The Issue Whether Resolution No. P64-96 of the Monroe County Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed or modified?
The Issue Whether the Petitioner (the District) has the authority and cause to revoke Right of Way Occupancy Permit Number 9591 that permitted Respondent to erect a fence and maintain two oak trees on real property that is subject to the District's maintenance easement and, if so, whether the District has the authority and cause to demand the removal of the fence, the two oak trees, and a key lime tree from the easement area.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a single family residence located at 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace, Miami, Florida. The rear of Respondent's property backs up to the north right of way of the District's C-100 Canal. The C-100 Canal is one of the works of the District and is an essential part of the District's flood control plan. The C-100 Canal system supports surface drainage and flood protection to approximately 40 square miles of Dade County, Florida. The property owned by the District in fee simple includes a strip of land that is adjacent and parallel to the north bank of the canal. This strip of land is twenty feet wide and provides the District with a portion of the land it requires for maintaining the canal. On February 18, 1964, Respondent's predecessor in title executed a document styled "Permanent Maintenance Easement" that granted to the District's predecessor agency an easement on and across a strip of land that constitutes the rear twenty feet of Respondent's property. The easement area is adjacent and parallel to the maintenance strip owned by the District. The instrument granting the easement provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . the grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the grantee . . . its successors and assigns, the perpetual maintenance easement and right for and to the use and enjoyment for canal maintenance purposes of the following described lands . . . for the purpose of ingress and egress in maintaining and operating Canal C-100, one of the works of the District . . ., and for no other purpose, it being understood and agreed that said land shall not be excavated and that no permanent structure of any kind shall be placed thereon. . . . All the covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective . . . successors and assigns. On April 9, 1992, the District issued to Respondent Permit Number 9591 which, subject to limiting conditions, authorized certain encroachments by Respondent into the easement area and described those encroachments as follows: 4' high chain link fence enclosure encroaching 20' and 2 trees inside the fenced enclosure within the District's 20' canal maintenance easement along the north right of way of C-100 located at the rear of 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace. Permit 9591 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The Permittee [the Respondent], by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . . . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risks of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The District has enacted Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, which provides the following standard limiting conditions of Permit 9591 pertinent to this proceeding: The District's authorization to utilize lands and other works constitutes a revocable license. In consideration for receipt of that licensure, permittees shall agree to be bound by the following standard limiting conditions, which shall be included within all permits issued pursuant to this chapter. * * * (3) This permit does not create any vested rights, and . . . is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. * * * (7) The permittee shall not engage in any activity regarding the permitted use which interferes with the construction, alteration, maintenance or operation of the works of the District, including: * * * (c) planting trees . . . which limit or prohibit access by District equipment and vehicles, except as may be authorized by the permit. Among the special limiting conditions of the permit are the following: The permittee is responsible for pruning trees in order that their canopies do not encroach within areas needed by the district for canal maintenance purpose. Upon the request of the district, the permittee shall trim or prune any growth which the district has determined interferes with the district's access, operations, and maintenance. Permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the canal right of way within the fenced area and also for the maintenance of the right of way to a point 10 feet outside the fenced area. At the time of the formal hearing, the easement area was enclosed by the fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 and there existed within the easement area two live oak trees and one key lime tree. The two oak trees were approximately ten years old. The evidence did not establish whether Respondent planted (or transplanted) the two oak trees. The key lime tree was planted by Respondent after the issuance of Permit 9591. It is necessary that the C-100 Canal be properly maintained and that the District have access to the canal for routine and emergency maintenance. Following Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, the District developed a maintenance plan for the C-100 Canal. The District did not have an established canal maintenance plan for the portion of the canal relevant to this proceeding at the time it granted Permit 9591. Prior to the development of its maintenance plan, little maintenance had been done on the canal in the area of Respondent's property. The District's decision to revoke Permit 9591 and to demand the removal of the fence and trees is in furtherance of the District's right of way maintenance plan and is only part of the District's enforcement and management efforts to remove permitted and non-permitted encroachments from maintenance easements in this area of the C-100 Canal. Respondent's property has not been singled out for this action. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent's property was the only area in the vicinity on which the District does not have 40' of unobstructed access adjacent to the canal. Respondent disputes that the District needs access to the portion of his property that is subject to the easement for the proper operation and maintenance of the C-100 Canal. Pertinent to this proceeding, the maintenance plan adopted by the District includes the use of land based equipment for erosion control and mowing of maintenance right of way areas and the routine and emergency dredging of the canal channel. The plan sets forth the anticipated maintenance activities for the area of the canal relevant to this proceeding, the type equipment that will be used, and the amount of right of way that will be required to perform the work. Emergency maintenance of the canal may be required in response to a heavy rain event since the District must be able to respond quickly if a part of the canal becomes clogged with debris. The equipment that the District will likely use for maintenance includes batwing mowers, front end loaders, dump trucks, draglines, and towboats. The District established that the 20' strip of land it owns in fee title does not provide sufficient room for the maneuvering of the heavy equipment that will be required for the routine and emergency maintenance of the canal. These pieces of heavy equipment require 40' of unobstructed land to set up and to operate safely and effectively. The District established that it needs the additional area provided by the easement on Respondent's property to properly perform its operation and maintenance of the C-100 canal. The fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 blocks the District's access to the easement area. Consequently, it is found that the District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the fence. The District's easement entitles it to unobstructed access to the easement area and provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the fence. The District established that it has cause to demand that Respondent remove the fence from the easement area. Respondent also disputes that the two live oak trees and the key lime tree that are in the easement area need to be removed even if it is found necessary to remove the fence. In their present condition, the three trees, especially the two oaks, obstruct a major portion of the easement area and interfere with the District's intended use of the easement area. Even if the trees are pruned as they grow to maturity, they will significantly interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The bases of the oak trees are approximately 2.5' and 6.5', respectively, from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. The two oaks are approximately the same size and are expected to grow to maturity at the same rate. At the time of the formal hearing, the canopies of the trees were approximately 20' tall and 10' wide. In five years, the canopies are expected to be approximately 25' tall and 25' wide. In ten years, the canopies are expected to be 30' tall and 30' wide. At maturity, the canopies are expected to be 35' tall and 40' wide. The District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the two oak trees. The District also has cause to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees from the easement area. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees. The base of the key lime tree is approximately 10' from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. Although this is a relatively small tree, its presence obstructs the operation of equipment within the easement area. At maturity the canopy of the key lime tree is expected to be between 12 to 15' in height and between 12 and 15' in width. The tree trunks and the tree canopies obstruct the operation of equipment within the easement area. This interference cannot be resolved by pruning the trees. The District has cause to demand that Respondent remove the key lime tree that he planted on the easement area since that tree was not permitted by Permit 9591 and is contrary to limiting condition 7(c). The existence of the key lime tree is found to interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order that revokes Permit 9591 and demands that Respondent remove the fence, the two oak trees, and the key lime tree from the easement area within thirty days from the date the final order becomes final. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0049 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 45 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3, 8, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 23 and 24 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26 and 27 are incorporated as preliminary matters, but are rejected as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings of fact are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Allen Glazier, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Mr. Robert A. Robinson 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Samuel E. Pool, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan was adopted on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 11, 1989. In 2000, the County amended its Plan by establishing a Managed Growth Tier System, which includes five classifications of land (Urban/ Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades), along with three classes of service areas within the County to guide delivery of public services: Urban Area, Limited Urban Service Area, and Rural Service Area (RSA). It also assigned different levels of service for potable water and wastewater for each service area. At the same time, the County amended its FLUE to add a new Policy 3.4-c, which provides as follows: The County shall neither provide nor subsidize the provision of centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the Rural Service Area, unless urban levels of service are required to correct an existing problem, prevent a projected public health hazard or prevent significant environmental degradation, or the areas meet the criteria described in Future Land Use Policy 3.4.b. The County intended Policy 3.4-c to implement the Managed Growth Tier System by limiting the provision of centralized utility service in the Rural Tier. The effect of this new policy was to prohibit the County from providing urban levels of utility services outside its existing service area boundaries in the RSA unless necessary to correct or prevent a public health hazard, existing problem related to urban levels of service, or environmental degradation. In February or March 2003, the County Planning Department began assessing ways to address the problem of overlapping utility service in the RSA. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature passed the Scripps Law (Chapter 2003- 420, Laws of Florida), which took effect on November 3, 2003. Both of these factors led to the development of the Amendments in issue here. In late 2003, the County staff began the actual development of new amendments to its Plan (also known as Round 04-1 Plan Amendments) that would allow the County to provide services into the RSA. More specifically, the staff proposed to add a new FLUE Policy 3.1, which (as finally drafted) read as follows: The Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall provide potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater service to all unincorporated areas of the County except those unincorporated areas where the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners has entered or enters into a written agreement that provides utility service area rights to a public or privately owned potable water, reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility, or in areas where the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department is specifically excluded from providing utility service by Florida law. