Findings Of Fact On or about July 9, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow off-premises sale of beer and wine (2APS) was filed on behalf of Petitioner for property located at 2030 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 4, 1987. At that hearing, the Petitioner's representative was not allowed to give rebuttal testimony, although the Board's by-laws do allow the applicant to rebut testimony in opposition to the application, and rebuttal is, in fact, usually allowed. The Petitioner's representative did not specifically request an opportunity to rebut the opponent's testimony, but assumed he would be given an opportunity to speak before the Board voted. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioner on August 18, 1987. With this application, Petitioner seeks approval to sell beer and wine at a 7-11 convenience store. By subsequent application and approval of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 1987 Petitioner has been granted a conditional use for 1APS, package sale of beer only. However, this 1APS application and approval is not at issue in this case. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of a church and several residences.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to grant the application of the Appellant, the City of Clearwater for dock length, width and setback variances to allow the reconstruction of the public pier facility located at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater, Florida. (The pier was destroyed by the "No Name Storm of the Century" on March 12-13, 1993.)
Findings Of Fact On or about September 1, 1993, the City of Clearwater applied to the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) for dock length, width and setback variances to reconstruct the public pier facility located at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater, Florida, where it terminates at the waterfront in an "aquatic lands/coastal zoning district." The pier was 91.5 feet in length and 40 feet in width; it was set back 12.5 feet from the extension of the adjacent property lines. It was destroyed by the "No Name Storm of the Century" on March 12-13, 1993. Since the site has 65 feet of waterfront, reconstructing it to its previous dimensions requires variances of: (1) 59 feet in dock length (over the 32.5 feet allowed by the City of Clearwater Development Code); (2) 17.25 feet in dock width (over the 22.75 feet allowed by the Code); and (3) 7.5 feet reduction in setback from the extended adjacent property lines (below the 20 feet required by the Code.) Before its destruction, the public pier at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater had been in existence for many years. (The original version was built in approximately 1915.) The evidence is that the community at large desires to reconstruct the pier to its former dimensions. The old pier has historic and sentimental significance. It also serves as a recreational facility for residents without private access to a dock on the waterfront. Especially in the last several years before its destruction, public use of the old pier brought with it problems of misuse, loitering, litter, noise, trespassing, and crime. The police did not have the resources to prevent these problems. Criminal activity in the area seems to have decreased since the destruction of the old pier. As a result, the property owners closest to the pier do not want the public pier reconstructed at all, and certainly do not want it reconstructed to its former dimensions. They oppose the variance application. The conditions imposed by the Board (no deviation from the proposed materials and building plan, the erection of signs as to closing times to be enforced by the police, proper lighting, and the installation of an electronic safety system, including a gate, to be monitored by the police) will help alleviate many of the concerns of the neighboring property owners but are not guaranteed to eliminate them in their entirety. The water is shallow in the vicinity of the site, and a dock of a certain length is necessary for the dock to be used for boats of any appreciable size and draft. However, this condition is not unique to the particular site in question, but is uniformly applicable all along the City waterfront, and there was no evidence as to the length of dock required for adequate water depth for use by boats. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record from which it could be found that the granting of the variances will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record from which it could be found that the granting of the variance will not impair the value of surrounding property.
The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact John Taylor, III, Petitioner, owns property located at 1200 South Missouri Avenue in the City of Clearwater which is zoned CC (commercial center). The subject property consists of a mall and movie theater. On or about April 17, 1986, Michael Johnson, on behalf of Petitioner, applied for a variance to allow two message signs on the subject property and also to allow total message signage of 256 square feet. Without a variance, the subject property can have only one message sign which cannot exceed 192 square feet. The property presently has one message sign and total message signage of 176 square feet located on its marquee. At a meeting of the Development Code Adjustment Board on May 8, 1986, Petitioner's variance application was denied. The parties stipulated that Fusco Corporation is the manager of the mall located on Petitioner's property and further that Fusco is the owner of all improvements on the property. Further, Cineplex-Odeon has leased