The Issue Whether the City of Miramar Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 1901 on October 17, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioners own and reside on property located at 17428 Southwest 36th Street in Miramar, Florida. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time between, and including appearances at, the transmittal hearing and the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners’ house is approximately 430 feet north of the property subject to the Plan Amendment (the “Subject Property”). Petitioners’ property is separated from the Subject Property by a residential canal, approximately 100 feet of wetland or marsh area, and a City street right-of-way. The residential canal is owned and controlled by Petitioners’ homeowner’s association. From the backyard of their home, Petitioners enjoy observing and photographing birds and wildlife that utilize the canal, including birds that can be seen from Petitioners’ property in the trees on the Subject Property and flying between the properties. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Univision is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to transact business in Florida. Its principal business address is 500 Frank West Burr Boulevard, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666. Univision is the owner of the Subject Property. Lennar is a Florida limited liability company, whose principal business address is 700 Northwest 107th Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33172. Lennar is under contract to purchase the Subject Property. Existing Conditions The Subject Property is approximately 120 gross acres of mostly undeveloped property. The Subject Property contains 102.2 acres of wetlands and 15.5 acres of uplands. At least 80 percent of the wetlands are covered by Melaleuca trees, which is an invasive species. Melaleuca is listed by federal and state agencies as a noxious weed, making it illegal to possess, sell, cultivate, or transport in Florida. The uplands on the Subject Property are limited to areas previously developed with radio transmission towers, a control room, and filled roadways connecting the on-site improvements. The improvements, with the exception of the fill roads, were removed in approximately 2017. The radio towers were secured by guy wires anchored by concrete blocks. The areas of the Subject Property underneath the guy wires were maintained to prevent vegetation from growing up into the guy wires. The areas where the concrete supports have been removed are wet, and the areas that were beneath the former guy wires contain fewer Melaleuca and some native vegetation, like sawgrass and ferns. However, the upland areas are also currently growing exotic grasses and Australian Pine, which are also invasive species. The Subject Property is currently designated on the City’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) as “Rural.” Pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Rural land use category allows the following types of development: (1) residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres (1du/2.5 acres); (2) agricultural and related uses, including crops, groves, horse and cattle ranches, private game preserves, fish breeding areas, and tree and plant nurseries; (3) parks; (4) police and fire stations, libraries, and civic centers; (5) special residential facilities, such as group homes; and (6) public utilities, including wastewater pumping stations, electrical utility substations, and telecommunications transmission facilities. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Rural to “Irregular (3.21) Residential,” which allows residential development at a density of 3.21du/acre.4/ Lennar proposes to develop 385 units on the property-- the maximum allowable under the Plan Amendment. Under Lennar’s development proposal, all of the on- site wetlands will be impacted. The Plan Amendment Process Broward County municipalities have a unique plan amendment review process. Each amendment to a municipal comprehensive plan must be consistent with, and incorporated into, the Broward County Land Use Plan (“BCLUP”). This Plan Amendment, as with all other municipal amendments, was reviewed and approved through both the County’s and City’s approval process. The Board of County Commissioners held an adoption public hearing on March 20, 2018, and approved Ordinance No. 2018-12, amending the BCLUP to change the County FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Agriculture to Irregular (3.21) Residential. On October 17, 2018, the City Commission held a duly advertised second public hearing, wherein the City voted to adopt the Plan Amendment. Lennar Permitting Lennar pursued permitting of its proposed development of the Subject Property during the Plan Amendment review process. On or about September 11, 2018, the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department (“EPGMD”) issued an environmental resource license (“ERL”) for the proposed development. The ERL is based on Lennar’s site plan for the site, not the Plan Amendment. The ERL recognizes that the impacts on the Subject Property wetlands are unavoidable and determines that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on those wetlands. On or about September 11, 2018, the South Florida Water Management District issued an environmental resource permit (“ERP”) for the proposed development. The ERP is based on Lennar’s site plan and other required documents, not the Plan Amendment. The ERP provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. On or about December 14, 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers (“ACOE”) issued a permit for the development proposed, based upon Lennar’s site plan and other required documents. The ACOE permit provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. Petitioners’ Challenge Section 163.3177(2) directs that “the several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent,” in furtherance of the major objective of the planning process to coordinate the elements of the local comprehensive plan. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance” because it creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners’ challenge rests on four provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”) Goal (unnumbered), FLUE Policies 3.5 and 6.10, and Conservation Element Policy 7.3 (“CE Policy 7.3”). FLUE Goal (unnumbered) The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains one overarching goal for the FLUE, which reads as follows: Maintain a long-range future land use pattern which promotes orderly and well- managed growth and development of the community, producing quality neighborhoods, enhancing the city’s aesthetic appeal, conserving the natural environment and open space, supporting a vibrant economic tax base, and minimizing risks to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (emphasis added). The goal is the singular goal for the overall FLUE, which includes 12 different objectives and many more policies for each objective. The purpose of the goal is to set the initial framework; it is a very broad statement setting the direction for the City’s long-term goals, but does not provide any measurable standards or specifics regarding implementation. Petitioners’ challenge focuses on the underlined phrase, and argues that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the goal’s direction to “conserv[e] the natural environment and open space.” The Subject Property is not currently designated as either “Recreation and Open Space” or “Conservation.” The Subject Property is private property that, by virtue of its land use designation, has always been intended for development as one of the uses allowable within the Rural land use category. Further, Eric Silva, the Director of the City’s Community and Economic Development Department, testified that the goal’s direction of “conserving the natural environment and open space” relates only to those areas that have been designated by the City, or another agency, for protection. The Recreation and Open Space Element (“ROS Element”) sets forth the specific objectives and policies to accomplish the City’s goal to “[p]rovide adequate and accessible parks and facilities to meet the recreation needs of all current and future Miramar residents.” In the ROS Element, the City has established a level of service standard of four acres of park and open space for each 1,000 City residents. Petitioners introduced no evidence that the Plan Amendment would diminish the amount of land designated for open space in the City, or otherwise impede the City’s progress toward the adopted standard. To the contrary, Mr. Silva testified that the City has over 300 extra acres of park space and that this Plan Amendment will not impact the City’s adopted level of service for parks and open space. Likewise, Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment would reduce the amount of land designated for “Conservation” in the City. Rather, Petitioners argue that the Subject Property should be converted to a nature preserve, or otherwise placed in conservation use. The issue in this case is not whether the City should designate the Subject Property for a different use, but whether the designation the City proposes is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the FLUE Goal. FLUE Policy 3.5 Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5, which directs the City to “[c]onsider the cumulative and long-term effects of decisions regarding amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and revisions to the Future Land Use Element.” Petitioners’ concerns here are similar to those with the FLUE Goal--the Plan Amendment will reduce green space and open space, which could be preserved under the existing Rural designation. Petitioners’ expert witness conceded that it is impossible to determine that the City did not consider the cumulative and long-term effects of the Plan Amendment. Moreover, the City introduced abundant evidence that it considered, during the lengthy Plan Amendment process, all impacts of the Plan Amendment on the City’s resources and infrastructure. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5. FLUE Policy 6.10 Next, Petitioners argue the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10, which states, “The City shall consider the impacts of land use plan amendments on wetland and native upland resources, and minimize those impacts to the maximum extent practicable.” Here, Petitioners focus on the density allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it allows development of 385 units, which will maximize, rather than minimize, impacts to the on-site wetlands. Petitioners argue that the residential density allowed under the existing Rural designation would yield development of only 48 units, which would provide for conservation of at least some of the wetlands on site, thereby minimizing the wetland impact. Petitioners’ argument ignores the fact that the Rural designation allows other types of non-residential development that may be as intense as residential, such as a civic center or fire station, or uses that require fewer improvements, but have a destructive effect on wetlands, such as horse or cattle ranches. The issue of whether the Plan Amendment minimizes impacts to wetlands is not determined by the mathematical function 48 units < 385 units. Instead, the determination hinges on the meaning of “minimizing impacts” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the City’s Comprehensive Plan, impact of development on wetlands must be considered in partnership with the County, and is dependent upon the value assigned to those wetlands, pursuant to the wetlands benefit index (“WBI”), as set forth in the Conservation Element. Based on the following relevant analysis, the Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10. CE Policy 7.3 Finally, Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as internally inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3, which reads as follows: The City shall distribute land uses in a manner that avoids or minimizes to the greatest degree practicable, the effect and impact on wetlands in coordination with Broward County. Those land uses identified below as being incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands, or when compatible land uses are allowed to occur, shall be mitigated or enhanced, or both, to compensate for loss of wetland functions in accordance with Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection. Compatibility of Land UsesRelative to the Wetland Benefit Index (WBI) Wetland Benefit Index Land Use Compatibility 1. Wetlands with a WBI value greater than or equal to 0.80 1. There is a rebuttable presumption that all land uses except for conservation uses are incompatible. 