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall continue to provide utility services to incorporated areas where service is already being provided by the County, or as provided for under utility service area agreements or as allowed for by law. In general terms, the new policy designated the County as a service provider of water and wastewater services for unincorporated areas of the County where the County has, or will enter into, interlocal agreements except where excluded by interlocal agreement or by law. The effect of the amendment is to allow the County to extend potable water and wastewater services to unincorporated areas of the County, particularly "the western communities," where it currently does not do so. The County staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c, described in Finding of Fact 1, which was previously adopted in 2000. Finally, the County staff proposed to delete another policy adopted in 2000, CAI Policy 1.5-c, which read as follows: Urban levels of service shall not be provided by any governmental entity (outside of its existing service area boundary) within the Rural Service Area of the unincorporated area, except where: The Rural Service Area receives urban services pursuant to Objective 1.1 in the Element, or An urban level of service is required to correct a demonstrated public health, or Development on a parcel in the Rural Tier that is adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 shall be allowed to connect to those existing lines and shall be allowed to connect to public sewer and/or water when required by the Public Health Department. This policy shall not allow the extension of new water and/or sewer lines into the Rural Tier to serve development without first amending the Service Area Map and the Future Land Use Atlas to reflect a change in the service area boundary. By deleting these two provisions, the County would no longer be prevented from providing utility services in the RSA unless certain conditions were met. (The staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 1.4-k, but that deletion is not in issue in these proceedings.) On January 14, 2004, the County initiated the adoption process by transmitting Notice of the Amendments to the Intergovernmental Plan and Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), which is made up of all the local governments and special districts in the County, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. IPARC acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC in turn distributed the notice to its members, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. After a public hearing on March 12, 2004, before the County's Local Planning Agency (known as the Land Use Advisory Board), by an 11-0 vote it recommended denial of Round 04-1 Plan Amendments and recommended that the County meet with the affected parties to resolve problems voiced by various attendees, including the City, SID, and ITID. On April 2, 2004, the County held a meeting with interested persons in an attempt to resolve objections to the Amendments before they were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The objections were not resolved. On April 5, 2004, by a 5-0 vote, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the Amendments to the Department, other commenting agencies, and each unit of local government or governmental agency that had filed a written request for copies of the Amendments. The Amendments were transmitted to the Department on April 15, 2004. Between January 2004 and August 2004, the County held at least 37 meetings with utilities and other interested persons to discuss the Amendments, including three meetings with the City, at least five meetings with SID, at least ten meetings with ITID, and at least two meetings with Wellington. In addition, the County invited all utilities to attend meetings on April 28, 2004, at three locations to discuss utility service area boundaries. These meetings were attended by approximately 25 different utilities, including the City, SID, ITID, and Wellington. As a result of these meetings, the County prepared and distributed utility service area maps in an attempt to demonstrate the necessity for better coordination between utilities. On May 21, 2004, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council notified the County of no objection or comments regarding the Amendments. On June 19, 2004, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which did not identify any objections, recommendations, or comments with respect to the Amendments. On June 22, 2004, the South Florida Water Management District (District) notified the Department of no objections or comments regarding the Amendments. After a public meeting on August 24, 2004, by a 5-1 vote, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2004-26 enacting the Amendments, and they were transmitted to the Department on September 14, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the Department issued its Notice determining the Amendments were in compliance. On November 19, 2004, Petitioners (except Wellington) filed Petitions challenging the Amendments. Wellington filed its Amended Petition on December 16, 2004. The Parties and Their Standing The City is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County, operating its own water and wastewater utility system. The City owns the largest water treatment plant in the County and has an extensive wastewater treatment system, including partial ownership in the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facilty, the largest wastewater plant in the County. It owns property and currently provides bulk service to entities located within the unincorporated area of the County, including ITID. It submitted written objections to the County during the adoption process and has standing to bring this action. SID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1970. It lies within the unincorporated area of the County and has the authority to provide water and wastewater service within and without its boundaries. At present, SID provides potable water service within and without its boundaries, but only provides wastewater service within its boundaries. SID owns property in the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. These facts establish that SID has standing as an affected person to challenge the Amendments. Callery-Judge is a limited partnership, which owns and operates citrus groves on property located within the unincorporated area. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. Callery-Judge is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. Mr. Roberts owns property in the unincorporated area, including Callery-Judge, of which he is the General Manager. He submitted objections to the Amendments during the adoption process and is an affected person. ITID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957. (In 2002, the Legislature amended and reenacted ITID's enabling legislation.) In 1998, ITID began operating a water and wastewater system within the unincorporated area. ITID does not generate its own potable water or treat its wastewater. It obtains bulk water from the City and SID and bulk wastewater service from the City. ITID owns property within the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, it is an affected person within the meaning of the law. Wellington is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County and operates a utility providing water and wastewater service within its boundaries and outside to several developments. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption of the Amendments. Because Wellington does not own property or operate a business within the unincorporated area of the County, in order to demonstrate standing, it must show that the Amendments will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within its jurisdiction. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Wellington bases its standing on alleged increases in traffic and the use of parks within its boundaries, which purportedly will occur as a result of the Amendments. While Wellington could not give a precise amount (in terms of dollars) of those impacts, the testimony of its Director of Community Services established that the availability of centralized water and sewer services in the areas adjoining Wellington will arguably lead to higher density development patterns, which in turn will lead to an increased need for publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Wellington is an affected person and has standing to challenge the Amendments. The Department is the state planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing and approving comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, including the Amendments. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 people, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. The Current Plan As noted above, the County initially adopted its current Plan on August 31, 1989, by Ordinance No. 89-17. The Plan has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption. The original 1989 Plan and all subsequent amendments up to the ones at issue in this proceeding have been found in compliance by the Department. The current Plan is made up of sixteen elements, nine of which are mandatory, and seven of which are optional. The parties have indicated that the Utilities Element, CIE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and FLUE are relevant to this controversy; therefore, a brief description of their content and purpose is necessary. The purpose of a Utilities Element is to provide necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element contains potable water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste sub- elements. The aquifer recharge sub-element is found in the Coastal Management Element. The Utilities Element and the aquifer recharge sub-element of the Coastal Management Element constitute the "general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element" referenced in Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element has been found in compliance with applicable provisions of statute and rule. Section 163.3177(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.016 contain requirements for the capital improvements element of a comprehensive plan. The existing CIE complies with these requirements. Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7-a describe how the County implements the CIE. Pursuant to these requirements, the CIE is updated annually at the same time as the County budget. Table 10 of the CIE reflects the water utilities revenue and expenditures for the then current budget year and five years into the future. Table 10 was not updated when the Amendments were adopted because any future changes to the County's capital expenditures resulting from the Amendments would be made through the annual budget update process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains provisions encouraging coordination between the County and adjoining municipalities and special districts in order to more efficiently meet the needs of the County residents. (There are more than 25 municipalities and special districts within the County.) This Element has previously been found in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. One of the coordination tools identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is the IPARC, described in Finding of Fact 5, which acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC distributes notice of plan amendments to all members, who then have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed action. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006 contain requirements for the future land use element of a comprehensive plan, including the future land use map (FLUM). According to the Plan, the FLUE "is the nucleus of the . . . Plan" and "defines the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships between land use and all of the other elements of the Plan that address the physical, social, and economic needs of the people who live, work, and visit Palm Beach County." Both the existing FLUE and the current FLUM have been found in compliance. The Amendments do not alter the FLUM, but they do change FLUE Policy 3.1-c and delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c. As noted above, in 2000 the County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System, which is a planning tool intended to manage growth and protect varying lifestyles in the County. The Managed Growth Tier System consists of five categories or tiers, which are described in Objective 1.1 of the Plan. Objectives 1.2 through 1.6 govern development within the five tiers. FLUE Table 2.1-1 establishes permitted densities for each of the tiers. The Amendments do not modify any Goals, Objectives, or Policies governing the five tiers, with the exception of FLUE Policy 1.4-k. However, Petitioners have not challenged the proposed deletion of FLUE Policy 1.4-k and it is not one of the Amendments at issue in this proceeding. Additionally, the Amendments will not alter the permitted densities for any of the tiers. Concurrency Management refers to the system adopted in the CIE to ensure that infrastructure, which meets or exceeds the established minimum level of service standards, is in place concurrent with development approval. According to FLUE Policy 3.5-a, development orders and permits shall not be approved unless services and facilities meet or exceed the minimum levels of service. FLUE Objective 3.1 establishes three graduated service areas in Palm Beach County -- the Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas. Each service area corresponds to one or more of the five tiers. The minimum levels of service required for each area are listed in FLUE Table 3.1-1. According to FLUE Table 3.1-1, FLUE Policy 3.5-a, and Utilities Element Policies 1.2-g and 1.3-e, the minimum levels of service in the RSA for potable water and sewage are on-site wells and septic tanks, respectively. With the exception of water and sewer, the other minimum levels of service are the same for all three service areas. The Amendments do not alter the minimum levels of service for any service area. Through its planning expert, Wellington contended that the Amendments will cause a de facto change to the minimum levels of service. However, the extension of centralized water and sewer service into the RSA does not change the established minimum levels of service. Petitioners also argue that the Amendments will increase minimum levels of service in the RSA for traffic and parks. However, the minimum levels established in FLUE Table 3.1-1 for all services and facilities, other than potable water and sanitary service, are County-wide standards. Reasons for Adopting the Plan Amendments Policy 3.4-c did not have its intended effect because it prevented the County from providing service to the Rural Tier. After 2000, repeated efforts by the County to negotiate the service areas of the numerous entities operating utility services in the unincorporated area were unsuccessful. Indeed, "there was not a willingness of many utility providers to agree on anything." This created a lack of coordination and planning as to the provision of services in the Rural Tier. The City, SID, and ITID each have utility service areas which overlap the service area of other utility providers. In particular, portions of the Acreage, a community located in the central-western unincorporated area of the County, fall under the claimed utility jurisdiction of SID, ITID, Cypress Grove Community Development District, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Royal Palm Beach). The City is also rapidly expanding service in the unincorporated area by entering into bulk water service agreements with a number of utilities located in the Rural Tier, including Royal Palm Beach, Seacoast Utilities Authority, and ITID. The City intends further expansion of bulk service in the Rural Tier, so as to increase utility revenues. It views the Amendments as affecting its substantial interests by potentially limiting these revenues. Royal Palm Beach claims an exclusive utility service area which overlaps the utility service areas claimed by SID and ITID. Royal Palm Beach is located entirely within the legislative boundaries of ITID and claims all of ITID as its service area. The Amendments support the authority granted to the County by the Scripps Law. That law gives the County the exclusive right to provide water and wastewater service to the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility and to construct utility facilities within and without the boundaries of the Scripps project. The enactment of the Scripps Law reinforced the need for the Amendments, as the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility will be located in the unincorporated area. Existing FLUE Policy 3.4-c is arguably inconsistent with the Scripps Law because it prevents the County from providing utility service in the RSA. Since the Scripps Law supersedes all other contrary provisions of Florida Law, it logically follows that FLUE Policy 3.4-c should be repealed. The Amendments are also supported by the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances Sections 27-16 through 27-22, which codify County ordinances that were adopted in the 1970s and deal with utility service. These ordinances authorize the County to designate a Control Area in the unincorporated area and to require County approval of any water and wastewater facilities constructed in these areas. In summary, the County adopted the Amendments to avoid service area disputes between utility providers such as those described above, to prevent wasteful and duplicative utility services, to implement the Legislature’s mandate regarding the Scripps Biotechnology Park, to ensure a sufficient water supply to meet the reasonable development needs of the unincorporated area, and to enforce the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances. Petitioners' Objections Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the only data and analyses submitted by the County to support the Amendments are contained in a rather brief County Staff Report (Petitioners' Exhibit 5), and that no other documentation was actually forwarded to the Department. They further contend that the Amendments must be based on demographic, economic, and fiscal studies, and that none were utilized by the County. Because of these omissions, they argue that the Amendments violate relevant statute and rule provisions and are not in compliance. Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) require that plan amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element. In determining whether a plan amendment complies with this requirement, the Department reviews each amendment on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it does not require the same amount or type of data for all plan amendments. See, e.g., Zemel et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case No. 90-7793 (DOAH Dec. 16, 1992, DCA June 22, 1993)(projections of aquifer thickness and transmissivity do not require the same precision as calculating volume-to- capacity ratios for levels of service on road segments); 1000 Friends of Florida et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM, 2005 WL 995004 at *15 (DOAH April 28, 2005, DCA May 9, 2005)("a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal- based and aspirational"). For example, if amendments merely represent a policy or directional change and depend on future activities and assessments (i.e., further analyses and decision-making by the local government), the Department does not require the degree of data and analyses that other amendments require. (These amendments have sometimes been referred to as aspirational amendments. See Collier County v. City of Naples et al., DOAH Case No. 04-1048GM, 2004 WL 1909265 at *5 and *6 (DOAH Aug. 24, 2004, DCA Dec. 28, 2004)). Conversely, amendments which are mandatory in nature, that is, amendments which are required to be implemented by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, require more data and analyses. Thus, under Department interpretations of the relevant statutory and rule provisions, if an amendment does not have an immediate impact on the provision of services in the unincorporated area, is policy- based, does not require any capital improvement expenditures at the time the amendment is adopted, and simply represents a directional change in the County's long-term water utility planning, it is similar to an aspirational amendment and can be based on less data and analyses than might otherwise be required. Here, the County’s actual policy regarding utility service areas will depend on future activities and assessments. The Amendments do not require the County to take any immediate action. The Amendments do not mandate that existing utility customers in the RSA switch to the County. The Amendments do not authorize any new development in the Rural Tier, and any future development would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the normal development approval process. Therefore, the Amendments are akin to an aspirational amendment and do not require the degree of data and analyses that are required for other amendments. The County Staff Report identifies, albeit in brief fashion, data and analyses in support of the Amendments. It provides, among other things, that the Amendments are necessary because "[t]he lack of County participation as a service provider has created a void in effective long-term utility planning, resulting in duplicative service lines, inefficient services in the RSA, overlapping utility jurisdictions and, absence of some written agreements defining service areas." The Staff Report further identifies the County’s authority to provide service and the necessity for the Amendments to allow the County to provide service to the Biotechnology Research Park in northwest Palm Beach County. In addition, a number of documents presented at hearing provide data and analyses in support of the Amendments. In considering these documents, the undersigned notes that all data or analysis available and existing at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment may be relied upon to support an amendment in a de novo proceeding and may be raised or discussed for the first time at the administrative hearing. Zemel, supra; McSherry et al. v. Alachua County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM, 2004 WL 2368828 at *54 (DOAH Oct. 18, 2004, DCA May 2, 2005); Melzer et al. v. Martin County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 02-1014GM and 02-1015GM, 2003 WL 2150756 at *33 (DOAH July 1, 2003, DCA Sept. 26, 2003 and Oct. 24, 2003). The District's Districtwide Water Supply Assessment identifies future potable water demands for various utilities in the County. The District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan describes the available raw water supply to meet future demands in the County. The District's CUP-CERP (Consumptive Use Permit-Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Guiding Principles lists interim water use permitting guidelines, which indicate utilities may experience problems obtaining permitted allocations beyond what is needed to meet their 2005 demands. District Water Use Permit 50- 00135-W is the County's 20-year water use permit, which confirms that the County is the only utility in the unincorporated area with a guaranteed, long-term potable water allocation. The information contained in these documents confirms the County's ability to act as the default water utility provider in the unincorporated area. The County Linking Land Use and Water Supply Plan, Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan, Raw Water Master Plan, 20-Year Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and Projected Yearly Capital Expenditures each provide data and analysis, which support the County's ability to serve as the default utility provider in the unincorporated area. As a water management district study, the District's documents are professionally accepted sources, which constitute appropriate data and analyses under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c). Similarly, the County's reports constitute existing technical studies, which are also appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners contend that the County was required to collect new data and prepare a comparative analysis of the County Water Utilities Department and other utility providers in the unincorporated area. However, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b), local governments are not required to collect new data in support of a plan amendment. Further, neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) nor Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires a comparative analysis. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments are supported by relevant and adequate data and analyses. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioners also contend that in order to comply with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan, the County must inventory and analyze the facilities and services provided by other utility providers in the areas affected by the Amendments. In other words, they contend that without data and analysis relative to other providers, the coordination function is incapable of being done and is meaningless and renders the Amendments inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. (That rule sets forth in detail the data requirements upon which the element in a local government's comprehensive plan must be based, and the goal statements, specific objectives, and policies which must be found in the element.) Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 set forth requirements for the intergovernmental coordination element of a comprehensive plan. The existing Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been found to be in compliance. The Amendments do not modify this element. Although not required for purposes of compliance, the County followed intergovernmental coordination procedures in the comprehensive plan when adopting the Amendments. The Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by member governments prior to their consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The County met with other utility providers and interested persons no less than 37 times to discuss the Amendments. Further, Petitioners' own witnesses concede that their representatives attended multiple meetings with the County regarding the Amendments. Such efforts demonstrate that the County substantively complied with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners' contention that these meetings were not conducted in good faith has been rejected. Petitioners implicitly suggest that intergovernmental coordination means acquiescing to the position of an objector. If this were true, adjacent local governments would have veto power over the County's ability to enact plan amendments, a result not contemplated by the statute. The intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 do not require that local governments resolve all disputes regarding a comprehensive plan and its amendments to the satisfaction of all interested persons, but only that the local government take into consideration input from interested persons. See, e.g., Department of Community Affairs et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-1843GM and 90-7792GM, 1990 WL 749359 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1993, Admin. Comm. Feb. 10, 1994). The numerous meetings held by the County demonstrate adequate consideration of opposing views. It is at least fairly debatable that the County satisfied the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. Economic Feasibility/Comparative Analysis Petitioners argue that the Amendments fail to comply with Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible." Petitioners claim that in order to establish economic feasibility, the County first should have conducted a comparative economic analysis of the cost of utility service in the unincorporated area by various existing and hypothetical service providers. However, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Department's interpretation. The Department does not interpret the economic feasibility requirement of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, as requiring such a comparison. Instead, it construes the statute as only requiring that a plan amendment be realizable in financial terms, that is, that the local government has the financial ability to achieve what is specified in the amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 5182GM, 1995 WL 1052797 *6 (DOAH April 19, 1995, Admin. Comm. Sept. 4, 1998)("Economic feasibility means plans should be realizable in financial terms."). Compare Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District et al. v. Charlotte County et al., 774 So. 2d 903, 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the Court interpreted the use of the term "economically feasible" in a proposed Basis of Review provision as meaning "financially feasible or financially 'doable' . . . [and the] financial ability of a WUP applicant to institute reuse." The Department's interpretation of the statute was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. The evidence shows that the Amendments are financially realizable. The County Water Utilities Department is one of the financially strongest utilities in the nation. It has the highest municipal bond rating (AAA) granted by the three major rating agencies. As of August 24, 2004, no other utility in the State of Florida had achieved an AAA rating from the three bond rating agencies, and the County Water Utilities Department is among only a handful of utilities nationwide to have achieved that status. Petitioners have acknowledged that the County is a very strong utility from a financial perspective. Given the County's strong financial state, it is qualified and able to serve as the default provider in the unincorporated area. In summary, it is fairly debatable that the Amendments are economically feasible as the term is used in Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, because the County has the financial ability to extend utility service to the unincorporated area. Urban sprawl Wellington (but not the other Petitioners) essentially contends that the Amendments will promote urban sprawl because the County will now allow new urban services (water and wastewater) into undeveloped areas thereby resulting in urban development. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5) contains standards discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Existing provisions in the Plan, including the Managed Growth Tier System, prevent urban sprawl within the County. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) provides in part that "if a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find that plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction." The Amendments do not affect existing growth management provisions in the Plan and thus will not exacerbate urban sprawl. Although not required, the amendment of FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which Petitioners did not challenge, will also have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to urban sprawl. At the same time, the Amendments do not directly or indirectly authorize new development and are only aspirational in nature. Any extension of water and sewer lines into the unincorporated area does not necessarily create urban sprawl because development is not automatically authorized by these activities. Even Wellington's planning expert concurred that urban sprawl is not caused by the provision of utility services, but by the Board of County Commissioners' approval of development orders. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments will not encourage urban sprawl in contravention of the Plan.2 Internal consistency Petitioners next contend that the Amendments fail to comply with Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(10)(a), and 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which require that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. In addressing this objection, only those inconsistencies expressly alleged in their Petitions and Amended Petition will be considered. See, e.g., Heartland Environmental Council v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 WL 1059751 at *19 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996). Future Land Use Element Petitioners first contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1, and Policies 3.1-a and 3.1-b of the FLUE. These provisions require that the County "define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner"; that the County establish graduated service areas "to distinguish the levels and types of services needed within a Tier, consistent with the characteristics of the Tier," which include "the need to provide cost effective services"; that the County establish Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas based on several factors in Table 3.1.1, including "[t]he cost and feasibility of extending services"; and that the County review minimum levels of service "during preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] and the Comprehensive Plan as amended." The latter provision also requires that each service provider determine the maximum and available capacity of their facilities and services for this review. The first broad goal is implemented through the County's existing Managed Growth Tier System and is not affected by the identity of the utility provider. Also, the Amendments do not alter the Managed Growth Tier System, nor do they alter the existing minimum levels of service required for the RSA. Similarly, FLUE Objective 3.1 is not affected, as the Amendments only have the potential to change the utility provider in certain areas, and not the level of service provided within the RSA. Further, the Amendments do not change the existing service area boundaries and established service area definitions. As to Policy 3.1-a, the service areas have been established and found in compliance and the Amendments do not alter the service area designations or Table 3.1-1. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 3.1-a. Finally, Policy 3.1-b is not affected by the Amendments because the minimum levels of service are not altered and the Amendments are not the product of an EAR. Capital Improvements Element – Table 10 Table 10 of the CIE describes water and sewer revenues, operating revenues, federal/state grants, other revenues, bond/ loan proceeds, fund balances, total water and sewer revenues, water and sewer operating expenditures, water and sewer capital projects, annual surplus/deficit, and cumulative surplus/deficit for fiscal years 2004-2009. Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with this provision because the Table has not been amended to reflect the expenditures that will be made by the County as a result of the Amendments. This Table is not affected because the Amendments do not require any changes to the County's capital expenditures. If changes do occur as a result of the County's planned extension of utility service into the unincorporated area, the capital improvements associated with extension of service will be addressed in subsequent annual updates of Table 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 1 and Objective 1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which require the County to "provide a continuous coordination effort with all affected governmental entities" and to "utilize existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts with the plans of school boards, other units of local government providing services, adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, the State, and residents of Palm Beach County." Petitioners essentially claim that the Amendments were adopted and transmitted without coordination with other local governments, as required by the goal and policy. As explained above, the evidence shows that the Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by each of the local governments and special districts located in the County, these entities were given ample opportunity to comment or object to the Amendments, and the County utilized existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with these portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners also contend that the Amendments conflict with Goal 4, Policy 4.1-a, and Policy 4.1-b of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The broad goal relates to coordination of "service provision to assure the most effective and efficient service delivery for the residents of Palm Beach County and its municipalities," while the two policies require that the County coordinate with special taxing districts and each municipality within the County during "the concurrency management and development review processes" and in defining the "ultimate boundaries of that entity's sewer and water service areas." The Amendments are consistent with the goal because their purpose is to create more effective and efficient service delivery by encouraging utility providers to enter into agreements which establish exclusive service areas and eliminate overlapping service areas. For similar reasons, the Amendments are consistent with Policy 4.1-a because the County coordinated with each of the special taxing districts through IPARC and numerous subsequent meetings relating to the Amendments. Finally, the main purpose of the Amendments is to prevent overlapping utility service areas and to encourage utility providers to enter into agreements defining service areas. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 4.1- b. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Plan Petitioners next allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 8.1, Regional Strategy 8.1.1, and Regional Policies 8.1.1.3 and 8.1.1.4 of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan (Regional Policy Plan). In order for a plan amendment to be consistent with a regional policy plan, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that plan amendments be consistent with the regional plan "as a whole," and that no specific goal or policy be "applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans." Because the Petitions and Amended Petition do not allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan as a whole, their challenge must necessarily fail. See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra at *38. Even if a provision in the Regional Policy Plan could be viewed in isolation, the Amendments are consistent with Regional Goal Regional Goal 8.1, which requires "public facilities which provide a high quality of life." Nothing in the Amendments would impair the provision of a high quality of life. One of the purposes of the Amendment is to more efficiently provide utility service by defining service areas and improving the provision of services. Regional Strategy 8.1.1 relates to the provision of "levels of public service necessary to achieve a high quality of life cost-effectively." The Amendments are not inconsistent with this strategy, as they are designed to help the County implement the existing objectives and policies relating to this strategy. The purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.3 is to "encourage patterns of development which minimize the public cost of providing service, maximize use of existing service systems and facilities and take into full consideration environmental/ physical limitations." As stated above, one purpose of the Amendments is to provide more efficient and cost-effective utility service by encouraging providers to enter into agreements that prevent overlapping service areas and avoid duplication of services. Finally, the purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.4 is to "develop local Capital Improvement Programs which maximize development of existing systems before allocating funds to support new public facilities in undeveloped areas." Because the Amendments do not alter the County's Capital Improvement Programs, they do not implicate this policy. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners further allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Like regional policy plans, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that for purposes of determining consistency, the state plan is to be construed as a whole, with no specific goal or policy applied in isolation from the other goals and policies. If a plan appears to violate a provision of the state plan, a balanced consideration must be given to all other provisions of both the state and local plan to determine whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with the state plan. Petitioners have not alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as a whole. Therefore, their challenge to the Amendments must necessarily fail. See 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra; Heartland Environmental Council, supra. Assuming that a provision within the state comprehensive plan can be viewed alone, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Petitioners contend that because the Amendments fail to protect the public facilities that already exist in the unincorporated area of the County, the Amendments conflict with this goal. The Amendments are not inconsistent with this goal because their purpose is to implement the Plan provisions in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(17)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioners also allege that the Amendments contradict the requirements of Section 187.201(20)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with cooperation between levels of government, elimination of needless duplication, and promotion of cooperation. Again, the purpose of the Amendments is to eliminate duplication and promote cooperation between entities by encouraging utility providers to enter into interlocal agreements with the County that define exclusive service areas and prevent duplication of services. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes. Other Objections Finally, any other contentions raised in the Petitions and Amended Petition not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should grant or deny permission to Key Large Investors, Inc., to develop and what, if any, conditions and restrictions should be attached to development approval or denial. The Department of Community Affairs contends that Monroe County improperly approved the preliminary development plan and final development plan because the plans did not comply with the requirements of local ordinances and rules of the Florida Administration Commission and that the development plans were inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Key Large Investors, Inc., contends that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not filed within the required time limits, that the Department of Community Affairs is estopped from maintaining the appeal, and that the development comports with local and state criteria. The Florida Audubon Society agrees with the contentions of the Department of Community Affairs, and Monroe County agrees with the contentions of Key Largo Investors, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Key Largo Investors, Inc. ("KLI" hereafter), owns approximately 129.2 acres of land in North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The property is approximately three miles south of "Card Sound Road" and 5.5 miles north of U.S. Highway 1. It is divided by State Road 905; 84.5 acres of the parcel lying to the east of the highway, and 44.7 acres to the west. The property is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. KLI is proposing to develop a residential and marina project on the property to be known as "Carysfort Yacht Club." The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency designated to undertake statewide comprehensive planning. Members of the Florida Audubon Society participate in fishing, nature study, scientific research, and other such activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Members of the Society believe that the proposed development would adversely affect their interests by eliminating, disturbing, or otherwise adversely affecting their ability to engage in such activities. The proposed project lies within Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County is the local government agency which issued the development order respecting the proposed development. KLI filed an application with Monroe County for preliminary development plan approval for the Carysfort Yacht Club The staff of the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the plans and other submissions, and the Board conducted a public hearing on February 26, 1981. The Board took no action at that time, but continued the matter until a meeting conducted on March 27, 1981, so that KLI could provide additional information. On March 27, the matter was again continued. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board on April 24, 1981. In considering the application for preliminary development approval, the Planning and Zoning Board had KLI's application before it. The application included an "Environmental Designation Survey," a "Community Impact Statement," and additional documentation. At its April 24, 1981, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the preliminary development plan. The only condition imposed by the Board was a requirement that KLI back fill a marina that had been dredged on the site by a prior owner. The Board's order approving the preliminary development plan was never formally transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. Personnel of the Department were aware of the decision, but had not been formally advised of it. KLI applied to the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board for final development plan approval for Phase 1A of the proposed project. The Zoning Board met on February 25, 1982, and approved the plans through its Resolution MD 81-3-19. On March 9, 1982, a copy of this order was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. In accordance with the Monroe County Code, the Florida Keys Citizens Coalition appealed the Zoning Board order to the County Commission. On or about August 9, 1982, the County Commission denied the Coalition's appeal. Reconsideration was requested and denied on or about August 23, 1982. On September 24, 1982, the Department of Community Affairs filed an appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. These proceedings ensued. The preliminary development plans initially submitted to the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board provided for approximately 700 dwelling units on both sides of State Road 905. While it is not clear from the documents, it appears that the Planning and Zoning Board intended to approve only those portions of the preliminary development plans that provided for development on the east side of the roadway. KLI has, for now, abandoned plans to develop on the west side of the roadway. The plans provide for construction of a total of 512 dwelling units on the 84.5 acres lying to the east of State Road 905. KLI is proposing to develop the project in three stages -- 203 dwelling units would be constructed during Phase 1, 188 units during Phase 2, and 121 units during Phase 3. In its application for final development plan approval which generated this proceeding, KLI is seeking approval to develop a substage of Phase 1, which it has designated Phase 1A. The KLI property which lies to the east of State Road 905 borders on the Atlantic Ocean. The land had been cleared and partially developed before KLI purchased it. A harbor and an upland lake had been dredged. In Phase 1A of the development, KLI is proposing to construct 31 dwelling units along the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the harbor. The plans also provide for constructing roadways and parking facilities, drainage structures, sewage treatment structures, a water distribution system, and recreational amenities. Neither the preliminary development plans nor the final development plans for Phase 1A explicitly provide that the developer will bear the cost of the infrastructure (roadways, water distribution systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and recreational amenities) of the development. The development plans, however, appear to assume that the developer would maintain these costs. At the time that KLI purchased this property, the portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 was dominated by a native hardwood hammock. Approximately 8 acres of the property to the east of State Road 905 were dominated by such a hammock. KLI, or someone acting on its behalf, illegally cleared a portion of the hammock on the west of State Road 905. It will take more than 10 years for the hardwood hammock to reestablish itself completely, but that process is now occurring. Of the approximately 8 acres of hardwood hammock that remain on the east of State Road 905, KLI proposes to ultimately clear all but approximately 1 1/2 to 2 acres. That remaining hammock would be divided by an access road. It does not appear that clearing the hardwood hammock on the east side of State Road 905 is a necessary portion of Phase 1A of the development. There are two small wetland communities on the site to the east of State Road 905 which KLI proposes to preserve in a natural, although diked, condition. Hardwood hammocks such as exist in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern are unique in North America. There is a long history of these terrestrial, botanical communities being diminished. Only a small portion of hardwood hammock area that was originally in the Keys remains. The finest examples of these communities that remain in the Florida Keys, and indeed in North America, are on Key Largo. Such communities serve numerous beneficial and environmental functions. They serve to retain soils, limit discharge of pollutants into surrounding water bodies, support wildlife communities, and protect wetlands from upland areas. Preservation of hardwood hammocks is aesthetically important, but is also important to protecting the environment of the Keys. The hammock areas provide food and shelter for a wide variety of animals, birds, and plants. At least 14 species of endangered, threatened, or rare species or species of special concern were observed on the project site. In addition, 7 species of birds that are either threatened, rare, or species of special concern; and 2 species of reptiles that are threatened are known to make use of the site for habitat. The portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 forms a part of the very limited habitat that exists for crocodiles in North America. Development of the KLI property can be accomplished in such a manner as to minimally impact the important hardwood hammock and wetland areas. KLI does propose to leave wetland areas undisturbed. If the hardwood hammocks were also left undisturbed, threatened and endangered wildlife species could continue to use the site as habitat, and the various beneficent environmental functions that hardwood hammocks perform would not be KLIminated. To accomplish these ends, the portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 should not be developed. The hardwood hammock areas that have been illegally cleared should be allowed and encouraged to reestablish themselves. The hardwood hammock areas that still exist to the east of State Road 905 should not be disturbed. Roadways and other structures should be reconfigured so as to not cross the hardwood hammock areas, and they should not be cleared. The harbor and upland lake that presently exist on the KLI site were constructed prior to KLI purchasing the site. The harbor was constructed in such a manner -- it is much too deep -- that it causes adverse water quality consequences in surrounding waters. As a condition for receiving approval of its preliminary development plans, KLI agreed to back fill the marina so that adverse water quality impacts would be reduced. KLI has pursued a permit to accomplish this operation from the Department of Environmental Regulation. The permit has been issued. If the back filling of the marina is not accomplished in conjunction with the proposed development, the adverse water quality consequences of the marina will be increased because more boat traffic will be brought to the marina as a result of development. As a part of its overall development plans, KLI proposes to construct docks in the presently existing upland lake and to provide access for boats docked in the lake to the harbor through some sort of tram system. The developer also proposes to construct two additional upland lakes on the east side of State Road 905. These construction activities are not a part of Phase 1A of the proposed development. Utilizing the present upland lake as a docking facility and constructing two new upland lakes is likely to have adverse water quality consequences. Even if properly vegetated, it would be difficult to maintain good water quality in the lakes. water in the lakes interacts with surrounding water bodies through groundwater percolation. Therefore, surrounding water bodies and groundwater in the area are likely to be adversely impacted. The preliminary development plans do not include an explanation of how water quality in these upland lakes will be maintained. Without such assurance being provided, development of the upland lakes should not be approved. KLI has plans to make a considerable expenditure to revegetate developed areas. KLI has told local zoning officials that it will revegetate the area with native species so that minimal fertilization will be required and so that the character of the area will be maintained. While there have been such statements made, it does not appear that any clear requirement to that effect has been imposed on KLI. It is appropriate that KLI's revegetation plans be required to utilize native vegetational species. KLI has invested considerable sums of money in obtaining the property and in paying for professional engineering, architectural, and legal services. After Monroe County approved its preliminary development plans, KLI changed its financing arrangements in order to obtain additional money for planning and initial development efforts. The change in financing arrangements was less advantageous to KLI from the perspective of KLI backing out of the project if for any reason development does not occur. It appears that the decision to restructure the financing was made in part based upon a statement made by an attorney who worked for Monroe County. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that any official of the Department of Community Affairs or of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission made any representation of any kind to KLI or any of its representatives, neither does it appear that the attorney had actual or apparent authority to bind even Monroe County to any course of conduct. It does not appear that the development proposed by KLI would adversely impact the provision of government services or require that any public facilities be expanded. Local officials appear assured that presently existing roadways, solid waste facilities, freshwater supplies, schools, and recreational facilities will not be overburdened as a result of the development. No evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the proposed project, either itself or in combination with other proposed projects, would unduly burden such public facilities. The Department of Community Affairs has asserted that the procedures followed by the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board and by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County do not comport with requirements of law. To the `extent that any such failures have been established, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken by local government officials was in any way impaired by the errors. It does appear that all persons who wished to address the local zoning board and the local board of county commissioners were not allowed as much time to make presentations as they desired. It does not, however, appear that local officials prevented anyone from making presentations about the proposed project. The Department has asserted that the proposed development could adversely impact the John Pennekamp recreation area, which is located nearby. It does appear that the project would generate more boating activity in the region and that boating activity is potentially injurious to the dKLIcate reef ecosystems located underwater at Pennekamp. Increased boating activity at Pennekamp is being generated from numerous sources, including from the recreation area itself. Additional activity as a result of the proposed project would be negligible. Monroe County has adopted its Ordinance No. 21-1975, which pertains to the regulation of major development projects in Monroe County. The ordinance has been codified into Article VII (Sections 6-221 through 6-245) of the Monroe County Code. The County has also adopted a comprehensive plan which includes provisions relating to preservation of beaches and shorKLInes, and trees and vegetation. The Florida Administration Commission has adopted rules relating to developments in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See: Rules 27F-8 through 27F-14, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact FEC is the owner and developer of the project at issue in this proceeding, an industrial park to be located on 322.1 acres in Section 32, in the Town of Medley, in northwestern Dade County, Florida. Not at issue in this proceeding is the related but separate project planned by FEC for construction in Section 6, an unincorporated area of Dade County, lying immediately southwest of the property at issue. FEC proposes 5,193,570 gross feet of floor space for the project, to be constructed in six phases. Seventy-four percent of the floor area is to be completed or under construction within the first five years of the park's operation. Expected uses of the park, when completed, are expected to fall into four general categories: Distribution, comprising 792,516 square feet; wholesale trade, 2,509,018 square feet; manufacturing, 873,520 square feet; and offices and services of 1,017,515 square feet. There is no specification of what types of industries will be located in the project, or what types of chemicals or materials each may handle. FEC has applied for and received various approvals of the proposed industrial park. On June 6, 1983, the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("RPC") recommended approval of the FEC proposal, with conditions. On August 1, 1983, the town council of Medley adopted Resolution No. C-426, which approved and issued a development order for a development of regional impact for the project. Before the issuance of the Medley development order, Metropolitan Dade County adopted its own development order, Resolution No. Z-114-83, on June 23, 1983, approving the development proposed for Section 6 in the unincorporated area of the county. In September, 1983, DCA appealed the Medley development order. On October 3, 1983, the RPC voted not to appeal that order. The proposed project is located in an industrialized and largely unsewered area. The FEC property surrounds or abuts numerous out parcels within Section No. 32, which are served only by septic tank disposal systems, unlike the sewer system planned for the FEC development. The Northwest Wellfield is located about three miles to the southwest of the proposed FEC industrial park at its closest point to Section 32, and about four miles from the furtherest reach of the park. The wells of the Northwest Wellfield form a line about two miles west of the Florida Turnpike, and four miles southwest of Medley. The wellfield presently comprises 15 wells, each 42 inches in diameter, fully penetrating the Biscayne Aquifer to a depth of about 70 feet. The county has equipped each well with a two-speed pump capable of producing ten million gallons per day (MGD) at low speed, and about 15 MGD at high speed. Current maximum capacity of the wellfield is about 225 MGD. The county holds a valid consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District authorizing an average pumpage of 50 MGD. The county has applied for a permit to increase the pumpage to 180 MGD. The county is presently pumping the wellfield at the rate of 140 MGD to offset the reduction in pumpage from the Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields as a consequence of the discovery of contamination in those fields. The Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields are currently pumping at a rate varying from three to ten MGD. The Northwest Wellfield, completed in 1983, at a cost to the public of $38,000,000, is located within the Biscayne Aquifer, which underlies all of southeastern Florida, including all of Dade County, from north of Boca Raton to the northwest area of Monroe County. The Biscayne Aquifer is a highly permeable, unconfined shallow aquifer composed of limestone and sandstone. The aquifer is a regional resource, serving as a sole source of potable water for the approximately 1.8 million residents of Dade County. Because of its cavernous nature, the aquifer has high vertical and horizontal permeabilities, permitting both rapid infiltration of rainfall as recharge to the aquifer, and rapid drainage through canals. Recharge to the aquifer is primarily from rainfall. In the latter part of the dry season, however, the main recharge to the aquifer results from infiltration from canals fed from water conservation areas. Net recharge from rainfall to the aquifer ranges from 8 to 20 inches per year. Because of wide fluctuations in annual rainfall amounts in South Florida, recharge from canals to the wellfield is important. The South Florida Water Management District operates an intricate system of canals, levees, control structures, and large water conservation areas for flood control, water conservation, and salinity control. These systems significantly affect water levels in the Biscayne Aquifer, including the area around the Northwest Wellfield. The levees impound fresh water and prevent overland sheet flow from the Everglades eastward through agricultural and urban areas. The complex system of interconnected canals provides necessary drains for the urban coastal areas in the wet season and transfers water from the conservation areas during the dry season to replenish water in the aquifer removed by various municipal and county wellfields. Water levels in the canals are controlled by opening or closing control structures during the wet season to prevent flooding in urban agricultural areas, and leaving the structures closed during the dry season to conserve fresh water and limit saltwater intrusion. Canal levels usually reach their seasonal lows in May. In the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield, the system of levees and canals provides a substantial amount of recharge to the wellfield. The canal most significantly affecting water levels in the Northwest Wellfield is the Snapper Creek Canal, a borrow canal running immediately east of and parallel to the Turnpike, about two miles east of the wellfield. The Snapper Creek Canal borders the western line of the FEC property in Section No. 6 and lies about one mile west of Section No. 32. The terms "cone of influence" or "cone of depression" are terms applied to the area around a well from which the well draws water. Before a well commences pumping, ground water fills the pores and fractures in underground rock formations to a water level at which the fluid pressure of the ground water equals the atmospheric pressure exerted from above. Pumping the well reduces the fluid pressure of the ground water in the vicinity of the well, and results in a cone of depression or influence. Viewed from above, a drawing of a hydrologic cone of depression appears roughly circular, centered on the pumping well. A cross section of the cone would show an inverted shallow cone in the upper aquifer, whose lowest point coincides with the intersection of the cone where it enters the well. Pumping the well creates a down gradient for water below the area of the cone to flow toward the well. A "hydrologic cone of influence" is that point marking the outer bounds of the influence of a pumping well at a given point in time. A "regulatory cone of influence" arbitrarily fixes the location of the cone as a zone in which activity is regulated. The extent of a regulatory cone depends upon policy decisions taking into account the margin of safety deemed necessary for the protection of a well, regardless of the actual location of the hydrologic cone and technology available to protect ground water. The generally accepted value adapted by most regulatory agencies for the "regulated cone of influence" of a wellfield is the 0.25 foot draw-down line. This is so because it is also generally accepted that, with proper engineering practices and proper annual inspections, potential contaminants be generated and stored within this regulated cone of influence without inordinate risks of contamination to the underlying aquifer. The extent of a hydrologic cone of influence varies continuously, and is dependent upon the characteristics of the involved aquifer, such as its ability to transmit and to retain water, as well as the pattern and the amount of rainfall in the area, and the effect of nearby streams or canals. In addition, the rate of pumping of a well controls the extent of the cone of influence under any given set of aquifer conditions. Dade County regulates land uses in the area of the Northwest Well field according to whether property falls within the projected cone of influence of the field. In March, 1981, Dade County adopted an ordinance prohibiting the handling, use, transportation, disposal, storage, discharge, or the generation of hazardous materials in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, defined as being within 210 days travel time for a hypothetical particle of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. That initial protective zone lay entirely to the west of the Turnpike, and included neither Section 6 nor Section 32. As a result of further study and computer modeling, the county subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 83-82 on September 20, 1983, amending the map of the cone of influence for the Northwest Wellfield, and adopting new regulations requiring the use of sewers instead of septic tanks in industrial areas. The amended map projected a cone of influence that greatly expanded the protective zone around the wellfield, and included both Section 6 and Section 32. The regulatory cone of influence selected by Dade County does not conform to the hydrological cone of influence, but excepts instead the area around the well depressed by 0.25 feet or more from the original unpumped surface. The county based its modeling of the regulatory line on an assumed pumpage of 150 MGD for the Northwest Wellfield, which is approximately equal to its present pumpage, and 75 MGD from the Miami Springs, Hialeah, and Preston wellfields, which is approximately ten times the current