the theater located on the subject property and has renovated and expanded it from two to five movie theaters. Finally, Michael Johnson was employed by Cineplex-Odeon to install the changeable message sign which is the subject of this variance. The second message sign which is sought by this variance would be located 350 feet from Missouri Avenue, which runs north and south in front of the subject property. Specifically, it will be located in the front wall of the theaters next to the ticket counter, and will be 16 feet long by 4.4 feet high. The sign would actually be a display case, 6 inches deep, with five individual poster display cases, which would be used to display coming attraction posters. Each display case would have a hinged glass door, through which the poster could be seen. Coming attraction posters are 2 feet long by 3.3 feet high. The 6 inch depth of the display case extends equally into, and protrudes out of, the front wall of the theater. Petitioner has not established that a hardship would exist if this variance is not approved. Coming attraction posters can be, and in fact are, displayed in the theater lobby. During the renovation of the theater, the front wall could have been removed and a window installed to allow viewing of the lobby posters from outside the theater. Finally, the existing sign on the property could be used to advertise coming attractions, as well as movies which are currently playing. The display case for which this variance is sought on behalf of Petitioner is a "changeable message sign," as that term is used in Section 134.011(a), Land Development Code, since it would be a graphic communication or device which would be primarily used to convey information or advertise and would also be prominently visible from outside the theater.
The Issue Whether Building permit no. 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents William Lledo, Owner, and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., General Contractor by Monroe County violated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provisions and Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1996, Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), received Monroe County Permit 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents, William Lledo (Lledo) and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., to construct a seawall with a five-foot wide cap which would serve as a docking facility. The project is proposed to be constructed on an undeveloped piece of real property owned by Lledo. The property is known as Lot 37, Sombrero Anglers Club South Subdivision, Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. The property is located within the Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The proposed seawall/dock will not be supported by pilings or other supports and will not act to stabilize a disturbed shoreline. The shoreline at the subject property is not eroding. An eroding shoreline shows signs of the water undercutting the shoreline and contains no vegetation on the shoreline and submerged shelf. The subject property’s shoreline and adjacent submerged shelf are vegetated. The project will not be replacing a deteriorating seawall or bulkhead. The project, as proposed, requires the placement of fill in a manmade canal below the mean high water line. No principal use or structure has been established on the property nor is there any plan to construct a principal use on the property.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4COP) was filed on behalf of Joseph W. McGoldrick for property located at 2848 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and multiple family residential (RM-12). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, McGoldrick seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property to a nightclub. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Development Order issued to Appellee Pinellas Education Organization, Inc., d/b/a Enterprise High School (Applicant or School), by the Board on December 3, 2019. Specifically, the following issues must be resolved: Whether Appellants have standing to appeal the Development Order. Whether the issues raised by Appellants at the Oral Argument were properly preserved for appeal. Whether there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support approval of the Development Order.3 Whether the Board's decision departs from the essential requirements of the law. If the Development Order is affirmed, whether any additional conditions are appropriate. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee School filed an application to renovate an existing building to operate a high school at 2495 Enterprise Road, in Clearwater, Florida.4 The Board held a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application on November 19, 2019 (Board Hearing). The Board approved the School's application with conditions and the City issued the Development Order on December 3, 2019. On December 4, 2019, two separate Appeal Applications were filed regarding the Development Order: (1) by 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP, Countryside Property Principals, LLC, Bruce Levine, and Joan Levine; and by 2505 Enterprise, LLC, and Greg Willsey, and Sandra Willsey. The Appeal Applications were fairly similar and raised a number of issues: four issues pertaining to traffic and parking requirements; and one issue as to whether a high school is a compatible use with the surrounding area. The City referred the matter to DOAH on December 4, 2019, and it was 3 Section 4-505C states, "The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the community development board cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law." 