, the issue is deemed irrelevant. As more fully explained in the conclusions of law, the de novo nature of this proceeding cures the procedural defects claimed by Petitioner. For a similar reason, the hearing officer denied a joint motion in limine by Orange County and the City of Maitland that would have precluded Petitioner from presenting any evidence related to conditions to which it did not expressly object at the December 14, 1987, public hearing conducted by the County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Battaglia Properties, Ltd. (BPL) is a Florida limited partnership whose mailing address is Post Office Box 770398, Winter Garden, Florida 32787. BPL is owner and developer of the property that is the subject of this proceeding. As such, BPL has standing to initiate this appeal pursuant to section 380.07, F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 3). Orange County (County) is a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida, authorized to issue "development orders", as that term is defined in section 380.031(3), F.S. and section 163.3164(6), F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 4). The City of Maitland, Florida (City, or Maitland) is a municipal corporation which has properly intervened in this proceeding. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 5.) The Site and its Environs The property that is the subject of this appeal comprises 120.6 acres located north and south of Maitland Boulevard in unincorporated Orange County. The south portion consists of 33.3 gross acres and the north portion is 87.3 gross acres. The City of Maitland surrounds the property on three sides: east, south and west. An adjacent parcel owned by Petitioner, east of the property, lies within the incorporated city limits of Maitland. Together, the parcels constitute a development of regional impact (DRI) located within more than one local government jurisdiction, referred to as the "Lakepointe Project" or "Lakepointe DRI/PD". This appeal, and thus this order, address only that portion of the project located in unincorporated Orange County. Maitland Boulevard is currently constructed as a four-lane divided, limited access, principal arterial with interchanges at Interstate 4 on the west, and US 17-92 (Maitland Avenue) on the east. The Battaglia family has owned the property for approximately thirty- five years and has used it for citrus groves. At the time that the property was purchased by the Battaglias, the area was largely rural. Maitland Avenue (US 17-92) was a two-lane road, and Maitland Boulevard was a dirt road. I-4, approximately 1/4 mile to the west was constructed in the 1960's. Subdivisions and a school were constructed south of Sandspur Road, the southern boundary of the property, in the 1960's and 1970's. Around that time other residences were constructed north of the lakes on the northern boundary of the property. In the early 1970's, an office building was built to the east of the property, on the southside of Maitland Boulevard; and Lake Faith Villas, a multi-family residential development, was built on the northside of Maitland Boulevard. A large Jewish Community Center was developed across from Lake Faith Villas, on the south of Maitland Boulevard. West of the Battaglia parcel, and north of Maitland Boulevard, the property is vacant and has been the subject of various development proposals. West of the Battaglia property, but south of Maitland Boulevard, is a large church complex, Orangewood Presbyterian. On the westside of I-4, north and south of Maitland Boulevard is a 230 acre office development, Maitland Center, zoned in the 1970's and developed in the 1980's. When Orange County first adopted zoning, in 1957, the Battaglia parcel was zoned R-1AA, allowing single-family detached units, not to exceed 4.4 units per acre (du/acre). When the County adopted its comprehensive plan in 1980, the parcel north of Maitland Boulevard was designated for low-medium density residential use (4.4 to 7.5 du/acre). The south parcel was designated for low density residential use (1.01-4.4 du/acre). These designations are reflected on Orange County's 1986 Future Land Use Policy Guide Map, included in the County's comprehensive plan, the 1986 Growth Management Policy (GMP). The City of Maitland Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) also addresses the property for planning and informational purposes. Figure 7-1 of the Land Use District Map of the 1986 CDP designates the area as an "undeveloped district" (UD), with the north parcel designated UD 2, permitting single family residential, multi-family, and limited non-residential uses. The south parcel is within a UD 1 district, permitting single family residential and related uses. (Joint Exhibit #10, pp 7-26 to 7-30) When the Florida Department of Transportation acquired the right of way for Maitland Boulevard, it acquired all access rights, except at specific limited locations where shared access between adjoining properties is necessary. The right of way includes anticipated expansion of Maitland Boulevard to six lanes. Access points to the north parcel of the Battaglia property are at both ends, east and west. Access to the south parcel is at the west only, with a "stubbed-out" road that dead-ends before reaching Sandspur Road, on the southern boundary of the south parcel. Construction of I-4, Maitland Boulevard, and Maitland Avenue (US 17- 92) has substantially changed the area from its rural character to one of mixed uses. Although the areas north and south of the property are well-established residential neighborhoods with homes selling between $100,000 and $200,000, the corridor along Maitland Boulevard is not residential in character. No single- family residential subdivision has direct access to Maitland Boulevard. The subdivisions south of the property access Sandspur Road; and those to the north, on the north side of Lakes Faith, Hope and Charity, access small neighborhood streets. Other events occurred which directly impacted the Battaglia family's use of its property. During the decade of the 1980's, five major freezes occurred: January 1981, January 1982, December 1983, January 1985, and December 1989. A substantial portion of the grove, particularly on the south parcel, was destroyed or severely damaged. Some of the trees also passed the upper limits of their twelve to thirty year productive life span. The Development Plan In the mid-1980's the owners came to believe that citrus was probably not the best investment they could make on this property any longer, given the grove damage and the development that was occurring in the area. A planning firm was consulted, and a master development plan was created for the property north and south of Maitland Boulevard. [See Appendix B, attached] The mixed use development, called Lakepointe, was divided into six parcels, as follows, with parcels one and two to be developed in the relatively narrow portion south of Maitland Boulevard, and four through six on the deeper and larger northern portion: Parcel Land Use Acreage Units 1 office 28.3 240,000 (gsf) gross square feet 2 multi-family 5.0 50 du (10 du/a) 3 office/ 3.3 35.000 gsf commercial 6.000 gsf 4 commercial 4.0 12,000 gsf 5 office 35.0 530.000 gsf 6 multi-family 12.0 100 du (8.3 du/a) greenbelt 2.8 entrance road 1.1 lakes 29.1 120.6 ac 805.000 gsf office 18,000 gsf commercial 150 du Under the plan, commercial use in parcel 3 was limited to financial institutions, and in parcel 4 was proposed to be a "quality restaurant". (Joint Exhibit #7; Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a), p. 12-2; APS, p. 6.) The narrative description accompanying the master development plan proposed a height limitation of 35 feet for those structures to be located south of Maitland Boulevard and for the structures to be located on parcel 6. A 55- foot height limitation was proposed by Petitioner for the office and commercial structures on parcels 3, 4, and 5, north of Maitland Boulevard. The Petitioner also proposed a 50-foot wide uplands greenbelt buffer, located landward of Lake Hope and its adjoining conservation areas, along the northern boundary of parcel 5, to provide additional open space and buffering for the 55-foot buildings that were proposed (APS, pp. 6-7). The offices to be located on parcel 1 were proposed to be of "residential scale", due to the limited depth of the parcel and to minimize detrimental impacts on nearby residential uses. (Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a) p. 12-6) A 25-foot buffer was proposed around the multi-family residential use proposed for parcel 6. (transcript, pp. 1173-4) Parcel 6, located in the far northwest portion of the property, is also called "Pine Island" for its unique vegetation. Its approximate 12 acres have never been cultivated in groves, but rather have been allowed to flourish in dense pine and oak trees. It protrudes, like the thumb of a mitten, into the area between Lakes Hope and Charity, and is separated from the subdivision to the north by a drainage divide densely vegetated with grasses, reeds and other plants associated with the presence of a high water table. (transcript, p. 1173) Petitioner's plan for parcel 6 considered the unique character of this portion of the property and proposed attached, multi-family units which would allow maximum flexibility in designing roads and parking and in preserving open space. The Application Process Due to the more extensive grove damage on the south property, Petitioner initially elected to proceed with development there first, and to continue cultivating its citrus on the north. Over the objection of the residential neighbors across Sandspur Road, on October 28, 1985, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Battaglia's request to rezone the south parcel from R-1AA to Planned Development (PD) with office buildings and some multi-family units. The office park was permitted access limited to Maitland Boulevard, and the residential parcel was permitted access to Sandspur Road, with no access between the two parcels. The project was called Sandspur Grove PD. The City of Maitland area homeowners challenged the rezoning and prevailed in Circuit Court. However, the rezoning was reinstated when the Circuit Court was reversed on appeal. See Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In the meantime, the owners determined to pursue the entire development, and