2. Wetlands with a WBI value less than 0.80 2. All land uses are compatible, provided that the wetland impact compensation requirements of Chapter 27, Article XI, are satisfied. Source: Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection CE Policy 7.3 is more specific than FLUE Policy 6.10 regarding the City’s direction to minimize impacts of development on wetlands. Petitioners’ planning expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it does not “avoid or minimize” the impact of wetlands at all, much less “to the greatest degree practicable,” as directed by the policy. Petitioners’ expert based his entire argument solely on the first sentence of the policy. Petitioners’ planning expert explained, incredulously, that, in his opinion, the rest of the policy “doesn’t matter.”5/ The opinion of Petitioners’ expert was not persuasive. The Policy must be read in its entirety; and, when read as such, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the policy. The first sentence of the policy is precatory and direction-setting. It states the City’s intent to distribute land uses in a way that minimizes wetland impacts. The following sentences describe in more detail how that direction will be accomplished, and specifically reference the incorporated chart. The policy provides that land uses identified in the chart as incompatible with wetland protection “shall be directed away from wetlands.” By contrast, the policy provides that for land uses identified as compatible, wetland impacts “shall be mitigated . . . in accordance with the Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27.” It is undisputed that the wetlands on the Subject Property have a WBI value of less than .80. Pursuant to the chart, then, all uses of the Subject Property are compatible with the wetlands on-site, as long as the wetland impact compensation requirements of the Broward County Code are followed. The policy clearly provides that no development, regardless of density or intensity, must be directed away from the wetlands on the Subject Property. If the WBI value of the on-site wetlands was .80 or higher, pursuant to this policy, Petitioners’ position that the Subject Property should be placed in Conservation use would be presumed correct, although rebuttable. To that end, Petitioners introduced expert opinion testimony as to the quality of the wetland areas on-site which were previously maintained by the property owner--namely the areas under the guy wires. In the opinion of Petitioners’ wetlands expert, the on-site wetlands could be restored to higher quality if the Melaleuca trees were removed and the stumps sprayed to prevent regrowth. Petitioners’ argument is irrelevant to a determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Having established that the WBI value of the on-site wetlands is below .80, the issue of whether the on-site wetlands could be restored is irrelevant. Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code governs application for, and issuance of, an ERL for wetland alteration. On September 11, 2018, Broward County issued an ERL to Lennar for its proposed development of the Subject Property. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding that the provisions of Chapter 27 were not satisfied by the County in issuing the ERL. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by City of Miramar Ordinance 1901, on October 7, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should issue a permit for the removal of the one mangrove tree growing on the submerged lands owned by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact There being no transcript of the proceedings, the Department did not take any exceptions to findings of fact per se. In Exception No. 1, however, the Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 16 to the extent that it embodies an implied conclusion of law that Batell had certain riparian or other vested rights which would prevent the Department from requiring a dredge and fill permit for removal of the mangrove tree. 3/ The Department's regulations are based on the police power of the state. Odom v. Deltona Corp., 341 So.2d 977, 987 (Fla. 1977); Neumann v. Davis Water and Waste, Inc., 433 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), rev. den.,441 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1983). See also Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 556 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. General Development Corp., 448 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), aff'd., 469 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 1985); Town of Indialantic v. NcNulty, 400 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Department of Environmental Regulation v. Oyster Bay Estates, Inc., 384 So.2d 891, 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). All property rights are subject to the reasonable exercise of the police power. Odom v. Deltona, supra; Brickell v. Trammell, 82 So. 221 (Fla. 1919). The state may reasonably exercise its police power to regulate the use of both private land and waters to protect the environment. Odom v. Deltona Corp.; Oyster Bay; supra. Therefore, Batell's rights in her submerged land are subject to the Department's regulations on dredge and fill and mangrove alterations. Accordingly, I accept the Department's Exception No. 1 and reject any implied conclusion of law that Batell had certain riparian or other vested rights which would prevent the Department from requiring a dredge and fill permit for removal of the mangrove tree. Also, Finding of Fact No. 11 embodies a conclusion of law that the function of mangrove seedling propagation in the area is a "false [i.e., irrelevant] concern because mangroves were purposely removed from the area when the development was created." This conclusion of law is erroneous for the same reason as stated above. The right of Batell in her submerged lands are subject to the reasonable exercise of the police powers of the state. Therefore, I reject the embodied conclusion of law, but otherwise accept Finding of Fact No. 11. Finding of Fact No. 13 states: There was no reliable, empirical evidence provided by the Department at hearing to justify its preliminary finding that the tree removal was contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. note that this statement may construed as containing an implied conclusion of law that the Department has a burden of showing that the proposed dredge and fill activity is contrary to the public interest. In fact, the burden is on the applicant to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes; Florida Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Young v. Dept. of Community Affairs; 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). I reject any such implied conclusion of law, but otherwise accept Finding of Fact No. 13. 4/ In sum, I accept the findings of fact in the Recommended Order except to the extent they embody or imply conclusions of law as noted above. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In Exception No. 2, the Department takes exception to the conclusion of law that the Department is estopped from denying the requested permit. The Hearing Officer concludes that under the rule of Odom v. Deltona Corp., 341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1976), the Department is equitably estopped from denying the permit to remove the mangrove tree because (1) ownership in the submerged land was acquired by the original developer as part of an overall project plan for the community; (2) public officials acquiesced in the development which included the removal of the original mangrove fringe, and (3) private persons such as Batell purchased the land in reliance on the development plan. In Odom the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees") sought to require permits for dredging and filling in navigable waters in which the Trustee's and Odom made conflicting claims of ownership. The court found, among other things, that the Trustees had previously purported to have conveyed the submerged lands at issue and were now estopped from attacking the validity of the earlier conveyance in light of the fact that (1) the conveyances were more than 30 years old, (2) the Trustees had made no effort of record to reclaim the lands, (3) the Trustees had acquiesced in the development of the land, and (4) private parties had entered into contracts in reliance on the development. Odom, however, is not applicable to this case. There the Trustees attempted to invalidate their prior conveyance. Here, the Department is not attacking the validity of the prior development; rather, it is merely applying current regulations to the present existing situation. It is established law that, absent a basis for equitable estoppel, the state's acquiescence in the earlier lawful removal of the mangrove fringe does not preclude the Department from apply current regulations to the removal of existing mangrove trees. See Department of Environmental Regulation v. Oyster Bay Estates, 384 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) Nor is there any basis to equitably estop the Department from applying current regulations to the removal of existing mangrove trees. Equitable estopped will be found against a state agency only in rare instances and under the most exceptional circumstances. Reedy Creek Improvement District v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Department of Environmental Regulation v. C.P. Developers, 512 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, a state agency will be equitably estopped only when (1) the state agency has made a representation of a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position, (2) the party seeking to estop the agency has relied on the representation, and (3) the party has taken a detrimental change in position caused by the representation and reliance. Reedy Creek; C.P. Developers; supra; Dept. of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981). The Hearing Officer has not found such factors. There was no finding of a representation that the mangrove at issue could be removed without a permit, no finding of reliance on any such representation, and no finding of a detrimental change of position caused by such a representation and reliance. Since there was no finding of ultimate facts necessary to establish equitable estoppel, there is no basis for the conclusion of law that the Department is estopped. Therefore, I accept the Department's Exception No. 2 and reject the Hearing Officer's legal conclusion that the Department is equitably estopped from denying the permit. In Exception No. 3, the Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that the denial of the permit to remove a single mangrove tree is an unconstitutional taking of property which can only be lawfully achieved through eminent domain proceedings. Such a conclusion of law must be predicated on a finding that the regulation leaves no economically viable use of the land to the owner. "[A] taking will not be established merely because the agency denies a permit for the particular use that a property owner considers to be the most desirable, or because the agency totally denies use of some portion of the property," so long as some economically viable use of the entire property remains. Department of Environmental Regulation v. MacKay, 544 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Fox v. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 442 So.2d 221, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (emphasis added) . See also, Graham v. Estuary Prop. Inc., 399 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1981), cert. den., 454 U.S. 1083, 102 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed.2d 618 (1981); Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County, 541 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. den., 549 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 1989); Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. den., 508 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1987). The Hearing Officer made no finding of fact that the Department's decision deprived Batell of all beneficial uses of her property such that there was no remaining substantial economically viable use. Therefore, there can be no determination that a taking occurred. MacKay (and cases cited therein); supra. Furthermore, in order to show a taking, the landowner must show that she was not able to obtain a variance from the Department. Absent a showing that a variance cannot be obtained, there can be no finding of a taking. Department of Environmental Regulation v. MacKay (and cases cited therein) supra. The Hearing Officer made no such finding of fact; therefore, there can be no determination that a taking has occurred. Finally, and most importantly, a DOAH hearing officer lacks jurisdiction to determine issues of inverse condemnation. Bowen v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 448 So.2d 566, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), aff'd., 472 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1985) ("inverse condemnation actions cannot be adjudicated by administrative boards or agencies") For all of the above reasons I accept the Department's Exception No. 3 and reject the conclusion of law that the denial of the permit constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property. PUBLIC INTEREST TEST Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes, requires the consideration and balancing of seven factors in determining whether the project is not contrary to the public interest. The Hearing Officer did not make express findings of fact on any of the seven factors, and did not expressly find or conclude whether the project is not contrary to the public interest. Absent express findings on each of the seven factors a remand to DOAH would normally be required. However, in this case inferences as to all but two of the seven factors may be gleaned from Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 10, 12, 14 and 15, and from the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Batell's proposed findings of fact. When these findings of fact are taken as a whole, it can be fairly inferred that the Hearing Officer considered and found that the project would have either a beneficial or at least no adverse impact for all of the factors except for the permanence of the project and the impacts on historical or archaeological resources, which were not at issue in this case. I note that I have serious misgivings and doubts about some of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. I have particular misgivings regarding her findings that the removal of mangroves can actually have a beneficial effect on water quality, marine productivity, fishing or recreation values, conservation of fish or wildlife, or public health, safety and welfare. I believe such findings are contrary to the great weight of scientific knowledge, and contrary to the implicit findings of the Legislature when it enacted the Mangrove Protection Act, Sections 403.93-.938, Florida Statutes, which generally prohibits the cutting, removal, defoliation, or other destruction of mangroves without a permit. Nevertheless, I am bound by the findings of fact unless, after a full inspection of the record, I conclude that the findings of fact are not supported in the record by any competent substantial evidence. 5/ Section 120.68(10), Florida Statutes; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case there is no transcript of the hearing, and I have no way of determining whether in fact these findings of fact by the Hearing Officer are supported by any competent substantial evidence. Therefore I am reluctantly bound by the findings of fact. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the seven factors be balanced to determine whether the project is not contrary to the public interest. It might be inferred from Finding of Fact No. 13, and from the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Batell's proposed findings of fact, that the Hearing Officer balanced the factors and concluded that the applicant had met her original burden of showing that the project is not contrary to the public interest. However, the balancing of the various factors to determine whether the project is not contrary to the public interest is a conclusion of law over which I have final authority and responsibility to determine. 1800 Atlantic Development v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990); J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 978-9 (DER Final Order, Jan. 22, 1990), rev. on other grounds sub nom., Perry, et al. v. City of Jacksonville, (Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Comm'n Final Order No. 90-001, Feb. 14, 1991) I may reject a hearing officer's conclusion of law so long as my conclusion of law is consistent with the facts found by the hearing officer and accepted by me. Although I am inclined to reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest, I am not at liberty to do so because my conclusion would be inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's finding of facts. Accordingly, I must reluctantly accept the conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. MITIGATION In Exception No. 4, the Department takes exception to the fact that the recommendation of the Hearing Officer does not include any requirement for mitigation, even though mitigation was proposed by Batell at the hearing. In view of the fact that I have accepted the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest, no mitigation is required. Therefore Exception No. 4 is rejected. Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED that: Except as otherwise stated herein, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is adopted and incorporated by reference; and The Department shall forthwith issue a permit to Petitioner Geraldine V. Batell pursuant to Application No. MA521949293.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be granted the permit to remove the mangrove three which was preliminarily denied in File No. MA 521949293. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5, #6, #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #2, #7, #12 and #15. Accepted. See HO #9, #10, #13 and #16. Accepted. Except for Mr. Steinke's affidavit. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #17. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Contrary to fact. There was only one mangrove. See HO #5, #6, #8 and #9. The rest is accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted, except there is only one mangrove tree. See HO #5, #6, #8 and #9. One mangrove tree. Otherwise accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9 - #11. Accepted. See HO #4. (Only one mangrove). Rejected. Contrary to fact. Petitioner does not have a stand of mangroves on her privately owned submerged lands. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. One mangrove. Otherwise accepted. One mangrove. Otherwise accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #16. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #16. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Accepted. (One mangrove) Accepted, generally but not on this site. See HO #10. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10, #13 and #16. COPIES FURNISHED: GERALDINE V BATELL 1184- 79TH STREET S ST PETERSBURG FL 33707 DOUGLAS BEASON ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER, SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act), the State Comprehensive Plan (Section 187.201, F.S.), the West Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Findings Of Fact 1. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2-4. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. Rejected, argumentative. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8. Rejected, argumentative and legal conclusion. 9-12. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13. Rejected, legal conclusion. 14-17. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence and much of these proposed findings are argumentative legal conclusions. 18-21. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Also many of these proposed findings are merely arguments of law. 22-36. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Again, many of these proposed findings are argumentative and mere conclusions of law as opposed to statements of factual findings supported by the record of evidence admitted at hearing. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. 40-42. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 43. Adopted by reference. 44-48. Rejected, argumentative, mere recitation of testimony. 49. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 50-62. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence, argumentative, and, again, counsel argues law as opposed to presenting facts. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, the failure of the county to adopt a traffic circulation map simply renders moot any need for discussion of adequacy of maps in data and analysis. 66-67. Rejected, see statement for finding number 65 above. 68-69. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 70-71. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Counsel continues also to engage in legal argument as opposed to presenting findings of fact. 77-79. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's finding of fact. Rejected, generally this finding consist of an argumentative conclusion of law. 82-83. Rejected, the weight of the evidence does not support findings that these policies comply with requirements of 9J5. 84-96. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence does not support any finding that these objectives comply with requirements of 9J5. 97-118. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 George Ralph Miller, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433 Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 David J. Russ, Esq. Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esq. Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Fred H. Kent, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 53075 Jacksonville, FL 32201-3075 Chris Cadenhead, Esquire Post Office Box 5354 Destin, FL 32540 Richard Grosso, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission for enter a final order determining that the Walton County Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1080GM The following constitutes my specific rulings in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on Findings of Fact submitted by the parties.
The Issue Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing ATC is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. ATC is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. ATC’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of ATC submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization with 67 chapters, including the Nassau County Sierra Club Group with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. Sierra Club participates in activities and outings on the Egans Creek Greenway (“Greenway”) for its members and the general public and has organized and participated in the removal of invasive species in the Greenway. Sierra Club is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. Sierra Club’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of Sierra Club submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Petitioners have standing to maintain these proceedings because they are affected persons and presented (or had their attorney or representative present) comments at the adoption hearing of the proposed FLUM Amendment. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. The City provided timely notice to the parties and followed the plan amendment procedures required by the City’s codes and chapter 163, part II. The subject property is located within the City’s jurisdiction. Amelia Bluff is a Florida limited liability company conducting business in the City. By virtue of its ownership of the property that is subject to the FLUM Amendment and this dispute, Amelia Bluff is affected by the challenge to the FLUM Amendment and has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The Subject Property The Property is part of a larger parcel of approximately 15.07 acres (the “School Board Property”) that was previously owned by the School Board of Nassau County (the “School Board”). The School Board Property was essentially undeveloped, though it had been used as outdoor classroom space for the high school. The School Board Property is located on the east side of Citrona Drive and is bounded on the west by Fernandina Beach High School/Middle School. The School Board Property is bounded on the south by the Hickory Street right-of-way, which is an access to the Greenway. Across from the Hickory Street right-of-way is Shell Cove, a residential subdivision that, according to the City Staff Report, is zoned R-2 with a Medium Density Residential FLUM designation. Shell Cove, which is completed, is of greater density than the proposed Amelia Bluff subdivision. The School Board Property is bounded on the north by a tract of undeveloped property. According to the City Staff Report, the property to the north is zoned R-1 with a LDR FLUM designation. The School Board Property is bounded on the east by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property. That property merges into the western edge of the main channel of Egans Creek. The Egans Creek Greenway then extends eastward from the western edge of Egans Creek. The School Board Property includes a relatively steep bluff running generally from the northwest corner of the Property at Citrona Drive, diagonally to the southeast to the Hickory Street right-of-way. The elevation of the upland portion of the School Board Property, which is the portion proposed for development, is from 18 to 20 feet above sea level at its northwest corner, to 11 to 12 feet above sea level at its southeast corner. Roughly 3.76 acres of the School Board Property at and east of the toe of the bluff consists of jurisdictional wetlands, dominated by wetland vegetation, at an elevation of 1 to 2 feet above sea level. The upland portion of the School Board Property includes the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. Those uplands were, at the time of the June 2016 purchase by Amelia Bluff, fully wooded with predominantly hardwood species, interspersed with pine, holly and other species. The 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision are appropriately zoned R-1 for low-density residential development. The Property that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment consists of approximately 6.40 acres of uplands within the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. The Property is designated on the FLUM as Conservation. The remainder of the proposed subdivision is designated on the FLUM as LDR. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the nature of the tree cover in the 6.4 acre Property and in the remaining acreage of the proposed subdivision. Maritime Forest/Maritime Hammock There was a good deal of testimony directed to the issue of whether the trees on the Property constitute a “maritime forest” or an imperiled “maritime hammock.” The tree cover on the Property, as established by the tree survey, consists largely of live oak, laurel oak, and water oak, interspersed with magnolia, pine, red maple, and other species. Ms. Jetton described the cover of the Property as maritime forest, and stated that “maritime forest” is identified as an imperiled community in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (“FNAI”) and designated in the Egans Creek 2015 Greenway Management Plan (“Greenway Management Plan”) as such. Although a “maritime hammock” is designated as an imperiled vegetative community, a “maritime forest” is not. Ms. Jetton later clarified her testimony, stating that “I probably shouldn't have said ‘hardwood hammock.’ I'm accustomed to using that term in the Florida Keys. I know this is a maritime forest, but it is composed of hardwood trees, live oak trees, pine trees.” When asked about the terms “maritime forest” and “maritime hardwood hammock,” she stated that “it was a faulty use of my words. I should have stuck with ‘maritime forest.’” There was little to suggest that the Property contains a “maritime hammock,” which is a specific type of imperiled vegetative community identified in the FNAI and the Greenway Management Plan. Mr. Gerald indicated that it did not. Rather, Mr. Gerald indicated that the type of “maritime forest” that exists on the Property, i.e., a forest on a barrier island, is “very common throughout the mainland, throughout Nassau County, Duval County, St. Johns, Clay, all the way out through pretty much all of North Florida.” It is not an imperiled or unique community, as is a maritime hammock. The Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway indicates that maritime hammock communities associated with the Greenway “are located along the eastern part of the Greenway,” with another near an indeterminate stretch of Jasmine Street and bisected by a wide and deep canal that is not surficially connected to Egans Creek, and a third set at the southern portion of the Greenway that appear to be adjacent to a beach dune community. There is nothing in the Ecological Assessment to suggest that a maritime hammock community exists to the west of the Greenway. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Property contains an imperiled “maritime hammock” as described in the FNAI and the Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway. There is little question that the Property is a beautifully wooded tract. However, the issue is not whether the Property merits preservation, but whether the FLUM Amendment, that will allow for the development of the Property as the Amelia Bluff subdivision, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Egans Creek Greenway The Greenway is a system of approximately 317 acres of publicly-owned waterways, marshes, and wetlands that extends in a north-south direction through Amelia Island, separating the City’s beaches from its downtown and commercial areas. Egans Creek is not an Aquatic Preserve or Outstanding Florida Water. Egans Creek flows into the Amelia River and the Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve. The Greenway is a regional drainage facility that receives untreated stormwater from areas including part of the original plat of the City. Water quality in Egans Creek is degraded, though the creek is not designated as “impaired.” The City’s Greenway Management Plan provides that “[t]he primary purposes of the project are to protect this sensitive natural area from development,” and that “[a]ll of the property encompassed in this project will be designated as recreational/wetlands and protected in the City’s future land use plan.” The Greenway extends from the western bank of the Egans Creek channel eastward. The Greenway is separated from the Property by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property, the first hundred feet or so of which is dense willow/wax myrtle/Chinese tallow shrub, and then brackish march to the Egans Creek channel. Procedural History of the Amelia Bluff Subdivision In June 2016, Amelia Bluff entered into a contract to purchase the 15.07-acre School Board Property from the School Board. The School Board Property includes the 6.4-acre Property. Amelia Bluff proposed to develop the upland portion of the School Board Property, including a significant portion of the Property, for the proposed subdivision. On September 27, 2016, the School Board filed an application to vacate a 60-foot right-of-way known as Gum Street extending through the School Board Property in connection with the School Board’s intent to sell the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff, memorialized as City Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) Resolution 2016-24. On August 10, 2017, the School Board, Amelia Bluff, and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which memorialized the parties’ understanding of the conditions of the City’s agreement to vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the School Board Property. The MOU stipulated that Amelia Bluff would (i) provide access to the abutting properties owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) located on the eastern boundary of the School Board Property through the creation of a City right-of-way to connect Hickory Street to the property owned by the FDOT; (ii) transfer the wetlands portion of the School Board Property to the City for conservation; and (iii) donate $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts, to be paid at the conclusion of all legal challenges and/or appeals for all subdivision approvals. On August 15, 2017, the City adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2016-40, which vacated a portion of Gum Street; and (ii) Resolution 2017-123, which approved the MOU. On November 29, 2017, the School Board conveyed the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed an application for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed to the City approximately 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in two parcels (3.63 acres and 0.13 acres in size) and dedicated to the City approximately 0.917 acres for the right-of-way connection between Hickory Street and the FDOT property. The City accepted the conveyance of wetlands and dedication of right-of-way on March 20, 2018, pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 2018-39 and 2018-40, respectively. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and issued a recommendation of approval. On May 1, 2018, the Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Amelia Bluff subdivision. On May 10, 2018, the City’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for technical completeness and issued a compliance letter on May 14, 2018 (SPR 2017-09), authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. In August 2018, Amelia Bluff commenced work on subdivision infrastructure improvements. On October 18, 2018, Amelia Bluff applied for final subdivision plat approval. The City and Amelia Bluff determined that the Property was designated Conservation under the Comprehensive Plan and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR. On November 15, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed the application for the FLUM Amendment to change the Conservation designation of the Property. City professional staff reviewed the FLUM Amendment application and determined that the FLUM Amendment sought by Amelia Bluff was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and furthered the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The determination was memorialized in a Staff Report prepared for consideration by the PAB prior to the PAB’s regular meeting on January 9, 2019. On January 9, 2019, the PAB reviewed the applications for the FLUM Amendment and final plat and issued recommendations of approval for the FLUM Amendment (PAB 2019-01) and final plat (PAB 2018-26). On February 19, 2019, the Commission approved the FLUM Amendment on first reading. On February 21, 2019, Amelia Bluff stopped work on the subdivision infrastructure improvements pursuant to the City’s request. On April 16, 2019, the Commission adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2019-08, which approved the FLUM Amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR, allowing up to four residential dwelling units per acre; and (ii) Resolution 2019-57, which approved the final subdivision plat. Because of Petitioners’ pending challenge, the effective date of Ordinance No. 2019-08 is delayed. The Ordinance provides: “If challenged within 30 days after adoption this Ordinance may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted ordinance is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stat.” Similarly, Resolution 2019-57 provides “[t]his Resolution shall become effective on the same date as Ordinance 2019-08 (a small scale Future Land Use Map Amendment that becomes effective pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stats.)” Thus, development may resume without any further action by the Fernandina City Commission if the FLUM Amendment becomes effective. Other Governmental Authorizations On December 28, 2017, the St. Johns River Water Management District (“SJRWMD”) issued Amelia Bluff an Environmental Resource Permit, No. 151737-1 (“ERP”), which notice was recorded in Official Records Book 2177, Page 1100 of the Public Records of Nassau County, Florida on February 15, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) issued Amelia Bluff Permit No. 0003152-107-DWC, which authorized Amelia Bluff to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system on the site, and accepted Amelia Bluff’s Notice of Intent to Use the General Permit for Construction of Water Main Extensions for PWSs. The Proposed Subdivision The proposed subdivision consists of 30 