4 The School's application went through a Level Two approval process which requires a quasi-judicial public Board hearing to approve flexibility (i.e. deviation) from the minimum development standards set forth in the Code. See Code at §4-401. Level Two approvals must meet both the general applicability criteria and the flexibility criteria outlined by the Code. See Code at Art. 4, Divisions 1, 3, 4 and 6. assigned to an administrative law judge. On December 13, 2019, a telephonic scheduling conference was held to determine the record on appeal and set the oral argument hearing. During that conference the parties agreed not to submit pre-argument briefs, but rather, chose to file post-hearing proposed final orders. The Oral Argument was held at the Clearwater Library and was open to the general public. Applicant, the City, the Board, and all persons who were granted party status at the Board Hearing were allowed to present arguments at the Oral Argument. See Code at 4-505B. At the Board Hearing the following people were granted party status: Dr. Richard Gottlieb, who was represented by Todd Pressman; Sandra Willsey; Greg Willsey; and Todd Burch. The transcript of the Oral Argument was filed with DOAH on February 19, 2020. Pursuant to section 4-505D, the proposed final orders were due within 20 days after the filing of the transcript, or no later than March 11, 2020. Per the City's request, the parties were granted an extension to submit proposed final orders. The additional time was to allow the parties to collaborate on a master index to the record on appeal (Index), which they intended to cite to in their proposed orders. The Index and the proposed final orders were timely submitted on March 23, 2020.5 5 At the Oral Argument, the parties stipulated that the undersigned could take official recognition of the Code provisions and City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) found online. As such, the undersigned takes official recognition of the Code found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/ community_development_code?nodeId=CODECO (last visited April 14, 2020); and of the Comprehensive Plan found at https://www.myclearwater.com/government/city- departments/planning-development/divisions-/development-review-zoning/comprehensive- plan (last visited April 14, 2020). FACTS IN THE RECORD Pursuant to section 4-505A, the record includes the application file of the Clearwater Planning and Development Department (Planning Department); the agenda packet of the Board Hearing; all exhibits accepted into evidence at the Board Hearing; and the streaming video of the Board Hearing.6 The following findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence found in the record. Parties and Property The School filed an application with the Planning Department to renovate a 16,696 square foot building located on a 1.730 acre site at 2495 Enterprise Road in Clearwater, Florida (proposed development). The proposed development is in a retail/office plaza known as Village at Countryside (Plaza), located on the east side of Enterprise Road, just south of Countryside Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The Plaza consists of 11 parcels, including a large vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. The Plaza is located within the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and has a designation of "US 19 District, Regional Center sub-district" (US 19-RC). Property within US 19-RC is subject to the special zoning district and development standards found at Appendix B of the Code.7 The School seeks to operate Enterprise High School, a charter high school, at the proposed development site.8 As explained below, relevant to this appeal is the number of students at the School and whether there will be adequate parking for the proposed development as required by the Code. 6 See Video of Board Hearing held November 19, 2019, on Agenda FLD2019-8026 at time marker 9:25 at http://clearwater.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=50&clip_id=3782 (last visited April 1, 2020). 7 See Code at Appendix B – US 19 Zoning District and Development Standards, found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/community_development_code?nodeId=APX BUS19ZODIDEST (last visited April 14, 2020). 8 Enterprise High School is an existing charter school which intends to move from its current location to the proposed development site. The School is subject to section 1013.33, Florida Statutes. Appellants own and operate property within the Plaza and adjacent to the proposed development site. Specifically, Bruce and Joan Levine own Appellants 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP,9 and Countryside Property Principals, LLC. The LLP and/or LLC operate the Countryside Foot and Ankle Center.10 The Countryside Foot and Ankle Center's administrator, Todd Burch, was granted party status at the Board Hearing. Greg and Sandra Willsey own Appellant 2505 Enterprise, LLC, which is a property in the Plaza. The Willseys were also granted party status at the Board Hearing. At the conclusion of the Board Hearing, the Board voted to approve the School's application. On December 3, 2019, a Development Order was issued to memorialize the Board's action. Thereafter, Appellants filed the Appeal Applications with a document titled "Notice and Statement" which stated the following grounds for the appeals: The Neighbors assert that the decision of the Community Development Board ("the Board") was not supported by substantial competent evidence and was a departure from essential requirements of law. Specifically: The Board's decision was based upon a high school with two, 200-student shifts. However, the record below established that these student shifts would substantially overlap during the noon hour. In other words, the evaluation of the proposed change of use was based on impacts and site requirements that were substantially less than what would actually occur on the site. 9 The Appeal Application lists this entity as 2521 Countryside Boulevard Land Trust. 