in April 1986, filed an application to rezone the north parcel from R-1AA to PD, and an application for Development Approval/Development of Regional Impact (ADA/DRI). On June 11, 1987, Petitioner filed its application to amend the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map contained in Orange County's comprehensive plan to a classification appropriate for the land uses proposed in the Lakepointe DRI/PD, as shown on the Master Development Plan (APS, p. 5). A detailed traffic study in support of the proposed Lakepointe Master Plan was included in the DRI application. Orange County and Maitland reviewed and approved in advance the methodologies and assumptions used in the traffic study. The study included traffic growth applicable to all vacant properties in the traffic impact area, including projected trips from 65,000 square feet of commercial retail. On March 29, 1987, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) issued its final recommendation on the Lakepointe DRI. It recommended approval with conditions, eight of which address traffic, including the recommendation that phase III not proceed until Maitland Boulevard is six-laned, unless monitoring concludes the improvement is not necessary. (Joint Exhibit #8) The ECFRPC also noted in "issues of local concern" that the project is virtually surrounded by the City of Maitland and would have a significant impact on the City and its citizens, and that the project appears to be inconsistent with the Maitland Comprehensive Plan. The ECFRPC recommended that full review of the project be made at a joint public hearing conducted by the City and County. (Joint Exhibit #8, pp. 47-48) The Petitioner did not request such a joint hearing on its application, as provided in Section 380.06, F.S. On April 9, 1987, the Orange County Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted a technical review of the proposed development. Representatives of the Lakepointe project were present and participated. The DRC is comprised of Orange County staff who review a project for compliance with Orange County regulations and make recommendations to the County's Planning and Zoning Commission. On the basis of the staff's technical review, such recommendations will ameliorate the impacts of the proposed development. (APS, p. 8) The approved Minutes of the April 9, 1987, DRC meeting reflect a staff recommendation of approval of the Lakepointe project with the following recommended modifications: Extending the 50-foot wide greenbelt area around the entire northerly perimeter of the PD and ending at the Department of Transportation drainage easement (Parcels 5 and 6). Prohibiting free-standing commercial uses on Parcels 3 and 4, and requiring the commercial uses to be located internally within office buildings. Limiting building height in Parcels 3, 4, and 6 to three stories (forty feet). Limiting building height on Parcel 5 within 100 feet of adjacent property zoned residential to one story and a maximum of 35 feet, while recommending a 4-story, 50-foot maximum height on the balance of Parcel 5. The approved DRC Minutes of April 9, 1987 recommended approval of 805,000 square feet of office uses, plus an additional 18,000 square feet of commercial uses (internalized within offices), and 150 multi-family dwelling units at the densities requested by Battaglia (10 du/a on Parcel 2 and 8.3 du/a on Parcel 6. (APS, pp. 8-9). On August 10, 1987, a joint work session was conducted between the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council. Representatives from the Petitioner and other citizens were present, but their participation was limited to occasional unsolicited comments. The purpose of the work session was to consider proposals for a joint agreement that would allow municipal jurisdiction over adjacent unincorporated areas for planning purposes pursuant to section 163.3171, F.S. As reflected in the litigation with regard to the Battaglia property, relations between the local governments were strained. The Lakepointe project was specifically discussed, and the group of council and board members appeared to reach some consensus on certain restrictions on the development: that any development on the property could not exceed 35 feet in height. that the attached multi-family units in parcel 6 be replaced with single family detached units at a density of 7.5 units per acre; and that all residential uses be deleted from the south parcel and replaced with residential scale offices. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 17, 23, 27, 28-30, 34-35). Even though votes were taken at the work session, the outcome was not binding on the board. Resolution of the various issues amounted to policy determinations which provide guidance to the staff. Nonetheless, the session concluded with some self-congratulation that the two bodies had been able to sit down amicably and work out tough problems. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 62-63). Edward Williams, Orange County's Planning Director and a member of the DRC, sent a memo to the DRC on November 11, 1987 outlining the conditions agreed at the August 10, 1987 work session and stating that certain conditions approved by the DRC should be modified and other conditions added. These included: No free standing commercial and the internal commercial use limited to 18,000 sq. ft. would not exceed 50% of any building. Maximum heights would be 35 feet. The residential uses north of Maitland Boulevard would be single family detached, at 7.5 du/a. Multi-family residential uses south of Maitland Boulevard would be eliminated and redesignated as offices. Building coverage would be no more than 10,000 sq. ft. per acre. The 33.3 acre office tract south of Maitland Boulevard would be limited to 333,000 sq. ft. and the 42.3 acre office tract on the north would be limited to 423,000 square feet. (Battaglia Exhibit #9) The DRC adopted Williams' changes. The Orange County Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC), an advisory body to the Board and appointed by the Board, considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan land use map amendment and the DRI/PD application at two consecutive public hearings on November 19, 1987. The P&ZC accepted the 7.5 du/a single family residence restriction for Parcel 6, but recommended deleting the "detached" requirement, in favor of giving the developer additional flexibility. It also recommended computing the 10,000 square feet per acre office use on a gross basis both on the north and south parcels, rather than on a gross basis on the south and net on the north as the county staff had done. The change in computation resulted in an additional 39,000 square feet for offices on the north parcel when the 2.8 acre green belt and 1.1 acre entrance road are included. Other than these, the conditions urged by Edward Williams from the joint work session were adopted. (Joint Exhibit #18, pp. 106-109; Joint Exhibit #19) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan amendment, DRI application and PD zoning application at duly noticed and advertised public hearings on December 14, 1987. Representatives of the Petitioner and members of the public were present and participated. (Joint Exhibits #22 and 23; APS, p.4) Accepting the staff recommendations, but deleting the P&ZC recommended changes, the Board adopted an ordinance amending the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the land uses associated with the Lakepointe project. It also approved the project as a DRI, and approved rezoning the north portion of the property from R-1AA to PD. (Joint Exhibits #2, 22 and 23) On February 22, 1988, Orange County issued a Development Order, pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. memorializing the conditions of development approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 1987, for the Lakepointe DRI/PD. (Joint Exhibit #3) On June 12, 1989, the City of Maitland issued a Development Order pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. for that portion of the Lakepointe project located entirely within the City of Maitland. This order relates only to the access road at the northeast of the project. (Joint Exhibit #4) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council formally adopted an interlocal agreement at a duly noticed and advertised joint public hearing held on July 10, 1989. (APS, p. 10) The Development Order The Development Order for Lakepointe DRI consists of approximately 16 pages, plus the legal descriptions of the tracts. Although the order references a 120.3 acre project, the parties have stipulated, and the evidence reflects, that the project is 120.6 acres. (APS, p. 5) The preamble to the conditions of approval includes this language, which the County argues controls the ultimate disposition of this appeal: * * * * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED by the County Commission of Orange County, Florida, that, subject to each of the following terms and conditions <<(each of which the County Commission found was necessary for inclusion for the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project, and none of which could have been omitted or modified if the Developer expected the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project),>> the Lakepointe Development of Regional Impact is APPROVED pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), and the Land Use Plan for the zoning change on the northern portion of the Property from R-1AA to PD is approved: * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, p.3, emphasis added) * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The order adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the ECFRPC, including the conditions regarding traffic impacts and monitoring/modeling. (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 9-11) The order requires development in accordance with the DRI/ADA, and supplemental information, except as modified by the specific conditions of approval. (Joint Exhibit #3, p. 7) The relevant specific conditions (those contested in this proceeding) provide as follows: * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. * * * * 2. The greenbelt (minimum 50-feet wide) shall be continued around the northerly perimeter of the PD, <<particularly along the northwestern boundary of Parcel 6 extending to Lake Charity and ending at the Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") drainage right-of-way area.