combined rate of pumpage for those fields. In addition, in running its computer model, the county conservatively assumed the highly unlikely condition for the aquifer--a 210-day period during which the aquifer would receive no recharge from rainfall. This "worst case" condition has never occurred during this century. In addition to this assumption, the county's computer modeling also ignored the substantial contraction of the cone during every wet season because of rainfall recharge, and omitted consideration of recharge to the wellfield from canal systems in the area. Within the line defined by its regulated cone of influence, Dade County currently bans all use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials. The cone of influence currently contained in the county's ordinances includes all of Section 32, including FEC's proposed project. Dade County Ordinance No. 83-82 is considered an interim regulation, intended to remain in force while Dade County continues to gather information concerning the aquifer in the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield under pumping conditions. Since the enactment of the wellfield protection ordinance, Dade County has initiated a study to formulate a more detailed management plan for the wellfield. Dade County is conducting the study and generally implementing its environmental regulation and wellfield protection through its Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). DERM's powers extend into municipal areas, such as Medley, as well as throughout the unincorporated area of Dade County. The agency has a budget in excess of $5 million annually. Both within the municipalities and throughout the unincorporated areas of Dade County, DERM reviews building permit applications of all industries expected to potentially discharge chemicals into sewer systems. DERM requires all such industries to obtain an annual permit under Section 24-35.1 of the Dade County Code, and to install pretreatment facilities to ensure that no unsafe chemicals are discharged directly into sewers. In addition, DERM requires that all users or generators of hazardous materials throughout Dade County follow best management practices, including ground water monitoring, when appropriate. A special section of the agency focuses on the enforcement of hazardous materials regulation. In addition, Dade County has initiated a hazardous waste cleanup fund, a liquid waste transporter's permit ordinance, and regulation for underground storage facilities for hazardous materials. Further, Dade County has adopted Resolution No. R-114-84, which incorporates a non-exclusive list of numerous hazardous materials subject to regulation under the wellfield protection ordinance and other regulations. The more credible evidence of record in this cause establishes that even should Dade County remove the current ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the proposed industrial park, as restricted by the Medley development order, would pose no significant threat of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. As modeled under realistically conservative assumptions, including pumpage rated far exceeding the presently permitted legal rate of 50 MGD, the Northwest Wellfield hydrological cone of influence would reach into Section 32 for no more than one or two months per year, at the end of the dry season. For most of the year, the Snapper Creek Canal will act as a natural recharge boundary for the Northwest Wellfield. The canal would normally carry sufficient water northward from the Tamiami Canal to maintain a pressure head in the canal, driving water into the aquifer on both sides, replenishing the water drawn by the wellfield in the area west to the canal, and holding the cone of influence at the west side of the canal. On the east side of the canal, ground water would resume its natural flow to the southeast or east, unaffected by pumping in the Northwest Wellfield. During the dry season, the recharge mound in the Snapper Creek Canal would diminish, and the cone of influence could gradually expand, possibly recharging Section 32 for a month or two at the end of the dry season. As soon as the rainy season commenced again, however, the canal would fill up rapidly and resume its function as a recharge boundary. The more credible evidence establishes that it is highly unlikely that ground water contaminants originating from Section 32 would ever reach the Northwest Wellfield. Ground water moves only a few feet or even inches per day in the Biscayne Aquifer. Because Section 32 is located three to four miles from the Northwest Wellfield, the gradient to the wells in the cone of influence in Section 32 is extremely slack. In the driest of droughts, a hypothetical plume of contaminants beneath Section 32 would move only slightly towards the wellfield. At the return of the wet season, the gradient draining ground water from Section 32 eastward to the Miami Canal would be very steep and would rapidly flush any contaminants away from the wellfield and its cone of influence. The Medley development order imposes several restrictions on the development which protect the Northwest Wellfield from any threat of potential contamination from the proposed industrial park. The development order requires the removal of all exotic vegetation and the planting of native species to reduce the demand for water and the use of fertilizer, a potential contaminant; restricts irrigation in the project to the use of non-potable water from onsite lakes and wells; obligates FEC to construct, or provide $600,000 to the Dade County Fire Department for construction of, a fire station according to county specifications within the primary response district for Section 32, to improve the fire department's capability to respond quickly to any spill of hazardous materials; requires FEC to submit to the RPC, Dade County and Medley a detailed management operation plan within six months of the date of issuance of the development order; and further requires that FEC submit a hazardous material spill contingent fee and response plan to the RPC, Dade County, and Medley within one year of the date of the development order. The development order contains detailed criteria for the management/operation plan, including inspections, monitoring, and the use of best management practices designed to minimize the risk of contaminating ground water. Further, these requirements include approval of specific standards for hazardous materials accident prevention, mitigation, and response; adequate pre-treatment facilities to assure segregated retention of hazardous waste and their removal and disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements; that all facilities be readily open for inspection by Medley and DERM; and appropriate storage and accurate labeling of hazardous materials. The order also requires that FEC receive review and approval of its plans by the RPC, Medley, and Dade County. The RPC will, if deemed appropriate, in the course of review, impose its customary policy of ground water monitoring for a project using or generating hazardous materials. The development order provides that whatever wellfield protection regulations Dade County might adopt after further monitoring of the Northwest Wellfield will apply to the FEC project in Section 32. The RPC compiled, and Medley adopted, in the development order, "Table 22" as a tool for determining the types of land uses that should be excluded from locating in the proposed industrial park. In the event Dade County were to remove the present ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the Medley development order requires that every firm and industry listed in Table 22 desiring to locate in the development to apply to RPC, Dade County, and Medley for a waiver of restriction on hazardous materials, based upon the tenant's demonstration that its use of appropriate best management practices or other measures will adequately protect the environment. These applications would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the adequacy of proposed protected measures. This condition is imposed in the development order in addition to existing local, state, and federal permitting requirements. Further, Dade County also independently requires the use of best management practices, including monitoring when appropriate, by any industry using hazardous materials in Dade County. In summary, the evidence in this cause establishes that the current ban imposed by Dade County on the use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials in Section 32, when viewed in the context of the existing hydrological system in the area and the conditions imposed upon FEC in the Medley development order, combine to demonstrate the lack of a permanent ban on hazardous materials in Section 32 will pose no significant threat to the Northwest Wellfield. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to demonstrate that the proposed project is in any way inconsistent with an existing state land development plan, any local land development regulation, or the regional planning council report.
Findings Of Fact The Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County, Florida, is an unincorporated neighborhood association begun in the Spring of 1978. It has been concerned with local sewage and flood water problems. Many of the Citizens' members live in the LiFair subdivision abutting the Fairfield Village project on the south. FFV is a 72-unit low income federally subsidized housing project planned for development on a 7.47 acre site. The site is located on the west side of Fairfield Drive between Jackson Street and the Lillian Highway (U.S. 98) in Escambia County. On February 1, 1980, DER issued permit number CS17-25848 for the construction of a dry sewage collection system to serve Fairfield Village. That permit contained conditions 15, 16 and 17 which state: This permit does not authorize the connection of this collection to the Avondale STP. Separate authorization for the actual connection of this col- lection system to the Avondale STP is required from this department. Such authorization shall be applied for by separate letter to the Department. This permit shall not be construed to infer any assurance that the necessary authorization for connection shall be granted. Any such authorization shall be granted only when adequate treatment in accordance with rules, regulations, and issued permits of the Department is available for any flows transported by by the collection system. The system shall be inspected for any sediment debris and flushed prior to connection to the Escambia County sewer system. Subsequently on March 20, 1980, Paul F. McCartney on behalf of FFV requested that the above conditions be lifted as the moratorium on new connections to the ATP had been lifted. On January 1, 1980, C. H. Wigley, Jr., Director of Utilities for Escambia County gave notice that the two-year moratorium on new sewer taps into the ATP was lifted. This action was the result of a planned diversion of approximately 300,000 gallons per day (GPD) from the ATP to the Warrington Treatment Plant. DER on April 1, 1980, gave notice of its intent to remove conditions 15, 16 and 17 from FFV's permit. Petitioner on April 9, 1980, filed its petition for an administrative hearing on DER's proposed action. The anticipated waste water discharge from FFV is approximately 22,000 GPD. As a result of the 300,000 GPD diversion from the ATP to the Warrington Plant, there is more than adequate treatment capacity at the ATP for handling the FFV inflow. The ATP operates under DER permit number TP17-2080 issued on April 4, 1978 and has operated within its designed capabilities of 1,000,000 GPD since August, 1979. There is no showing that a connection of the FFV transmission line to the ATP will cause any violation of the plant's permit conditions. Evidence was presented by Petitioners that sewage lines in the Citizen's neighborhood frequently overflow. There was no showing however that any instance of overflow was caused by the ATP exceeding its operating capacity. It is more likely that their neighborhood sewage problems result from blockages in the transmission lines or result from pump-outages at the lift station between their neighborhood and the treatment plant. No showing was made that the connection of FFV to the ATP would adversely affect sewage collection in the LiFair subdivision. The monthly operating reports submitted to DER by the ATP were shown to be accurate. DER may reasonably rely on them in determining whether the requested permit modifications should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order authorizing the modification of permit number CS17-25848 by eliminating conditions 15, 16 and 17. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Petition of the Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County, Florida, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this day of 18th of December, 1980. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Artice L. McGraw, Esq. CETTI & McGRAW 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 P. Michael Patterson, Esq. 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 William W. Deane, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Alan C. Sheppard, Esq. EMMANUEL SHEPPARD & CONDON Seventh Floor, Century Bank Tower Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, FL 32596