10 Although Appellants state that Bruce Levine was granted party status at the Board Hearing, there is no substantial competent evidence in the record supporting this statement. See Appellees' Proposed Final Order at p. 3; compare Tab 30 of the Index, Board Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2019, at p. 3 and 5. The Board's decision was based on a traffic analysis provided by the applicant that used a wrong ITE trip generation code - an elementary school instead of a high school - so it cannot be relied upon as a basis for the underlying decision. The change of use to a high school required that the applicant establish that it had one parking space per three students. There is no substantial competent evidence to establish that this parking requirement was satisfied. To the contrary, the substantial competent evidence establishes that the parking on the property failed to meet this requirement. In fact, granting this change of use would result in a substantial oversubscription of the available parking at the site. The proposed use would create tortured on-site parking and traffic circulation patterns that would substantially impact the existing medical office uses on the property, including a kidney dialysis office that serves a substantial elderly population. There is no substantial competent evidence to support the finding that the change of use would "have no impacts on the adjacent retail plaza." To the contrary, the change of use would have substantial impacts on the current retail and office plaza. The proposed change of use would have substantial negative impacts on the surrounding community and is incompatible with the existing surrounding retail, office and residential uses. At the Oral Argument, Appellants raised for the first time whether the operation of a school is an inconsistent use with: (1) an Amended and Restated Declaration of Establishment of Restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, and Grants of Easements dated December 7, 1983 (the "Parking Easement"); and (2) the Comprehensive Plan. The Studies The first four issues raised in the Appeal Applications are related to the Parking Study and Traffic Study (collectively referred to as the Studies) which were submitted by the School as part of its application. The Parking Study, dated September 2, 2019, consists of overall parking calculations; aerial photographs of the development site and surrounding areas; and the Parking Easement. The purpose of the Traffic Study was to analyze the impact of the development on the traffic intersection at Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road, as well as the full access drive at the site. The 50-page Traffic Study, dated October 18, 2019, included numerous charts, maps, and tables with underlying information and data relating to the traffic counts for the proposed development. Jerry Dabkowski, a local traffic engineer who prepared the Studies for the School, testified at the Board Hearing about the traffic and parking calculations. To rebut the Studies, at the Board Hearing Mr. Pressman presented a two-page letter from a professional engineer dated November 15, 2019, titled "Traffic Study Review." Relevant to the appeal, the letter finds fault in the number of students and the "ITE Code" used in the Traffic Study and in the Planning Department's Staff Report and Recommendation (Staff Report), dated November 19, 2019, which was also presented to the Board. These factors would affect the calculations for the number of parking spaces required for and the trip distribution caused by the proposed development. Number of Students Appellants argue the parking calculations should be based on the total number of students enrolled at the School, or 400 students. The Studies and the Staff Report calculated the traffic and number of parking spaces necessary based on two shifts with 200 students per shift. At the Board Hearing, Donna Hulbert, the School's Director, testified that unlike a traditional high school, the School operated in two shifts to allow the students to hold employment while completing their high school education. Although the School intends to enroll a total of 400 students, she explained, each of the two shifts would have a maximum of 200 students. Additionally, the students are eligible for a public transportation bus pass, which some students utilize instead of driving their personal vehicles. The Study establishes that "[t]o reduce the impacts during the AM and PM peak hours, the school intends to split the day into two shifts, each with 200 students attending." Although there was conflicting information between the School's application and Ms. Hulbert's testimony at the Board Hearing about whether the shifts would overlap, the Staff Report recommends approval of the application because, "[t]he applicant has provided the school will operate in two shifts . . . with no more than 200 students present per shift." There is substantial competent evidence that there will be only 200 students at the School at a time, and that this number was correctly used in calculating the required parking spaces and the trip generation for the proposed development. ITE Trip Calculation Appellants argue the Traffic Study utilized the wrong Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Code, 520, which is the code applicable