>> The greenbelt shall be located outside of designated conservation areas. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided around the balance of the perimeter of the PD (<<i.e.>> southerly perimeter of the PD situated immediately north of Maitland Boulevard). A reduction in the 25-foot buffer along Maitland Boulevard may be considered by Orange County staff at the development plan submittal stage (<<e.g.>>, reduced buffer width with wall screening). Specific landscape material for the entire buffer area shall be provided on the development plan submittal for County approval. 3. <<Free-standing commercial structure(s) shall be prohibited.>> The accessory or support commercial shall be located within the office buildings(s). The commercial uses are intended to serve the employees of the office development. The total professional office square footage shall include the square footage for any commercial uses, and the commercial use shall not exceed 18,000 square feet and no more than fifty percent (50%) for two (2)-story structures. * * * 7. <<Maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. <<This residential development shall be low-medium density with a cap of 7.5 single family detached units per acre.>> (Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.) * * * <<Building coverage for office on the northern portion of the Property shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per net acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 481,000 square feet, for an aggregate total of 756,000 square feet.>> * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 3-7, emphasis added.) Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The Conditions in Controversy Buffering the Northern Perimeter In its application Petitioner proposes a height of 55 feet for office buildings on the north parcel and a 50 foot uplands buffer landward of all conservation areas adjoining the offices on the northern boundary of parcel 5. The DRC reduced the height to 50 feet, for parcel 5, except within 100 feet of property zoned residential. Along the northern perimeter of parcel 6 (the residential use) Petitioner proposed a 25-foot natural buffer. The DRC originally had no problem with the residential density, but recommended extending the 50-foot upland buffer proposed for Parcel 5 around the northern perimeter of parcel 6. Petitioner contends that the 50 foot buffer is unnecessary if the office height and residential density are reduced. Buffers are required on any developer's land. In both Orange County and the City of Maitland, buffers are negotiated in PD's, based on existing factors and circumstances. The lakes along the northern perimeter of the property are between 1,000 to 2,000 feet across and are not effective light or noise buffers. The residential parcel (parcel 6) is separated from the existing subdivision by only a drainage canal and low vegetation. The 50-foot buffer between parcel 6 and Druid Hills (the existing subdivision) is not unusual. Buffer widths in PD's in the county range between 5 and 100 feet. In another case, the County required Buckingham at Lakeville to include a 50-foot wide buffer between residential uses of differing densities. In a case cited by Petitioner, Fairbanks Office Building, on Fairbanks Avenue in unincorporated Orange County, the developer, was required to provide only a 10-foot landscape buffer with a 6-foot wall, separating 46 foot high offices from an existing residential development. The wall, however, and the fact that the office park developer negotiated with the adjacent property owner to provide water and sewer service made that case unique and distinguishable from Lakepointe. (Transcript, p. 1132) No 50-foot buffer is required by the county for the southern boundary of the south parcel as the office uses on that parcel are separated from the single family residences by Sandspur Road and by Petitioner's proposed wall, berming and landscaping. Different requirements for the north and south perimeter are justified and appropriate. Prohibition of Free-Standing Commercial Structures Although there are well-established single family neighborhoods north and south of Maitland Boulevard between I-4 and Maitland Avenue (U.S. 17-92), those neighborhoods are separated from the Maitland Boulevard corridor by the lakes on the north and Sandspur Road on the south. The corridor itself is not residential in character. No single family residential subdivisions directly access Maitland Boulevard. From the beginning of the County's review of the project, however, the free-standing commercial uses proposed by the developer have been eliminated as inconsistent with the character of the portion of Maitland Boulevard east of I-4 and west of Maitland Avenue. The planning and zoning staff have sought to prevent strip commercial development of the type that has proliferated along other principal arterial roads, notably State Road 436, U.S. 17-92 and State Road 434. Free-standing commercial on parcels 3 and 4 would be the only uses of that type in this area of the Maitland Boulevard corridor, setting a precedent for other similar uses on adjacent properties, a trend vigorously opposed by the residential groups and by the City and County officials and their staff. Appropriate locations for free-standing commercial in the vicinity would be at U.S. 17-92, in downtown Maitland or west of I-4 (designated as one of the county's five "activity centers" in the GMP to concentrate high intensity uses and avoid encroachment into residential areas). Relevant policies from Orange County's GMP provide, as follows: COMMERCIAL POLICIES (Policies outlined in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 are applicable to all types of commercial activities within Orange County) GENERAL The County will encourage the concentration of expanded commercial facilities in centers suitably located to provide their market areas with accessibility and to discourage inappropriate roadway strip commercial uses. Uses generally considered as a suitable replacement for strip commercial activities include all types of residential uses, institutional development, or recreation areas and green belts. * * * 11.0 OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. * * * 11.1.3 Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, pp VI-21, VI-30) Prohibiting free-standing commercial, but permitting commercial corollary uses as described above, within the office buildings, appropriately effectuates those policies. The County has required other mixed-use PD's besides Lakepointe to incorporate commercial within office buildings. For example, since the early 1960's and '70s, planning studies for the area around the University of Central Florida have discouraged free-standing commercial uses to maintain a campus-like atmosphere and to avoid adverse impacts on the University. Some unspecified commercial use has been permitted in recent years. (Transcript, pp 397-398) Where free-standing commercial developments are permitted in DRI/PDs, the projects are generally much larger than Lakepointe (for example, Southchase with 3,000 acres and Lake Nona with approximately 7,000 acres), or are in an activity center (for example, Maitland Summit). (Transcript, pp. 1188, 1191) In approving or rejecting free-standing commercial uses the County considers each location as it relates to the road network, the relationship to other uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area and the character of the area. (Transcript, p. 398) Maximum Height & "Residential Scale and Character" A 35-foot height limit for office buildings is mandated by the County's "straight" Professional-Office (P-O) zoning district requirement. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXI, Section 6, paragraph 7) A special exception is permitted to increase the height, after consideration of the character of the neighborhood, the effect of the proposed use on the value of surrounding lands, and the area of the site. (Id., Section 5) The project in issue is a Planned Development (PD), however, allowing mixed uses and a greater degree of flexibility than available under straight zoning. The developer is required to submit a plan for approval, which plan identifies, among other details, the proposed building heights. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXIX, Sections 1 and 6) For guidance, the County and developer look to performance standards in the straight zoning, although these are clearly not binding in PD zoning. The Petitioner voluntarily committed to a 35-foot height restriction on the south portion of the property. It also committed to a "residential scale and character" office development on the 28.3 acres that comprise Parcel 1 on the south. As part of the rezoning process the Petitioner showed photographs of residential scale office developments. In making those commitments, Petitioner considered the narrow depth of the south parcel and its proximity to residential uses (across Sandspur Road). It proposed 55-foot heights and a "campus-style" development for the offices on the larger northern parcels, to allow more open space, more landscaping and an opportunity for flexible design. Orange County's codes do not define the term "residential scale and character" and no guidelines or standards have been adopted to apply meaning to the term. Nor does the County have an architectural review board charged with making design decisions on development proposals. It is plain that both parties have some notion of what it means, as both have used the term throughout the plan approval process. For example, Orange County's Planning Director, Edward Williams, when asked by the Board for a definition at its final public hearing, suggested that "residential scale" projects include a roof type and architectural features compatible with what is found in a "typical residential area". Size, for example, a limitation of 5,000 square feet per building, is not necessarily appropriate in all residential scale projects. (Joint Exhibit #22, p. 75) "Residential scale and character" could include one to five very large buildings on the north parcel rather than multiple small buildings as envisioned on the south, according to Mr. Williams. (Transcript, p. 475) As recognized by the Petitioner, "residential scale and character" buildings are appropriate adjacent to