lots, designed with two entrances from Citrona Drive, and two cul-de-sacs. The legal description for the final plat approved on April 16, 2019, in Resolution 2019-57, describes the proposed subdivision as containing “10.29 acres more or less.”3/ In addition to the property conveyed to the City or dedicated to the city as right-of-way, the final plat depicts Tract “C” (0.25 acres) as a “recreation/open space tract” that is removed from development. The proposed subdivision was initially designed with stormwater detention ponds near the front of the subdivision, near Citrona Drive and away from the bluff. However, placement at that location would have required extensive grading and tree clearing to direct the flow of water against its natural flow direction. After discussion with City staff, the decision was made to reconfigure site drainage so that stormwater would be directed via overland flow and drainage structures from northwest to southeast, generally following site topography. Stormwater from lots, sidewalks, and streets will be directed to two dry detention ponds located at the southeast portion of the subdivision, and adjacent to the bluff. By allowing stormwater to follow the natural topography, grading and clearing for stormwater purposes will be minimized. The two dry detention ponds are connected by a 12-inch pipe approximately 100 feet in length that is designed to equalize water levels in the ponds. The ponds have a discharge structure in the southernmost pond that is designed to discharge treated stormwater after a 25-year storm to the bottom of the bluff. Efforts were made to design utilities, the stormwater system, and the roadways and associated structures to avoid particular specimen trees within the rights-of-way. In addition, Tract “C” located near the northwest corner of the subdivision, as well as portions of Tract “A” in the vicinity of the dry detention ponds were preserved due to an abundance of trees at those locations. The subdivision is designed with a 25-foot wetland buffer that prohibits removal of native vegetation or other disturbance within 25 linear feet of the jurisdictional wetlands. The buffer encompasses the entirety of the bluff. It was noted during the hearing that the buffer terminates near the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision. It was explained, credibly, that the 25-foot buffer is to buffer wetlands, and that there were no wetlands within 25 feet of the southwest corner that required a buffer. It was also noted that several lot lines extended into the wetland buffer. The buffer will be marked and restrictions recorded. Much of the evidence offered by Petitioners was directed to concern that the disturbance of the Property and removal of trees would destabilize the “relic dune” upon which the proposed subdivision is to be built. The testimony regarding that issue was conclusory, and not based on site- specific studies. However, Dr. McPhillips noted that there is residential development up and down the Greenway, and that the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision had experienced no evidence of dune collapse. Work Completed to Date In June 2016, after Amelia Bluff contracted to purchase the School Board Property, the owner representative, Wirt Beard, met with City planning staff to engage in preliminary discussions regarding the development of the proposed subdivision. At that time, Amelia Bluff and the City planning staff noted that the Property was subject to a Conservation designation on the FLUM. The planning director at the time, Marshall McCrary, indicated that it was his opinion that the FLUM Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” and that it would be taken care of. Considerable discussions regarding the abandonment of the Gum Street right- of-way then commenced, and the Conservation designation was essentially disregarded. Nonetheless, there is no question but that Amelia Bluff knew and understood at that time that the Property was not designated for development. Amelia Bluff’s decision to proceed with development planning and construction was not taken without considerable support by the City. Despite the fundamental issue of whether the proposed subdivision could go forward in light of the unresolved Conservation designation, the City proceeded with a number of actions that would have led Amelia Bluff to the reasonable conclusion that the matter was, in fact, being “taken care of.” As set forth previously, the City entered into the MOU with Amelia Bluff and the School Board that required Amelia Bluff to establish a City right-of-way through the Property to connect Hickory Street to FDOT property and to transfer roughly 3.76 acres of wetlands on the Property to the City for conservation, upon which the City would vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the Property. Ordinances approving the MOU and vacating the Gum Street right-of-way were adopted on August 15, 2017. The sale of the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff was then closed on November 29, 2017. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed the 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to the City, and dedicated 0.917 acres for the FDOT right-of-way. The City accepted both by resolution on March 20, 2018. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed its application for preliminary plat approval. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and recommended approval, which was approved by the Commission on May 1, 2018. On May 10, 2018, the TRC issued a compliance letter authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. Amelia Bluff commenced work on infrastructure improvements for the Project in August 2018. When work was suspended on February 21, 2019, pursuant to the City’s request, the stormwater collection system was substantially complete, stormwater ponds had been cleared and constructed, and the stormwater collection system had been installed. In addition, roads had been cleared and curbs installed. City Commission FLUM Amendment Meetings The undersigned viewed and listened to every minute of the City Commission meetings of February 19, 2019; March 19, 2019; and April 16, 2019. The exclusive theme of those meetings was whether the Conservation designation of the Property was a “scrivener’s error.” The staff presentations were directed solely to the historic zoning and land use designations of the Property. Aerial photographs going back to 1943, and plats going back nearly as far, formed the temporal starting point of the presentations. Charts, maps, and plans were presented and discussed that showed the Property to be subject to a residential “zoning map” designation starting in 1961 and extending through the 1990 FLUM. The Property then became subject to a Wetlands Protection zoning map designation in 1993 and FLUM designation in 1997. In 2005, the Property appeared with a LDR designation in the City GIS FLUM Map. The Property was then made subject to the Conservation designation in 2006, a designation that was adopted by City ordinance. Regardless of how the Property became subject to the Conservation designation, that is its official designation, adopted by ordinance, reviewed by the state land planning agency, and not subject to any timely challenge. The staff presented little or no “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment itself with the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Commission. The discussion of the FLUM Amendment by the Commissioners involved the alleged “scrivener’s error,” the cost associated with litigating a Bert Harris Act “takings” claim if the FLUM Amendment was denied, the cost of acquiring the Property from Amelia Bluff and the source of funds to do so, and nothing more. Though the evidence establishes that the Commission had “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there was not a whisper of acknowledgment or direct evidence of consideration. Several Commissioners, and particularly Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kreger, made statements that their votes to approve the FLUM Amendment were driven solely by the assumption that the Conservation designation was an error, with Commissioner Chapman discussing the cost of buying the Property in lieu of other sensitive lands in the community, stating that “I cannot justify giving up . . . 452 acres of land for six, I just can’t do it,”4/ and Vice-Mayor Kreger stating explicitly at the April 16, 2019, meeting that “to me, this is a mapping error, . . . I made the motion and I will vote yes on this.”5/ The undersigned is convinced that, at least as to the public discussions of the issue, little consideration was given to whether the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue in this case was whether the Commission actually considered available data and analysis supporting consistency, the evidence would suggest the answer is “no.” However, the issue in this de novo proceeding is whether data and analysis that was available to the Commission at the time of the adoption of the FLUM Amendment, and whether that data and analysis, together with any subsequent analysis, establishes that the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” with the Comprehensive Plan under a “fairly debatable” standard. Available Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but is not limited to, surveys, studies, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of the Comprehensive Plan to be supported by data and analysis. Likewise, section 163.3177(6)(a)8. requires FLUM amendments to be based upon an analysis of data. Section 163.3178(2) states that a local government’s coastal management element of its Comprehensive Plan must be based upon studies, surveys, and data. When the application for the FLUM Amendment was filed, Amelia Bluff provided the City with a substantial volume of information for consideration by City staff, and to which the Commission had access at the time it voted to approve the FLUM Amendment. The surveys, studies, and data included: a site survey prepared by Manzie & Drake Land Surveying; engineering plans for the proposed subdivision, including water and sewer design and stormwater system design prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; a wetland delineation, wetland survey, and documents conveying all wetlands to the City; a topographic survey; preliminary and final plats which include a depiction of the upland/wetland buffer; stormwater modeling data and site drainage calculations prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; the SJRWMD ERP; a geotechnical and soils report for the stormwater model and roads prepared by AGES of Jax, Inc.; a tree survey with input from an arborist; and a wildlife assessment prepared by LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Small Scale Development Amendment Section 163.3187 applies to “small scale development amendments,” which may be adopted when “[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer.” Petitioners allege that the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment since the 6.4 acre FLUM Amendment is part of a use, i.e., the proposed subdivision, that is greater than 10 acres in size. The FLUM Amendment is designed to change the land use category on the 6.4-acre Property. Both Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple testified credibly that the size of a FLUM amendment application is the acreage of the property on which the land use category is to be changed. Mr. Teeple testified that, in his extensive experience, he was unaware of any instance in which the 10-acre threshold was applied to the applicant’s total acreage, on the size of a “parent parcel,” or on the overall size of a development of which a FLUM amendment parcel was a part. Ms. Jetton testified on behalf of Petitioners that the Amelia Bluff subdivision is the “use,” which includes “the lots, the driveways, the stormwater ponds, the entire use,” although only the land use designation on the 6.4 acres would be amended. She asserted that the FLUM Amendment “should have been for the Conservation land with an explanation along with it that it would be part of a use that includes” the entire proposed subdivision. Her opinion as to “use” notwithstanding, Ms. Jetton testified that if the FLUM Amendment had occurred prior to the plat approval, “and they only offered the Conservation land as a small scale amendment, then that would have met the statute,” and the FLUM Amendment would properly