to an elementary school. The Study, however, states it utilized ITE Code 530 from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 10th Edition for Office, to calculate the change in trips attributed to the proposed development. A copy of the ITE Code 530 was attached to the Traffic Study. Additionally, Mr. Dabkowski testified that ITE Code 530 was the correct code for high schools. There is substantial competent evidence that ITE Code 530 was used in calculating the change in trips for the Traffic Study which was relied upon in the Staff Report, and which was accepted by the Board. Parking Requirements Table 2 in section B-303, Permitted uses and parking, provides the following parking requirements relevant to this appeal. Use Regional Use Specific Standards Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Retail Plaza BCP[Level 1 Minimum Standard(Building Construction permit)] [Not included] 4/1,000 SF GFA Schools FLD [Level 2 Flexible Development (Board approval required)] 1. All off-street parking is located at least 200 feet from any property designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas 1 per 3 students Based on this criterion, the School would require 67 parking spaces (200 students/3 = 66.6667). The Staff Report and Studies establish the proposed site has 55 parking spaces, but five of these spaces cannot be used because they are within 200 feet from a parcel designated as Residential. Thus, there are 49 available parking spaces "on site," leaving 18 spaces to be designated. As stated earlier, the proposed site is one of 11 parcels in the Plaza. The Parking Study contains a copy of a Parking Easement that allows cross- parking among the parcels. Based on the square footage of the buildings on the parcels (including the proposed development site), the entire Plaza is required to have 975 parking spaces. The Plaza actually has 1,137 parking spaces, an excess of 162 parking spaces. The Code also requires off-street parking spaces be located within 600 feet of the principal and accessory uses they serve. See Code at § 3-1404A. Next to and within 600 feet of the proposed development site is currently a vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. That parcel has 228 parking spaces, but only 177 spaces are required for that building, leaving an extra 51 parking spaces. Based on the excess spaces available through the Parking Easement, there is substantial competent evidence supporting the City's staff finding of adequate parking spaces to satisfy the additional 18 spaces necessary for the proposed development, and the Board's approval of the same. Compatible Use The fifth issue raised in the Appeal Applications is regarding the use of the proposed development site as a charter high school. Whether this site is appropriate for the type of school operated by the Applicant was a topic of discussion among the Board members at the Board Hearing. At the Board Hearing, Planning Department Manager Mark Parry testified as an expert witness. Mr. Parry explained the nature of the US 19- RC standards and gave his opinion that the proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Code, including the use requirements. In contrast, Appellants expressed anecdotal fears that the types of students attending the School would disrupt Appellants' medical businesses. For example, at the Board Hearing, Mrs. Willsey expressed concern that the students at the School were known to have "behavioral problems." Mr. Burch spoke about the increased number of pedestrians in the Plaza and cited to a letter in the record from Dr. Levine: "For us to have to monitor and police our properties for trespassing students would be untenable." There was no actual evidence in the record that the School's operations would cause any problems such as increased crime or trespassing in the area. At the Oral Argument and in their proposed final order, however, Appellants' argument shifted away from the potential effects of the students in the area and instead offered the new arguments that the School was inconsistent with the Parking Easement which states the Plaza shall be used "for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices."11 Regardless, as explained below, this argument is not appropriate on appeal because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. At the Oral Argument, Appellants also argued that the School is an inconsistent use with the Comprehensive Plan. Appellants cited a paragraph from the Staff Report: The proposal includes a new charter school with grades nine through 12 and constitutes a public educational facility as defined by Policy J.2.1.2. The school will be located within the US 19–RC future land use designation. The prior designation was Commercial General (CG). The intent is that all uses permitted in the CG are also permitted in the US 19–RC classification. The City is planning to update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect this. Schools are a listed permitted use in the CG classification. As explained below, this argument is also inappropriate because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. Appellants also argue the proposed development is an inconsistent use with the existing businesses because the adjacent properties are commercial in nature and the School is not commercial. The Code, however, clearly allows Schools as an allowable use in the US 19-RC zoning district, and in the 11 The Complete section of the Parking Easement titled "Uses" states: 2.1 Uses in General The Property, consisting of both the Building Area and the Common Areas, shall be used for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices. No portion of the Property shall be used or