existing residential areas. Petitioner also acknowledges that a 35-foot height requirement is appropriate on parcels abutting or close to existing residential areas. Parcel 5, however, is different. Its 35 acres is the largest, and by far, the deepest parcel in the plan. It is buffered from existing residential areas by the greenbelt, by the lakes, and by the proposed residential use on parcel 6, "Pine Island". The height restriction of 35 feet does not make sense in that parcel, and inhibits the creative use of open or green space and landscaping. In his presentation to the local government officials at the August 10, 1987 work session, Mr. Williams articulated County planning policy in the past as trying to "...go up with developments rather than covering the entire site with impervious surfaces. We prefer to have more open space." (Joint exhibit #17, p. 10) Petitioner seeks to target a different market for the offices on the south parcel than for those on Parcel 5 on the north. On the south, there are proposed approximately 18 office buildings averaging 15,000 square feet in size. On the north parcel, the proposal suggests larger buildings, with more open space. If the height is unreasonably limited, the open space is sacrificed. "Residential Scale and Character" is not limited to single-family residential scale, but can also be multifamily. A large building can be made to look residential. Several large office buildings on the north parcel can be designed to have a "campus" feel with a quadrangle or semi-circle configuration. Size alone does not create or negate "residential scale and character". 7.5 Single Family Detached Units Per Acre Petitioner has proposed attached, multi-family units at a density of 8.3 du/acre for the unique, heavily wooded parcel 6. This density is at the lower end of the "medium density" range, "over 7.5 to, and including 14.9 Du/acre" described in the County's GMP. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-8.) The GMP promotes the use of this density to buffer low and low-medium density development from more intensive uses. The plan also encourages medium density residential subdivisions to "provide recreation and open space areas through the clustering of dwelling units". (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-11) The housing element of the GMP states these relevant goals: Socio-Economic Encourage development patterns which do not physically isolate low and moderate income and special needs groups from other sectors of society, especially in low density areas of the County. Recognize the need for and encourage the development of affordable housing for service employees working in Orange County. Examine the feasibility of creating new financial incentives for the development of low cost, affordable housing in Orange County. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. V-3) Petitioner's proposal is consistent with these policies. It seeks to buffer the low-density existing residential areas from the more intensive office uses in Lakepointe. It also seeks to preserve as much of the vegetation as possible, yet derive a benefit from the use of this parcel. It recognizes that residences accessible only through an office park may have a limited market. Its proposal is consistent with the County's goal of providing "affordable housing", and provides a convenient residential choice for persons who may be employed in the office park. The residential neighbors and City of Maitland sought the lower density and detached single family units precisely to avoid lower-income residents and more affordable units. (transcript, pp. 955, 958-59, 1003-04, 1046-47) In order to justify its accommodation of the interests of the local citizens, the County argues that a residential project, perhaps a condominium, could be designed with detached units, clustered together, or with zero lot lines. Visually, there is little difference between the attached units proposed by Petitioner and the County's suggestions for creative design. The latter suggestions do not satisfy the neighbors' desire to have units which are similar to their own, but they impose an unreasonable restriction on the Petitioner's flexibility. The Petitioner's proposal is consistent with Lake Faith Villas, an attached multifamily residential project to the immediate east of Petitioner's property on Maitland Boulevard, within the City of Maitland. Lake Faith Villas has a density of 10 du/acre. Office use limited to 10,000 square feet per acre Although the County's PD regulations do not specifically establish a 10,000 square foot per acre limit for offices, they allow the County to set reasonable, maximum amounts for different projects. The 10,000 square foot per acre limitation was derived from what Edward Williams claims is an average figure for professional office parcels in the county, and is more than the density sought and obtained by Petitioner for the south parcel when Sandspur Grove PD was approved. Other evidence suggests that the average square foot density for PO developments and PD developments in Orange County is closer to 12,000 (Transcript, p. 681-682), but the restriction is not so far off as to be patently unreasonable, considering Petitioner's plans for "residential scale and character" and "campus-style" projects. Computation of the total square feet for office uses was derived on a gross acreage basis on the south and a net basis on the north, ostensibly because the County was unable to ascertain from the development plan how much of the greenbelt and road should be allocated to parcel 6. (Transcript, pp. 436- 438) It is possible to compute gross acreage on the north property, using the parcels identified on Petitioner's master development plan (Joint Exhibit #7) [Appendix B] provided that the acreage allocated to parcel 6 is limited to twelve acres. It is obvious that this is what the developer intended when it derived 100 dwelling units at 8.3 du/acre, and 12 acres. (8.3 x 12 = 99.6) It is thus possible to be consistent and compute the office density allowance for both the north and south property at a gross density, just as the P&ZC did at its November 19, 1987, meeting. This results in a total of 795,000 square feet of offices, not 756,000, as reflected in the development order. As the Petitioner has agreed to limit the south property to 275,000 square feet, this leaves a total of 520,000 square feet for the north property. The County concedes that paragraph 19 of the Development Order, limiting building coverage for offices to 10,000 square feet per acre, does not preclude larger than 10,000 square foot buildings. (Proposed Finding of Fact, paragraph 115) That requirement should be amended in the interest of clarity, so long as the totals permitted for the north and south parcels are included in the order. This sentence, as it now reads, makes the condition internally inconsistent, as the second sentence permits 481,000 square feet on the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard, more than 10,000 square feet per acre. (See Finding #41, paragraph 19, p. 21, of this recommended order) The Balancing Act: Weighing the Policies The process of review and approval of the Lakepointe project was one of compromise and accommodation. The Board and its staff considered comments from the applicant, the applicant's consultants, the City, the Regional Planning Council, homeowner's groups from both the County and City, and the City of Altamonte Springs. The County did not have a joint agreement with the City of Maitland, and its agreements with regard to conditions for the project were informal and non- binding. Nonetheless, the County considered the level of participation a necessary and appropriate exercise of intergovernmental coordination, as indeed it was. The applicant also exhibited willingness to accede to compromises throughout the process but never abandoned its original plan as it relates to the issues raised in this proceeding. It steadfastly defended the uses and densities it proposed, and in the end, agreed only to the deletion of multifamily units on the south parcel and transfer of that acreage to office use. This was a small DRI project, but a significant one to the owners and to the neighbors. It lacks the vast array of issues usually present in DRI's. There is little or no environmental impact and any traffic issues were resolved substantially though the ECFRPC review, even as to the proposed free-standing commercial uses and the densities originally proposed by the applicant. The single overriding issue here is land use. According to Planning Director, Edward Williams, the Orange County GMP includes some 900 separate policies to guide its decisions. These sometimes divergent policies must be balanced and weighed. (Transcript, p. 382) In this regard, the ultimate decision by the County was skewed. Some of the conditions it imposed, in the legitimate interest of preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods, unduly ignored other equally valid policy considerations. The Developmental Framework Section of the County's Growth Management Plan lists this as its first goal: 1. To promote the orderly economic development of Orange County. Orderly economic development may be defined as maximizing the use of public dollar investments in facilities and services, such as water and wastewater systems, roads, schools, transit, law enforcement, fire protection, and parks. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, p. II-13) As noted by James A. Sellen, one of Petitioner's two expert witnesses on the topics of comprehensive planning and zoning, the development proposed is appropriate because of the substantial public investment in the controlled access road and over-sized water and sewer infrastructure. Maintenance of land use as low density single family is contrary to that investment. (Transcript, p. 233-34) Commercial Policy 1.0.11 of the Future Land Use Element provides, in pertinent part: 1.0.11 The future conversion of existing residential land uses to non-residential may be permitted under the following conditions: When the general land use character of an area has undergone significant change and will lend itself to more intensive uses; Adequate access to major streets and highways network is provided, whenever possible common access drive shall be used; The carrying capacity on the abutting road segment exceeds 8,000 average daily trips (ADT); The proposed site for conversion has close proximity to a street intersection; All other applicable policies detailed for commercial or office land use in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Policy are met; and, When sufficient area is available to accommodate the conversion, together with the needed improvements including parking, stormwater retention and vehicular turnaround movements. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-22) The changes in the area along Maitland Boulevard support the change in land use from the currently designated 4.4 residential du/acre to the mixed use proposed by Petitioner. The Future Land Use Element's Commercial Policy 11.0, provides: OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. Location and Compatibility Large office uses should generally locate adjacent to arterial thoroughfares that connect to an interstate or expressway in order to lend accessibility to a wider market area. Smaller office uses should generally utilize principal or minor arterials for site access and location. Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. Office uses are compatible with adjacent community and regional commercial shopping areas and may provide a buffer between these shopping areas and nearby residential areas. Professional service office parks should locate on major collectors and minor arterials. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-30) As cited in Orange County Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Map relating to the Lakepointe DRI, the proposed new uses are consistent with these policies of the Growth Management Plan. (Joint Exhibit #2) Concern for the existing residential uses is supported by the following residential policies within the Future Land Use Element: LOCATION AND COMPATIBILITY General Residential areas shall be buffered from major transportation arteries, and from commercial and industrial land uses which are not compatible with residential development. New commercial development will be discouraged where there would be a detrimental impact on existing residential properties due to excessive noise, pollution, traffic congestion, unsafe highway conditions or where an unacceptable physical intrusion into residential neighborhoods would be created. * * * 3.1.3 Land development controls should ensure that future development which may allow a greater intensity of use is compatible with existing development. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-9) In summary, the project, as proposed by Petitioner is substantially consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan, but requires some of the modifications imposed by the County as conditions of approval. Those modifications include the deletion of free-standing commercial uses; the enhanced buffer zone along the north parcels; reduction in height of all but the offices to be located on the large parcel 5, north of Maitland Boulevard; and offices that are designed "residential in scale and character". Other conditions imposed by the County, but contested by Petitioner, i.e., restrictions on the residential development on Pine Island and the height limitations for offices on Parcel 5, violate significant policies cited above without reasonably advancing the goal of protecting the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and should be deleted. The computation of office use density should be amended to provide for gross densities for the entire property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, granting Petitioner's appeal, in part, by amending the Development Order for Lakepointe DRI, as follows: [Deleted text of the order is struck through, and new language is underlined.] * * * * 7. The proposed development of the Lakepointe DRI/PD consists of the following: Total Acreage: Approximately [[120.3]] <<120.6>> Acres * * * 12. This Development Order also constitutes the development order approving the use of the Property pursuant to the Land Use Plan for PD for [[Low Medium]] <<Medium>> Density Residential, and Office/Commercial, as more particularly detailed in paragraph 7 of Part I of this Development Order. * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION [WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION.] (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. [Bracketed portion denotes new language, as the original is underlined.] 1. Development shall conform to each of the Orange County Commission conditions of approval, and to the Land Use Plan dated "Received April 3, 1986, Public Works and Development." Development based upon this approval shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, and county laws, ordinances and regulations which are incorporated herein by reference, except to the extent they are expressly waived or modified by these conditions or by formal action of Orange County. 7. <<Except for office buildings in Parcel 6>>, maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements. <<Maximum height of the office buildings in Parcel 5 shall be fifty (50) feet, and their design shall be residential in character.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. This residential development shall be [[low medium]] <<Medium>> density with a cap of [[7.5 single family detached]] <<8.3>> units per acre. [[(Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.)]] * * * 19. Building coverage for office[s] [[on the northern portion of the Property]] shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per [[net]] <<gross>> acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the [[42.3 acre]] tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to [[481,000]] <<520,000>> square feet, for an aggregate total of [[756,000]] <<795,000>> square feet. Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map related to the Lakepoint DRI, should be amended to reflect the above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 4. and 3. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to "best use", except in a very general sense; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 27. and 32. Adopted in paragraph 30. 33. and 34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by competent credible evidence (as to how limited access points would prevent strip commercial development. Such development could be supported by internal service roads.) - 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Traffic was not the reason the commercial use was deleted. 46. - 49. Adopted in summary in paragraph 65. 50. and 51. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted by implication in paragraph 57. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the weight of evidence, which evidence was that "residential in scale and character" does not preclude large buildings. and 57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, which established that "campus style" office buildings are not inconsistent with "residential scale and character". Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 44. and 63. Adopted in paragraph 57. Adopted in paragraph 60. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 62. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 61. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the appropriateness of the 25-foot buffer). Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent and Intervenor's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 6. - 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. and 12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 7. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. - 21. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. 22. - 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. - 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and 35. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 39. Adopted in paragraph 54. 40. - 43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Adopted in paragraph 14. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. and 47. Adopted in paragraph 15. 48. Adopted in paragraph 23. 49. Adopted in paragraph 24. 50. and 51. Adopted in paragraph 25. 52. and 53. Adopted in paragraph 26. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in paragraph 27. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. - 60. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. - 68. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. - 72. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 73. and 74. Adopted in paragraph 32, in part, otherwise rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 75. and 76. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 24. - 83. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 44. Adopted in paragraph 45. and 89. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in substance in paragraph 47. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary substance or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 48. Adopted in paragraph 51. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. - 106. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 41. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to the similarly situated nature of the 2 parcels). Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 53. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 59. 115. Adopted in paragraph 67. 116. - 122. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 123. Adopted in paragraph 41. 124. Rejected as unnecessary. 125. Adopted in paragraph 65. 126. - 128. Rejected as unnecessary. 129. and 130. Adopted in paragraph 66. 131. Adopted in paragraph 41. 132. Adopted in paragraph 16. 133. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to being a "reasonable transition"). 134. and 135. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 63. and 138. Adopted in substance in paragraph 61. The higher density will even better promote the affordable and housing policy. 139. Rejected as immaterial. 140. Adopted in paragraph 68. 141. - 150. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Miranda F. Fitzgerald, Esquire Karen M. Chastain, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. 