be for the 6.4 acres for which the land use category change was being sought. Ms. Jetton, and Petitioners, rely exclusively on St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. v. Franklin County, Case No. 95-5124GM (Fla. DOAH Feb. 13, 1997; Fla. ACC Mar. 27, 1997). That case will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is the established and accepted practice of the City and the regional council to base the determination of whether an amendment is a small scale amendment on the size of the property subject to modification. That determination is consistent with the plain language of the statute and is accepted as reflecting an accurate application of the standards for a small scale FLUM amendment. Internal Inconsistency In the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioners identified the specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that they assert render the FLUM Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Each of those goals, objectives, and policies is addressed as follows: Policy 5.07.09. The City shall prohibit any development activity that would potentially endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to existing drainage structures and natural drainage patterns. Ms. Gibson testified that the City applied this policy and found that it was met as evidenced by modifications to the original stormwater system design and the permitting of the stormwater system by the city and the SJRWMD. As originally configured, the stormwater system would have required significant regrading and virtual clear-cutting of the entire Property to allow stormwater to flow against the natural topography of the land to the front of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Citrona Drive. With input and direction from the City, the system was redesigned to direct stormwater generally from the high point of the property to its low point at the southeastern corner, following the natural topography of the proposed subdivision. All stormwater is to be directed to the permitted stormwater facility. The 25-foot upland buffer is not designed or intended to treat stormwater. The stormwater system consists of dry detention ponds, which are preferred by the SJRWMD. The vertical percolation rate is calculated at 42.8 feet per day. The horizontal percolation rate was calculated at 0.6 feet per day. Mr. Gillette testified that the stormwater system was designed to manage 100 percent of the stormwater from a 25-year storm event, which exceeds the City requirement of a system capacity to handle a 10-year storm event. The treatment volume does not include infiltration and percolation of stormwater. Mr. Desilet reviewed the drainage plans and calculations and determined that they were in compliance with the City Land Development Code. He further confirmed that Amelia Bluff received a stormwater permit from the SJRWMD as required by the Local Development Order. The system is designed and engineered such that flow from the proposed subdivision in its post-development state does not exceed flow from the proposed subdivision in its pre-development state. The system is designed to hold and treat stormwater on site from a 25-year storm. After that, stormwater will be allowed to “pop-off” to the stormwater drain and culvert. Nonetheless, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that any water leaving the site will be treated stormwater, meeting both permitting and water quality standards. Mr. Gillette testified that the modeling performed in support of the stormwater system indicates that for a mean storm event (5.4 inches of rain), pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 3.8 cubic feet per second (“CFS”), while post-development outfall is expected to be 0.67 CFS. For a 25-year storm event, pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 16 CFS, while post- development outfall is expected to be 5.6 CFS. Mr. Desilet testified that the engineered stormwater system proposed by Amelia Bluff “addresses water quality by providing the minimum required treatment volume and infiltration under [SJRWMD] guidelines.” As such, he testified that under rules governing the SJRWMD, “[i]f the specified volume required by the pervious area of the site is provided, and it's shown that it infiltrates in the system and it meets other site criteria in the [SJRWMD] code, it is presumed to meet state water quality standards.” Consistent with Mr. Desilet’s testimony, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.432(2)(a), which is applicable to the SJRWMD, provides that “[w]hen a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such systems will comply with state water quality standards.”6/ The stormwater system complied with the applicable rules, thus leading the SJRWMD to issue a stormwater permit to Amelia Bluff. There was no persuasive evidence introduced to rebut the presumption that state water quality standards would be met. The City reviewed Amelia Bluff’s stormwater plans for compliance with the City’s Land Development Code and determined that water quality was addressed, and that the data and analysis regarding stormwater from the proposed subdivision was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence offered to establish that the stormwater system designed for the proposed subdivision would “endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to . . . natural drainage patterns” was not persuasive. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.09. Policy 5.07.12. The City shall require low-impact development strategies or conservation-based landscape planning and installation, water efficient irrigation, and appropriate measures that promote conservation of water resources and reduction of non-point source pollution as part of sustainable water management for new public and private development. New waterfront development shall be designed so that stormwater runoff and erosion are retained on-site or are channeled so as not to degrade water quality of adjacent waters. Ms. Gibson testified that the City required Amelia Bluff to apply low-impact development strategies, including its dedication of all wetlands to the City; the requirement of the 25-foot, naturally vegetated wetland buffer; modifications to the stormwater system to account for the natural topography of the land; and modification and realignment of infrastructure to preserve significant trees. Mr. Teeple testified that the proposed density of less than three units per acre is less than the four units per acre allowed under the LDR designation, thus supporting his opinion that Amelia Bluff applied a low-impact development strategy. Petitioners’ alternatives to the low-impact development strategies identified by Ms. Gibson included clustering all development onto that portion of the proposed subdivision currently designated as LDR, requiring swales in lieu of a “focused” drainage pattern, and increasing the width of the buffer. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its low-impact development policy was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are different ways to measure the effectiveness of low-impact development strategies, and people may -- and do -- disagree as to the appropriate means to accomplish the policy. The issue is not, however, which strategies should be implemented, but whether the City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s strategy was beyond fair debate. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.12. Objective 5.08. - Wetlands Protection and Preservation Petitioners assert that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 5.08. of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides as follows: The City shall direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, and shall protect and preserve wetlands from physical and hydraulic alterations, in order to maintain the following functions: natural biological functions . . . natural drainage systems impacting sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics . . . shielding other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage; storage areas for stormwater and flood waters; natural recharge areas; and natural water filtration processes that serve to purify water. Objective 5.08. is implemented through the City’s wetland Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.08.05. The City shall continue to ensure the protection and mitigation of wetlands, consistent with existing state and federal regulations, and shall ensure the following: Land uses which will have little or no adverse impact on wetlands; Standards and criteria for wetlands which possess significant functional value; and Activities that would provide direct public benefits and that would exceed those benefits lost to the public as a result of the degradation or destruction of wetlands. Policy 5.08.06. The City shall protect wetlands from impacts of adjacent development, and shall ensure through regulations included in the Land Development Code: Proper siting of development structures and infrastructure, including clustering of development away from wetlands; Location of buffer zones of native vegetation around wetlands and surface water bodies to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and provide habitat; and Setback of buildings and other structures from wetlands and water bodies. Policy 5.08.08. In instances in which development is proposed that is adjacent to a wetland, the boundary of a wetland transition area shall be established by an on-site field survey . . . . The City shall maintain land development regulations which ensure that the transition area provides a buffer between wetlands and upland development. Such buffer shall ensure existing vegetation is not disturbed; where new vegetation is required, plants or ground cover native or appropriate to a wetlands transition area shall be used. The data and analysis established clearly that the Property encompassed by the FLUM Amendment includes no wetlands, and that the proposed subdivision will result in no direct degradation, destruction, or impact to wetlands. Ms. Gibson testified that the Wetlands Protection and Preservation objective and policies were advanced in several ways, including the dedication of all wetlands on the School Board Property to public ownership so as to protect and preserve the wetlands, the creation of the wetland buffer between wetlands and the upland development, and the requirement -- enforced through the plat and engineering documents, Homeowners’ Association covenants, and City code provisions -- that native vegetation be maintained in the buffer. Petitioners argued that wetlands are adjacent to the proposed subdivision, that stormwater can drain from the proposed subdivision to the wetland, and that, ipse dixit, there will be an adverse affect on the wetlands. That allegation was not proven, and is inconsistent with the SJRWMD stormwater permit creating a presumption that the stormwater system complies with water quality standards. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wetland protection and preservation objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.08., or Policies 5.08.05, 5.08.06, or 5.08.08. Objective 5.10. - Wildlife Planning. The City shall encourage development and management of resources in a manner which sustains local wildlife, their habitat and the ecological services of the land, and shall protect significant habitats of populations of threatened or endangered species in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 USC 1531, and Florida Administrative Code Division 68A. Objective 5.10. is implemented through the City’s wildlife management Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.10.01. When reviewing development proposals for public or private development, the City shall take into account the following strategies: * * * Preserve native vegetation and habitat types; Preserve forested areas, the understory and native soil associations; and Avoid activities that dehydrate landscape features or alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks or water bodies. Policy 5.10.02. The City shall protect significant habitats for native wildlife and vegetation in areas of known environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The Land Development Code shall be updated with regulations to ensure that prior to the issuance of development permits in such areas, detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development shall be conducted. If on-site habitat will be disturbed by new development, the habitat shall be relocated or the impacts mitigated, if viable by virtue of its size, configuration, and connecting habitat. . . . Mr. Teeple testified that the donation of wetlands and the efforts taken, as described herein, to minimize impacts to trees on the Property, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When confronted with the fact that the proposed subdivision will not “preserve the forested areas, the understory, and the native soil associations,” Mr. Teeple testified credibly that Policy 5.10.01 “doesn't say ‘preserve all native vegetation and all habitat types.’ It's incongruous with the nature of development.” The data and analysis demonstrate that Amelia Bluff made efforts to preserve native vegetation and forested areas on the property, as described herein, though it is without question that the Property will be subject to the normal impacts of low- density development. Compliance with the stormwater standards is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality or water quantity impacts from the stormwater collection and management system, and that the system will not alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks, or water bodies. Dr. McPhillips testified as to her concern that the buffer vegetation on the northern -- and more elevated -- side of the proposed subdivision will be desiccated, and that the vegetation on the southern -- and lower -- side near the dry detention ponds will, from time to time, become saturated. Her concern was that trees at the buffer would not be able to generate interfacial friction between the roots and soil to stabilize them under any appreciable wind load. However, Dr. McPhillips was not familiar with the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision, which has similar characteristics, or the requirements of the SJRWMD and the calculations required for a stormwater permit. Her opinions were not supported by specific facts as to how the site will hold or drain water, and were more in the nature of “pure opinion” testimony based on her admittedly extensive professional education and experience. The data and analysis was adequate to establish that the stormwater management system would not result in adverse impacts resulting from the system, including dehydration of landscape features. As to Policy 5.10.02, the evidence indicated that the City Land Development Code required detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development. As part of the data available to the City, Amelia Bluff provided a wildlife survey. The survey established that the Property contained no environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The known environmentally sensitive habitats in the form of wetlands have been protected through conveyance to public ownership and the establishment of naturally vegetated buffers to protect off-site habitat. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wildlife planning objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.10., or Policies 5.10.01 or 5.10.02. Objective 5.11. - Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry. The City shall commit to preservation of community trees and the urban forest to improve air quality, community health, quality of life, aesthetics, and energy conservation. Objective 5.11. cannot be read in isolation from the policies adopted to implement the objective. Those policies include Policy 5.11.09., which requires the City’s Land Development Code to “protect and retain existing trees and require replacement of trees lost to land clearing,” with the objective of “achiev[ing] no net loss of trees per development site,” as well as “[m]aintenance of a Tree Fund for payments in lieu of replanting or mitigation of protected trees.” Mr. Platt testified that the City’s objective has been met through a number of strategies and policies applied to Amelia Bluff. Mr. Platt and Ms. Gibson testified that individual lots will be required to submit a land clearing application at the time of the single-family home permit, and the lot grading and tree removal associated with each individual lot will be reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis at that time. The City's Land Development Code has provisions for the protection of noninvasive, healthy trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) within five feet of a home footprint. For any tree in the protected class that must be removed, the City has a mitigation and minimum planting ordinance which requires that any tree planted as part of mitigation be a noninvasive, native tree, at a minimum of two and a half inches DBH and eight feet in height. In addition to the foregoing, the City Land Development Code has a provision that allows for up to 50 percent of on-site mitigation to be accomplished through an “inch-for-inch” payment to a tree mitigation fund. That provision is, according to Mr. Platt, rarely used, though it is consistent with Policy 5.11.09 described above. As indicated previously, Amelia Bluff set aside several areas of the proposed subdivision, both within the Property and within the remaining generally indistinguishable acreage, for protection of both important specimen trees and clusters of trees, most notably Tract “C” (0.25 acres) near the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision, areas around the dry detention ponds (0.17 acres), and tree “islands” in the cul- de-sacs. In addition, Amelia Bluff worked with the City to realign roadways and utilities to avoid particular trees. Petitioners assert that Objective 5.11. has not been met because the overall forest will be altered, not only through the installation of infrastructure, but also through the clearing that will be necessary for homes and driveways. Petitioners argue that the inevitable thinning of the forest and damage caused through construction activities will weaken the remaining trees, and diminish the storm protecting qualities of an unbroken forest. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 5.11. was supported by data and analysis, including the tree survey and the retention/removal plan. It was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. People clearly, and in good faith, disagree as to the best means of preserving the urban forest. Development, even of low density, by its very nature entails a modification of the natural state. However, the issue is whether the City’s determination that the FLUM Amendment, including protections proposed by Amelia Bluff, was, beyond fair debate, in error. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry Objective 5.11. Objective 6.05. - Open Space. Open spaces shall be protected within urbanized areas for their aesthetic, health, environmental, and economic benefits. The City shall continue to maintain standards in its land development regulations for the provision and maintenance of open space in the community, including in private developments and publicly owned lands. Objective 6.05. is implemented through the City’s open space Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policy: Policy 6.05.03. Privately-owned open space, such as those within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use or contains environmentally sensitive lands, shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements. There was surprisingly little or no testimony offered by anyone other than Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple regarding the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with this objective and policy. Mr. Teeple testified to the difficulty in applying Policy 6.05.03 -- despite the provision that open space “within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use . . . shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements” -- due to “the out- of-sequence process that we're going through by dealing with land use last.” Had the FLUM Amendment been considered “in- sequence,” there would have been no subdivision to which Policy 6.05.03 would have applied. Several witnesses testified that had the sequence of events not been skewed by Mr. McCrary’s ill- advised statement that the “scrivener’s error” would be taken care of, a number of issues created as a result of the amendment of the FLUM after plat approval would not have been problems. This appears to be one. It does appear that Policy 6.05.03. was designed to apply to open space lands within a developed subdivision, ensuring through a conservation easement that such designated open space lands would not be encroached upon. That scenario does not present here. The evidence establishes that all of the “environmentally sensitive lands” on the School Board Property were conveyed to the City. Though the Property is forested, it is of a nature common throughout north Florida, and not imperiled “maritime hammock.” Amelia Bluff conveyed all wetlands on the Property to the City. Amelia Bluff also placed 0.25 acres into “recreation/open space, preserved significant stands and individual trees, and donated $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 6.05. and Policy 6.05.03. was supported by data and analysis as described above. Though a facially credible argument can be made that the Property is land designated as Conservation within a “subdivision”, under the specific -- and peculiar -- facts of this case, the legislative decision to adopt the FLUM Amendment as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, was fairly debatable. Objective 6.10. - Egans Creek Greenway. The City shall protect Egans Creek Greenway for its value as a recreational asset, for its significance as an outstanding natural resource, and for its role in providing wildlife habitat. The Amelia Bluff subdivision does not front onto the Egans Creek Greenway. Rather, the easternmost edge of the Property is from 200 to 400 feet removed from the Greenway. The Greenway was protected by the dedication of all wetlands that were part of the School Board Property to the City. The Greenway is further protected by the establishment of the 25-foot naturally vegetated upland buffer. As established herein, any stormwater discharged from the dry detention ponds is not reasonably expected to result in the violation of water quality or water quantity standards established by the SJRWMD or the City. While recognizing the value of the Egans Creek Greenway, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will impair the Egans Creek Greenway’s value as a recreational asset, its significance as an outstanding natural resource, or its role in providing wildlife habitat, and does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 6.10. Policy 1.02.04. Decision on amendments to the FLUM shall be based on an analysis of the suitability and compatibility of the proposed use, based on the following factors: Type and density or intensity of surrounding uses; Zoning districts in the surrounding area; Demonstration of adequate water supply and water supply facilities; Appropriateness of the size of the parcel compared to the proposed use; Physical condition of the site, and the suitability of soils and topography for the proposed use; Suitability of the site based on the presence or absence of natural resources, environmentally sensitive lands, flood zones, or historic resources; Compatibility factors; Impact on adopted levels of service standards and quality of service standards; and Location in a Coastal Upland Protection Zone (CUPZ). Petitioners’ argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessments called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the policy. As set forth herein, the data available to the City, and the analysis of that data, met the substantive requirements of Policy 1.02.04. Thus, the record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.02.04. Data and Analysis Petitioners’ last argument is, as expressed in section II.a.