operated as a discotheque, bar or cocktail lounge (except in connection with a restaurant) ... theatre, bowling alley, skating rink, roller disco or catering hall, funeral parlor, or for the sale of pornographic literature or material, or an adult book store or so called "head shop" or for a video or other game arcade, flea market, or for a use which would be noxious or immoral or otherwise constitute moral turpitude or constitute an undignified, disreputable use. previous zoning designation of CG. See Code at § B-303. Moreover, unlike the Parking Easement, the Code does not divide use categories into "Commercial" and "Non-Commercial." Rather, the uses are categorized as "Residential" and "Non-Residential." Id. Based on the Code and the review of the application submissions, the Staff Report concluded the School will be an appropriate use in the area. Based on Staff visits, aerial photographs and material submitted by the applicant it is evident that the proposal will be in harmony and consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties and, generally, with properties in the greater neighborhood. The reuse of the 16,700 square foot building with a school will not result in any adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties. Since the character of the site will not change with the proposal, and it is currently similar in nature vis-a-vis placement of other uses in the area it is not expected to impair the value of those properties. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The testimony of Mr. Parry, coupled with the Staff Report, constitute substantial competent evidence supporting the Board's finding that the School is a compatible use with the area.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (2COP) was filed on behalf of Leland Farnsworth for property located at 2838 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and single family residential (RS-8). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, Farnsworth seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property from a motel to a restaurant and bar. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
The Issue The issue is whether Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC (Vista), should be issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 04-2012-0013G authorizing the construction of an earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound stormwater runoff from a proposed commercial development in the City of DeFuniak Springs (City), Walton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District has regulatory jurisdiction over the construction of certain types of impoundments within its boundaries. If an impoundment is at least ten feet high but less than 25 feet in height and has an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, a general permit is required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista, a limited liability corporation, owns an odd- shaped parcel in the City on which it intends to build a small commercial development consisting of a 17,000-square foot building, a parking lot, and related amenities. The vacant parcel abuts the north side of U.S. Highway 90 just east of 18th Street and is approximately 1.66 acres in size. The property is partially wooded and has a small wetland area on its northeastern corner. In conjunction with the proposed commercial development, Vista intends to construct an impoundment to control stormwater runoff from the project. Because the impoundment will be ten feet high and have an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, Vista is required to obtain a general permit. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista filed a permit application with the District on June 8, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District gave notice that it intended to issue a surface water management permit to Vista. The permit allows the construction of a stormwater retention basin. A mitigation plan for impacts to 0.23 acres of wetlands was also approved but is not at issue in this proceeding. As described in the District staff report, the project will encompass one earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound the storm runoff. It will operate as a dry stormwater retention basin designed to impound water only during rainfall events. The facility will utilize a pipe and riser spillway system, and the basin outfall will be protected by a rip-rap lined plunge pool. Due to space restrictions, an engineered retaining wall will be incorporated into the embankment's north side slope. The stormwater will discharge through controlled overflow structures into a nearby wetland area that lies northeast of Vista's property and will then be integrated into an existing channel that eventually forms the headwaters of Sandy Creek to the north. Petitioner has resided on her property since around 1932. Her odd-shaped parcel, described as being between five and seven acres in size, lies immediately to the north of Vista's property. A small wetland is located on the southeastern corner of her property. The two parcels share a common boundary line, appearing to be no more than a hundred feet or so. Because the boundary line is lower than the highest part of each owner's property, a "trench" has formed along the line. Wabash Avenue, a platted but un-built roadway that begins on U.S. Highway 90, runs to the northwest through the wetland area and along the eastern boundaries of both properties. As alleged in the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner is concerned that the project will cause flooding on her property. In a broader sense, she appears to be opposed to any commercial development on Vista's