2 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 633 Orlando, FL 32802 Herbert A. Langston, Jr., Esquire 111 South Maitland Avenue Suite 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Joel Prinsell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1392 Douglas M. Cook, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning & Budgeting Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an existing special tax district, created on August 18, 1975, by Broward County Ordinance 75-22. (See Exhibit "A"). A legal description of the property which comprises the ITSMTD, and which would comprise the community development district, is contained within Section 1(a) of Ordinance 75-22 (Exhibit "A"). On December 22, 1980, the Board of Supervisors of the ITSMTD adopted a resolution (Exhibit "B") authorizing and directing the proper district officials to file a Petition with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to reestablish the district as a community development district pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The ITSMTD filed its Petition to reestablish the district as a community development district on January 22, 1981. The Petition named five (5) persons to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed new district. These persons, who presently constitute the Board of Supervisors of the existing district, are Norman A. Cortese, Ellen Mills Gibbs, F. A. Mapleton, Robert E. Huebner and Edward F. Kosnick. The Petition recites that the proposed name of the new district will be the Indian Trace Community Development District, and that the District boundaries will remain the same as the existing special tax district. By letter dated January 29, 1981, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer form the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the necessary public hearing. The ITSMTD has jurisdiction over approximately 13,000 contiguous acres which lie within the unincorporated area of Broward County, Florida. A map showing the particular location of the property within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD was presented and received into evidence. (Exhibit "C"). Petitioner presented the following additional Exhibits which were received into evidence: Development orders adopted June 27, 1978 and August 17, 1979 by the Broward County Commission. (Exhibit "D"). The development orders were adopted by the Broward County Commission pursuant to the development of regional impact permitting processes established by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. These development orders govern or affect development of all land within the ITSMTD. A map which designates the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the district by the Future Land Use Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit "E"). A proposed timetable for constructing district services and the estimated cost of constructing those services. (Exhibit "F"). An economic impact statement which, based upon available data, estimates the economic impact on all persons directly affected by the proposed action and which sets forth in detail the data and method used in making the estimate. (Exhibit "G"). Proof of publication that public notice of the hearing conducted on March 25, 1981 was published once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in the Fort Lauderdale News. (Exhibit "H"). The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Broward County comprehensive Plan which has been adopted by Broward County in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Exhibit "I"). An agreement between ITSMTD, Arvida Corporation, and the City of Sunrise providing for the purchase of both water and sewer services by the ITSMTD from the City of Sunrise and committing the ITSMTD to make use of a Regional 201 Sewer Plan, when such plan is operational and capable of serving the district. ("Exhibit 'J'"). The ITSMTD was created by Broward County to provide certain services such as water, water management and control, sewers, and roads for an area of land consisting of approximately 13,000 acres. Included within this area of land is the 10,000 acre new community to be developed by Arvida Corporation known as Weston. The new community is a development of regional impact and is subject to two development orders adopted by Broward County (Exhibit "D"). The Weston development is a low density, residential new community which also includes industrial and commercial uses. It is presently planned to be developed over a 25-30 year period of time and will eventually contain 20,500 dwelling units and will have a population of 40,000. The two development orders grant master development approval to the Weston community and grant incremental development approval to the first two increments (approximately 7,000 acres). the third increment is designated for future incremental approval (approximately 3,000 acres presently planned for industrial, commercial, and airport uses). The 7,000 acres of land within Weston which comprise increments 1 and 2 pursuant to the aforementioned development orders have been zoned as a planned unit development. The zoning classification allows the construction of 18,000 dwelling units and the development of 500 acres of business-commercial land. To date, three (3) plats have been approved by Broward County within the Weston community. The Weston development and all proposed uses within the ITSMTD are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of Broward County, Florida, including policies and requirements relating to trafficways, open space and parks, and provision for housing (Exhibits "E" and "I"). The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community for the following reasons: The area of land within the ITSMTD is composed of approximately 13,000 acres. 10,000 of the 13,000 acres constitute a development of regional impact, the develop- ment which is subject to two development orders (Exhibit "D"). 7,000 acres of the development of regional impact have been zoned by Broward County as a Planned Unit Development. (Exhibit "D"). These land control devices plan and provide for the development of this area in great detail. The development orders require phasing of the development and provide for the provision of parks, civic sites, schools, roads, and major land uses within the area. (See specifically Article II, A, D, and E of 1978 development order and Sections 1 and 2 of the 1979 development order.) The area of land within the proposed district is subject to and within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD. The ITSMTD presently has the responsibility for providing water management, water and sewer services, and the construction of trafficways and certain other improvements. the ITSMTD was created for the specific purpose of aiding in the development of the area of land within the proposed district. In adopting Ordinance 75-22, the Broward County Commission observed: "WHEREAS, it is found by the County Commission that to promote the economic, orderly, and planned development of certain land and to best serve the welfare and convenience of the public, a Special Municipal Tax District of Broward County, Florida, should be established pursuant to the Charter of Broward County, Florida." The very location of the area of land within the proposed district and the major boundaries of that area dictate that the area be developed as a self-contained, functional interrelated community. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). The area within the proposed district is compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as an interrelated community, as evidenced by the existence of the ITSMTD, the development orders, and the planned unit development zoning classification. A community development district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area of land that will be served by the district for the following reasons: The finding supporting creation of the ITSMTD by the Broward County Commission in 1975 that a tax district is necessary for the area to be developed in an economic, orderly, and planned way remains true today. A community development district functioning pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, would have the following advantages over the ITSMTD: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, provides a clear and comprehensive charter for operating the district. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a community development district will conform the district to uniform state policy regarding the formation and operation of independent develop- ment districts, and will promote a strengthened state new community policy. A community development district has broad, comprehensive, and flexible powers which will better serve the area of land within the proposed district during the period of its development. The area of land to be served by the district will develop over a 20 to 30 year period of time and the broad flexible powers contained within Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, will give the community development district the ability to meet the changing needs and desires of the new community. The special powers contained within Section 190.012, Florida Statutes, will enable the district to provide a broader range of services to meet the needs of the developing community. Specifically, the Indian Trace Community Development District will be authorized to provide parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire protection and control services, including fire stations, water mains, fire trucks, and other vehicles and equipment; and to construct security and school buildings and related structures for use in the security and educational system, when authorized by proper governmental authority. The economic impact statement (Exhibit "G") points out several reasons why a community development district would be the best alternative to deliver community development services. Among the important points contained within the economic impact statement are the following: The Environmental Land Management Study Committee recommended implementation of a new communities policy in order to encourage well planned quality developments. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, has implemented the recommendations of the Committee and has established that new community policy. The State of Florida has determined that Community Development Districts are a better alternative to provide infrastructure improvements than are "paper cities" The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District would avoid municipal formation as a means of infrastructure development. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District will serve to implement the goals of the Broward County Land Use Plan. The Broward County Land Use Plan contains the following goals: It encourages planned communities with mixed uses, both residential and nonresidential; It determines that growth should be phased with the provision of community services and finds that urban growth should not be permitted in areas where the basic minimum required community services and facilities have not been provided or scheduled for capital improvement either by public or private means; It establishes that the capital costs for the provision and extension of major services, facilities, and transportation networks to benefit new residential or commercial developments should be imposed primarily on those who benefit and not on the existing resident population. The community development services which would be provided to the area of land within the proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional development services and facilities for the following reasons: There are no existing regional services of facilities for the area of Broward County within the proposed district. Further, Broward County has neither the plans, nor the capability to provide services and facilities to the area. There are no major trunk water mains or sewer interceptors or outfalls in existence in the area of land within the proposed district. The ITSMTD was created by Broward county to provide services and facilities to service the area of land within the proposed district. In addition, the application for development orders are based, recognized that the ITSMTD would be used to provide infrastructure improvements within the area. The trafficways which have been designed to serve the area within the proposed district and which are required to be built in accordance with the development orders are in accordance with the Broward County Trafficways Plan, which is incorporated by reference in the county future land use element. The ITSMTD is making use of existing local water and sewer facilities. It has entered into a contract with the City of Sunrise to purchase both water and sewer services from the City of Sunrise. (Exhibit "J"). In addition, that agreement commits the ITSMTD to make use of a regional 201 sewer facility when such facility is operational and capable of serving the district. The testimony and documentary evidence establish the following: All statements contained in the Petition are true and correct. The creation of the district would not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The area of land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate district government. On March 24, 1981, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners voted to support ITSMTD's petition to reestablish the district as a community development district.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of the ITSMTD and adopt a rule which will reestablish the ITSMTD as the Indian Trace Community Development District. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 10th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes, Vickers & Hart Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David W. Wilcox, Esquire Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Shailer, Esquire 540 N. W. Fourth Street Suite B Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Donald R. Hall, Esquire 540 N.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the community development district meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Conclusions On Wednesday, November 17, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., the local public hearing in this proceeding was held before Judge Don W. Davis. The hearing was held at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Room 526, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of The St. Joe Company (Petitioner) to establish a community development district. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned as administrative law judge, recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Capital Region Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner (and as such request was amended at hearing on November 17, 1999) by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the Double Branch Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district proposed to consist of approximately 1,203 acres located within the boundaries of unincorporated Clay County. The suggested name for the proposed District is the Double Branch Community Development District. The Petition notes that the proposed District covers approximately 1,203 acres. Hinson testified that the approximate acreage of the proposed District remains 1,203 acres; however, the metes and bounds description contained in the Petition has been revised since the time of the filing of the Petition. The revised metes and bounds description was, without objection, admitted into evidence. There are no out-parcels within the area to be included in the proposed District. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Hinson testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its findings. Hinson also generally described the exhibits to the Petition. Hinson testified that the Petition and its exhibits, as modified by the revised metes and bounds description admitted into evidence as Exhibit B, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Miller testified that he had assisted in the preparation of portions of the Petition and its exhibits. Miller also generally described several exhibits to the Petition which he or his office had prepared. Miller testified that the exhibits to the Petition, prepared by England, Thims & Miller, Inc., and admitted into evidence, were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Walters testified that he had prepared Exhibit 11 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Walters also testified that Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs submitted as Exhibit 11 to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Hinson also testified that the consent by the owner of the lands to be included within the proposed District is still in full force and effect. The Petition included written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the real property located within the lands to be included in the proposed District. There have been no sales of these lands thus far. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its exhibits are true and correct. Whether the establishment of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Walters reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four (4) subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will have the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area and help provide infrastructure in an area which can accommodate development within Clay County in a fiscally responsible manner. Subject 18, Public Facilities, provides that the State shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District at no capital cost to Clay County. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will finance and deliver those public services and facilities as needed by the District's residents and property owners. The proposed District will be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Creating a District does not burden the general taxpayer with the costs for the services or facilities inside the proposed District. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the state or its citizens. Subject 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning capabilities be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District, by and through a separate and distinct Board of Supervisors, will systematically plan for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Additionally, the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements. Finally, Section 189.415(2), Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the county or city, which they may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Clay County Comprehensive Plan contains thirteen (13) elements which are supported by numerous goals and objectives. Walters testified that portions of three (3) of these elements are relevant when determining whether or not the proposed District is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan. There are Goals and Objectives within the Future Land Use Element which are targeted to effectively manage growth in areas designated to accommodate future development and provide services in a cost-efficient manner. The proposed District is within the County's Planned Urban Service Area, and is part of a Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, development order vested in the County Land Use Plan. The proposed District is a recognized vehicle to provide the necessary services and facilities to the lands within the boundaries of the proposed District. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is to establish processes among various governmental, public and private entities to coordinate development activities, preservation of the quality of life, and the efficient use of available resources. The proposed District will assist in the coordination process by providing and maintaining community infrastructure in a way that is not inconsistent with the plans and activities of related public and private agencies. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to provide necessary infrastructure in a timely and orderly manner. The proposed District will expand the areas that enjoy infrastructure in a manner consistent with the Clay County Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviewed the Petition for compliance with its various programs and responsibilities. DCA also discussed the contents of the Petition with the Clay County Planning Department and the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. After conducting its own review and conferring with local governmental entities, DCA concluded that it had no objection to the establishment of the Double Branch Community Development District. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Miller and Walters. The lands that comprise the proposed District will consist of approximately 1,203 acres, located within the borders of unincorporated Clay County. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in the Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,203 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. The proposed facilities and services require adequate planning, design, financing, construction, and maintenance to provide the community with appropriate infrastructure. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure in a long- term, cost-efficient manner. The Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. All of these lands are governed by the Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact Development Order issued by Clay County. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the proposed district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed district. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the Petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed through the issuance of tax exempt bonds and the debt retired by "non-ad valorem" or "special" assessments on benefited property within the proposed District. Expenses for operations and maintenance are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, with maintenance delegated to a property owners' association (POA) or a home owners' association (HOA). The District is preferable to the available alternatives at focusing attention on when, where, and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. The District will construct certain infrastructure and community facilities which will be needed by the property owners and residents of the project. Expenses for the operations and maintenance are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments to ensure that the property or person receiving the benefit of the district services is the same property or person to pay for those services. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. The other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities to the land included in the proposed District because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of funding, constructing, and in some cases, maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District has need for basic infrastructure systems to be provided. From planning, engineering, economic and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the amended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition The Commission has certified that the Petition to Establish the Double Branch Community Development District meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which are difficult to quantify, but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location in the District by new residents is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the CDD will include the option of having a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition contains a SERC. It meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, in that Clay County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The County Line section of The Florida Times-Union, a newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four consecutive weeks, on February 13, 2002, February 20, 2002, February 27, 2002, and March 6, 2002. Clay County Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition and the $15,000 filing fee with Clay County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Clay County Commission held a public hearing on February 26, 2002, to consider the establishment of the Double Branch Community Development District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on February 26, 2002, the Clay County Commission adopted Resolution No. 01/02-42, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule establishing the Double Branch Community Development District. The Clay County Resolution specifically found that all six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the establishment of community development districts found in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the Petition in this matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Double Branch Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. Exhibit 1 Petitioner's Witnesses at Public Hearing Donald P. Hinson OakLeaf Plantation, L.L.C 3020 Hartley Road, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Douglas C. Miller, P.E. England Thims & Miller, Inc. 14775 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32258 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters and Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Exhibit 2 List of Petitioner's Exhibits Letter Description Composite Exhibit (Petition with twelve (12) exhibits) B-1 Pre-filed Testimony of Donald P. Hinson (11 pages) Revised legal description for lands to be included within the boundaries of the proposed District Commission Notice of Receipt of Petition Letter to Division of Administrative Hearings from Commission Letter to Department of Community Affairs from Commission Correspondence from Department of Community Affairs to the Commission Clay County Resolution 01/02-42 Development Order (No. 99-45) for Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact Florida Times-Union Proof of Publication of Notice of Local Public Hearing Pre-filed Testimony of Douglas C. Miller, P.E. (8 pages) Pre-filed Testimony of Gary R. Walters (21 pages) Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (23 pages) Exhibit 3 Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42___-1 DOUBLE BRANCH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42___-1.001 Establishment. 42___-1.002 Boundary. 42___-1.003 Supervisors. 42____-1.001 Creation. The Double Branch Community Development District is hereby established. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History-New 42____-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows: A parcel of land lying in the being part of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, Township 4 South, Range 25 East, Clay County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 4, also being the Northeast corner of said Section 5; thence, on the West line of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 14 seconds East, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence, parallel with and 5.0 feet South from the North line of said Section 4, also being the line dividing Clay County and Duval County, and the North line of said Township 4 South, North 89 degrees 50 minutes 04 seconds East, 2039.14 feet to the West line of Deerfield Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 22, Pages 62 through 65, of the public records of said Clay County; thence, on said West line, South 00 degrees 20 minutes 13 seconds West, 1354.17 feet to the South line of said Deerfield Pointe; thence, on said South line, North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East, 675.62 feet to the West line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 18 through 22, of said public records; thence, on said West line, the West line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 5, as recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 19 through 22, the West line of Sweetbriar, as recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 61 through 64, the West line of lands recorded in Official Records Book 1603, Page 1212, and the West line of a 20 foot right-of-way recorded in Official Records Book 1603, Page 1220, all being recorded in the public records of said county, said line also being the East line of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and the Southwest quarter of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds West, 4050.46 feet to the South line of said Section 4; thence, on said South line, North 89 degrees 51 minutes 57 seconds West, 662.62 feet to the West line of lands described in Official Records Book 1603, page 1212, of said public records, also being the East line of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on last said line, South 00 degrees 11 minutes 52 seconds East, 1388.96 feet to the South line of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said South line, South 89 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds West, 662.36 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East, 699.95 feet to the South line of the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said South line, South 88 degrees 36 minutes 38 seconds West, 1327.66 feet to the West line of said Section 9, also being the East line of said Section 8; thence, on the South line of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 8, North 88 degrees 34 minutes 52 seconds West, 1335.51 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 8; thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East, 700.93 feet to the South line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 8; thence, on said South line, North 88 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds West, 1156 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the North prong of Double Branch; thence, in a Northwesterly direction, by and along said centerline and following the meanderings thereof, 12,053 feet, more or less, to a point bearing South 89 degrees 49 minutes 27 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence, parallel with and 5.0 feet South from the North line of said Section 5, North 89 degrees 49 minutes 27 seconds East, 5043 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. said parcel containing 1203 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History-New 42____-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designed as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Donald P. Hinson, James T. O’Riley, Donald E. Brown, Charles W. Arnold, III, and Gary F. Hannon. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History - New COPIES FURNISHED: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jennifer A. Tschetter, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and corr copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the er described, on this ice day of Septemher, 2009. Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 U. S. Mail: J. Lawrence Johnston Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John J. Heam, Deputy City Attorney City of Coral Springs 955i West Sample Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Phone Number: 954-344-1011 Hand Delivery: Richard E. Shine, Esquire L. Mary Thomas, Esquire ‘Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-311
The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