Conclusions On October 7, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALI ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction to the Department.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9. 030()(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, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, 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. Final Order No. DCA11-GM-168 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 Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this Laas of March 2012. By U.S. Mail: James E. White, Esq. Florida Bar No. 679461 WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA COLE & BONISKE, P.L. Attorneys for Respondent 200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 763-4242 Telecopier: (954) 764-7770 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison St., MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue Whether Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension is a "major development" as defined by Section 6-222, Monroe County Code, and (in connection with Intervenor's amended plat proposal and dredge and fill application) should undergo major development review pursuant to Chapter 6, Article VII, Monroe County Code.
Findings Of Fact Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension is a subdivision located in Section 2, Township 67 South, Range 27 East, Sugarloaf Key, Monroe County, Florida. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 1). The plat of Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension, shows 76 residential building lots and five deadend canals (connecting to Upper Sugarloaf Sound or Cross Key Channel) and a canal of approximately 900 feet paralleling the mean high water line of Upper Sugarloaf Sound; it was approved by Monroe County on July 5, 1972, and is recorded in Monroe County Plat Book 6, page 93. The subdivision contains 38.9 plus acres. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 2; Joint Exhibit No. 1). Lloyd A. Good, Jr., purchased Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension on October 8, 1973, and is the current owner and developer of the subdivision. (Prehearing Stipulation Para. (e), No. 3). At the time of his purchase, the land had been cleared. An east-west canal of approximately 600' in length and 50' in width had been excavated but unopened to Upper Sugarloaf Sound. A north-south canal or borrow pit of approximately 200' in length and 50' in width had also been excavated. Fill obtained from these excavations had been placed on the property. He subsequently placed approximately 800 yards of additional fill on the Southeast corner of the property. (Testimony of Good) The platted subdivision is landward of the mean high water line and contains a mixture of upland and wetland vegetation. A berm rises along the front of the property between Allamanda Drive and the existing (plugged) canal. The northern part of the property contains white, black, and red mangroves, red grape, a hardwood hammock, and a salt water marsh characterized by key grass, salicornia, and white and black mangroves. The western part of the property contains fresh water wetlands characterized by spike rush. The area south of the existing canal contains more mangroves and is permeated by transitional wetland or fresh water wetland plant species, with the higher elevations containing Lower Keys hardwood hammock species such as poison wood, black tooth and Jamaican dogwood. The salt marsh and black mangroves are subject to inundation from tidal exchange; the fresh water wetlands are subject to rain water flooding. (Testimony of Dennis) In 1973, Lloyd Good was familiar with regulatory restrictions on the use of wetland areas. As a Philadelphia attorney, he had "practiced in wetland areas in New Jersey . . . and . . . knew that the concept of deadend canals at that time was not feasible." (TR.65) He had decided to amend the original plat (and change the development plan) even before he purchased Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension because he believed that under existing environmental laws the platted deadend canals would not be permitted. (TR.65) So he hired engineers to design a development plan acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other governmental agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities in wetland areas. Because of other business interests, he temporarily halted work on the project between late 1973 and 1975. From 1975 to 1980, he worked with permitting officials from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies in an effort to devise a development plan for Section C Extension which would meet regulatory standards. In 1980, he hired a consultant to obtain the necessary federal, state, and local permits needed to carry out his revised development plan. Monroe County permitting officials told him not to apply for any local dredge and fill, or land clearing permits until he first obtained the required federal and state permits. (Testimony of Good) In 1980, Lloyd Good applied for a joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation permit to perform the dredging and filling necessary to carry out his revised development plan. In 1983, after extensive negotiation, both agencies issued him the required dredge and fill permits. The Department of Environmental Regulation permit was conditioned on Mr. Good obtaining Monroe County approval of an amended plat of Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension conforming to the federal and state permits. (Joint Exhibit No. 21, Testimony of Good) During his initial discussions with Monroe County officials in 1981, Lloyd Good proposed rezoning the property to permit multiple-family residences; if rezoned, he expected that the project would be required to undergo "major development" review as defined by the Monroe County Code. But after meeting with members of the Sugarloaf Property Owners Association and discovering that they were violently opposed to multi-family development," (TR.73) he decided to retain the single-family nature of the original development and not seek a zoning change. Monroe County officials told him that by retaining the original zoning his development activities would not be subject to the "major development" review process. (Testimony of Good) On May 10, 1983, Lloyd Good submitted an application to Monroe County for authorization to dredge 42,400 plus/minus cubic yards of submerged lands, wetlands and uplands for roads and fill needed to develop residential lots within the Sugarloaf Shores Subdivision in accordance with his newly revised development plan. His application conformed to the federal and state permits already issued. (Prehearing Stipulation Para. (e) No. 4; Joint Exhibits No. 2 and 6) Mark Robinson, the county biologist assigned to review the dredge and fill application and prepare a biological report, asked Lloyd Good to have the state and federal permits amended to address several of his concerns. Mr. Good obtained the requested permit amendments, then asked that the biological report be completed. (Testimony of Good) On August 25, 1983, Dr. Jeffrey M. Doyle, Director of the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Department, issued an administrative ruling declaring Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension to be a "major development" under the Monroe County Code. As grounds, he cited Section 6-222(1), which defines a "major development" project as a subdivision containing five acres or more of land or water, and Section 6-222(7)(b), which grants discretionary authority to zoning officials and the County Commission to designate an activity or use as a "major development" project if it "reflects sufficient scope, scale and size to justify its being designated . . . in order to ensure its reasonable implementation, if approved, and its proper review prior to such approval." Under his administrative ruling, the dredge and fill application would be subject to the comprehensive review procedures which apply to "major developments." (Joint Exhibit Nos. 32, 5) On September 21, 1983, Lloyd Good appealed Dr. Doyle's administrative ruling to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment. The issue before the Board of Adjustment (and subsequently before the County Commission) was whether Mr. Good's proposed dredge and fill activity (for the purpose of constructing the revised subdivision) was a "major development" as defined by the Monroe County Code, and whether compliance with "major development" review procedures was required before county dredge and fill permits could be issued. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 6; Joint Exhibit No. 8). On November 2, 1983, the Monroe County Board of Adjustment upheld Dr. Doyle's decision and determined that the Section C Extension subdivision (to be created by the dredging and filling) was a "major development" under Chapter 6- 222(7)(b), Monroe County Code. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 7; Joint Exhibits No. 11 and 12). On November 23, 1983, Lloyd Good appealed the Board of Adjustment's decision to the County Commission. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 8; Joint Exhibit No. 13). On January 27, 1984, the County Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeals, adopted Resolution No. 042-1984, reversing the Board of Adjustment's decision of November 2, 1983. The resolution (giving no specific reasons for the reversal) remanded the matter to the County Planning and Building Department for normal processing of the related dredge and fill permits. It did not grant or deny any development or dredge and fill permit; it simply ordered that Lloyd Good's dredge and fill application would be reviewed under normal permitting procedures, not the more comprehensive procedures applicable to "major development" projects. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 9; Joint Exhibit No. 14) The DCA did not appeal this resolution to a circuit court (within 30 days of its adoption) or to the FLAWAC (within 45 days of its transmission). The DCA did not challenge or question the County Commission's decision (that the proposed dredge and fill activities would not undergo "major development review") until it appealed the Commission's subsequent resolution granting the dredge and fill permit. (Testimony of Good, Dennis) On June 4, 1984, Lloyd Good submitted to the Monroe County Building Department 13 copies of a proposed amended plat for the Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension. The amended plat incorporated his new development plan and reflected the dredging and filling approved by state and federal permits. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 10; Joint Exhibit Nos. 18 and 21). On July 13, 1984, the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 195- 1984 approving Lloyd Good's application to dredge and fill. The resolution was transmitted to the DCA on July 27, 1984, which appealed it to the FLAWAC by notice filed September 10, 1984. 1/ The appealed resolution directs that the applied-for permit be issued subject to Lloyd Good's subsequent filing of an amendment to the Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension plat. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), Joint Exhibit No. 19) Thereafter, on September 7, 1984, the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 224-1984, approving an "Amended Plat for Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension." The DCA also appealed this resolution to FLAWAC by separate notice filed October 31, 1984. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 12; Joint Exhibit Nos. 21, 22) The amended plat approved by Resolution No. 224-1984, replaces the original plat with a fundamentally new and different development plan. It alters the location of roads; eliminates the proposed deadend canals (except for the existing "plugged" canal); provides for wetland preservation areas in Tracts A, B, C, D, and F, and for the construction of a six-acre boat basin fronting the property on Upper Sugarloaf Sound; and reduces the number of single family residential lots from 76 to 55. RU-1 zoning is retained. The new development plan is preferable to the original plan in terms of environmental impact. The amended plat was processed in the same manner as all new plats in Monroe County. (Joint Exhibits No. 1, 21; Testimony of Dennis) The record is devoid of any documented expenditures made by Lloyd Good in reliance on County Commission approval of the original or amended plat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Section 380.07(4), Florida Statutes (1983), the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter an order: Reversing Resolution Nos. 195-1984 and 224-1984, because these resolutions approved development activities prior to their undergoing the "major development" review required by Section 6-222(1) and (6), Monroe County Code, as incorporated by Rules 27F-9.06 and 27F-9.17, Florida Administrative Code; Declaring the proposed Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension a "major development" within the meaning of Section 6-222(1) and (6), Monroe County Code, and requiring the two development activities which would create it to undergo "major development" review prior to any approval; and Declaring that after undergoing the required "major development" review, these development activities would be eligible for approval, but that the disposition of the appeals in the instant cases does not reach the substantive issue of whether the proposed development should ultimately be approved, or disapproved. See, Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes (1983). DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1986.
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'.