property. The back side of the Vista parcel slopes downhill to a recessed area that is adjacent to both properties. Although some fill has already been placed on the property in preparation for the development, the applicant intends to add "a lot" more fill to the entire parcel to create a gradual slope down to the edge of Wabash Avenue. A basin or pond around 0.20 acres in size will be formed within the fill area and a retaining wall consisting of multiple segments will be constructed around the basin. The wall will be separated from Petitioner's property by a 20-foot buffer, while at its closest point the basin will be "35 feet or so" from her property line. The plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the system will be built in accordance with all District standards and should operate in a safe manner. Before construction can begin, the District must approve the retaining wall design specifications. During rain events, the first inch of water will be retained on site for treatment. Additional water will be stored in the basin and then slowly allowed to discharge from the basin into the wetlands. The point of discharge from the basin is at a location a minimum of 20 feet south and east of Petitioner's property line. To ensure that the retention system will not discharge runoff at a higher rate than was discharged before development, Vista performed hydrologic calculations demonstrating pre- and post-development runoff. According to accepted models developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service, the current peak runoff from the Vista property is 2.46 cubic feet per second (CFS) during a two-year, 24-hour storm event. After development, the volume of water will be reduced to 0.74 CFS. During a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the volume of runoff post-development is anticipated to drop from 12.59 CFS to 6.51 CFS. Finally, during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, post- development runoff will be slightly reduced from 19.64 CFS to 18.99 CFS. Therefore, as sited, sized, and designed, the project will reduce runoff during all anticipated storm events. The foregoing calculations were not credibly contradicted and satisfy the requirement that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause an increased flow such that it will endanger downstream property in times of flood with respect to state or frequency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.301(2)(f). They also confirm that water in the impoundment will not be raised to a level that could be harmful to the property of others. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A- 4.301(2)(c). Thus, the potential for flooding on Petitioner's property will be reduced if the project is constructed as permitted. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently repairing the drainage system on U.S. Highway 90 in front of the Vista property. Stormwater from that project drains into the wetlands through an easement deeded to the City at the rear of the Vista property. Petitioner pointed out that after the DOT project began, and fill was added to the Vista property, she has experienced an increase in water on her property. Whether the DOT project is responsible in any way for this hydrologic change is not known. However, accepted testimony by two professional engineers supports a finding that Vista is not responsible for any hydrologic changes on Petitioner's property. Vista was not required to take into account any runoff from the DOT project in making its hydrologic calculations because the amount of runoff from its own property will actually be reduced by the retention system. At hearing, Petitioner contended that a fence she built on the common boundary line with Vista sometime after 1990 was illegally removed by Vista in order to construct the basin. According to Mr. George, who first surveyed the property line in 1990 and then surveyed it a second time a few years ago, the fence was built a few feet beyond Petitioner's property line and lies within the buffer zone between the basin and her property. Petitioner argues that even if this is true, the doctrine of adverse possession applies and she is now the owner of the property on which the fence was built. This type of dispute, however, can only be resolved in circuit court, and not in an administrative forum. See § 26.012(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The District has examined the property records and is satisfied that Vista has ownership of the property on which the impoundment will be built. Notably, the basin will not be located within the 20-foot buffer where the fence once stood and which is dedicated to the City as an easement. Finally, through cross-examination at hearing, Petitioner suggested that any project designed by humans carries with it the remote possibility that it will fail and create a catastrophic situation on her property. In the unlikely event that the design and operation of the retention basin threaten the safety of adjoining property owners, section 373.429 and rule 40A-1.205 enable the District to revoke, suspend, or modify a permit to protect the safety of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 04-2012-0013G to Vista. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathon Steverson, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 152 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 Helen J. Crenshaw 61 North 18th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-9547 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 James Busby Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC Post Office Box 760 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549-0760