(3) of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of section 163.3177, including that the proposed FLUM Amendment be based on “accurate” data and analysis. In that regard, section 163.3177(1)(f) provides that: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. (emphasis added). Section XI of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation then identifies the following issues as remaining for disposition: Whether the [FLUM] Amendment is based upon appropriate data and analysis including the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and suitability of the property for the proposed use in accordance with Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . ensures the protection of natural resources and the compatibility of adjacent land uses as required under Section 163.3177(3). Whether the development . . . directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection of wetlands and wetland functions in violation of section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . will adversely impact water, wetlands, wildlife, habitat, soils, native vegetative communities, existing natural preserve areas, and other natural and environmental resources pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), (6), Florida Statutes. (emphasis added). Ms. Gibson testified that the FLUM Amendment is supported by information described in paragraph 73, and described in further detail throughout these Findings of Fact. The availability of the data was corroborated by Mr. Platt, Mr. Desilet, Mr. Gillette, and Mr. Gerald. Though there was little evidence that the data and analysis was fully considered by the Commission,7/ the evidence established that there was substantial data “available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment,” and that the data was, at a minimum, analyzed and considered by City staff. Consistency of the FLUM Amendment with section 163.3177(2), (3), and (6) has been addressed in conjunction with the specific Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies set forth in detail herein. Based thereon, Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, or are otherwise inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), (2), (3), and (6). Conclusion In analyzing the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, the undersigned gave full attention to not only the witnesses and evidence produced by the parties, but also to the public comment taken during the evening of July 15, 2019. This project has clearly evoked a great deal of justifiable passion from people who are concerned, invested, and involved in their community. However, the burden applicable in proceedings of this nature -- beyond fair debate -- is substantial. The decision that was made by the City officials was, as discussed herein, a legislative decision. Regardless of the extent that their attention may have been misdirected to the issue of whether the adopted and valid Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” the data and analysis in support of the FLUM Amendment was available. Under the specific facts of this case, the decision of the elected City officials to approve the FLUM Amendment, regardless of their publicly stated reasons, was one that reasonable persons could differ over, and was therefore “fairly debatable.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-08 on April 16, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2019.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Roger Thornberry, Georgette Lundquist, Steven Brodkin, Ruby Daniels, Rosalie Prestarri, and James Giedman, reside in and own property within Lee County. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments to Lee County concerning the challenged Plan Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Respondent, Lee County (the County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2015). Intervenors, RH Venture II, LLC; RH Venture III, LLC; and Greenpointe Communities, LLC (Greenpointe), are the owners and developers of the property which is subject to the Plan Amendment. Intervenors are the applicants for the Plan Amendment. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) allocates future land uses based on community plans for 22 distinct communities within the County. The Fort Myers Shores planning community is located in eastern Lee County. Within Fort Myers Shores is a sub-community planning area known as Caloosahatchee Shores, which is located south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of Interstate 75 (I-75), and west of Hickey’s Creek. The southern boundary of Caloosahatchee Shores is the Orange River and State Road 82. Caloosahatchee Shores contains a mixture of future land use designations. The majority of the land is designated Suburban, Sub-Outlying Suburban, Rural, or Urban Community. The subject property is located in Caloosahatchee Shores within an existing 1,978-acre mixed-use golf community known as River Hall. Most of the existing development in River Hall was completed between 2004 and 2009 by the original developer, Landmar Group, which was then owned by Crescent Resources. Crescent Resources declared bankruptcy in 2009. Those portions of River Hall subject to the Plan Amendment were acquired by Greenpointe in 2010. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is approximately 585 acres of non-contiguous land within the existing mixed-use development. All of the property subject to the Plan Amendment is located within the Rural future land use category. The Plan Amendment changes the future land use category of the subject property from Rural to Sub-Outlying Suburban.2/ The density of development allowed in Rural is one dwelling unit per acre and the density of development allowed in Sub-Outlying Suburban is two units per acre. In 2001, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County Commission) adopted procedures to encourage community planning aimed at specific neighborhood interests within the County. A coalition of property owners in Caloosahatchee Shores developed the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan (Community Plan) between 2001 and 2003. The Community Plan was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2003 and is codified as Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Goal 21 and its implementing objectives and policies. FLUE Goal 21 reads as follows: GOAL 21: CALOOSAHATCHEE SHORES: To protect the existing character, natural resources and quality of life in Caloosahatchee Shores, while promoting new development, redevelopment and maintaining a more rural identity for the neighborhoods east of I-75 by establishing minimum aesthetic requirements, planning the location and intensity of future commercial and residential uses, and providing incentives for redevelopment, mixed use development and pedestrian safe environments. This Goal and subsequent objectives and policies apply to the Caloosahatchee Shores boundaries as depicted on Map 1, page 2 of 8 in the Appendix. The Community Plan was amended in 2007 and again in 2009. Policy 21.1.5 was added to the Community Plan in 2009, and reads as follows: POLICY 21.1.5: One important aspect of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan goal is to retain its’ [sic] rural character and rural land use where it currently exists. Therefore no land use map amendments to the remaining rural lands category will be permitted after May 15, 2009, unless a finding of overriding public necessity is made by three members of the Board of County Commissioners. It is undisputed that the Plan Amendment removes land from the Rural land use category. It is undisputed that the Lee County Commission did not make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” when it adopted the Plan Amendment. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 21.1.5 because the Lee County Commission did not make the requisite finding of an “overriding public necessity” to remove property from the Rural land use category.3/ Respondent and Intervenors argue that Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because the existing development on the property subject to the Plan Amendment is not rural in either character or land use. Respondent and Intervenors introduced abundant evidence to establish that the property subject to the Plan Amendment is suburban development served by the full spectrum of urban services and devoid of any of the trappings of rural development, such as large-lot residential and agricultural uses. Respondent and Intervenors advocate an interpretation of Policy 21.1.5 which requires a finding of “overriding public necessity” only if a plan amendment removes property that exhibits rural character or rural land use from the Rural land use category. The County offered the testimony of Brandon Dunn, one of its principal planners. Mr. Dunn characterized the Policy as an “if/then statement”: if property in the Rural land use category (subject to a plan amendment) exhibits rural character and rural land use, then a finding of “overriding public necessity” is required. Under Mr. Dunn’s analysis, Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because River Hall is a suburban community. Intervenors’ planning expert, Dr. David Depew, testified that the first sentence narrows the application of the second. Dr. Depew testified that the first sentence indicates “we aren’t talking about the category per se.”4/ Under Dr. Depew’s reading, the second sentence only applies to plan amendments which exhibit rural character or rural land use, rather than all plan amendments removing property from the Rural land use category. Neither Mr. Dunn’s nor Dr. Depew’s opinion is persuasive.5/ The interpretation advanced by both Respondent and Intervenors adds language to the second sentence of Policy 21.1.5 limiting its application to only those plan amendments which exhibit rural character and rural land use. The plain language of Policy 21.1.5 contains no such limitation. The policy directs the County to make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” as a prerequisite to removing land from the Rural land use category in Caloosahatchee Shores. The first sentence of Policy 21.1.5 does not constitute a limitation on the directive for a finding of an “overriding public necessity.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Lee County Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2015.
Findings Of Fact By application (Exhibit 1) dated September 15, 1978, WCMI requested a permit to dredge approximately 740 cubic yards of sovereign bottom lands in Snook Bay adjacent to upland property owned by applicant. At the same time applicant requested a lease of some 0.98 acres of submerged sovereign land, containing the area to be dredged, for the purpose of constructing a marina with docking facilities over the leased property. Following receipt of all requested information from applicant, plus objections from adjacent land owners, DNR, as the state agency acting on behalf of the Trustees Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), held a public hearing in Naples, Florida on April 25, 1979. The Hearing Officer submitted a report following this hearing in which he recommended the lease be granted (Exhibit 4). After review DNR staff recommended granting the lease and before the Trustees took action, Petitioner requested this hearing. In the interim DER reviewed the application for a dredge and fill permit and, following a preliminary investigation, advised WCMI of its intent to deny the permit (Exhibit 8). At informal conferences with DER, WCMI revised its application to commence the dredging 25 feet from the existing seawall, reduce the amount of material to be dredged to 349 cubic yards and to move the floating dock sections further from the seawall. This revised application (Exhibit 10) was submitted to DER and, after review, DER on November 13, 1979 (Exhibit 11) issued its notice of intent to grant the requested permit. Petitioner then requested this hearing to contest the granting of this permit. The Isles of Capri was developed into a waterfront homesite project by bulkheading, dredging and filling a pristine mangrove area to provide the homesites now occupied by members of Petitioner. This project destroyed the ecosystem as it existed before the development. The area which is here proposed for lease and for a permit to dredge some 349 cubic yards therefrom is located in the originally disturbed area. Most of the homes on the Isles of Capri are built on waterfront lots and most homeowners have docks and boats. Fishing is generally considered good off the docks and in surrounding waters. The proposed marina is located in Snook Bay, a relatively small cul-de-sac-like area. On the dead end of Snook Bay, which is adjacent to the proposed marina, mangroves have been planted and the area designated as a park. Since these mangroves are rat infested, the park concept has not received general acceptance. However, the proposed marina will not adversely affect this park. Apart from the ecological problems that will allegedly be created by the leasing of the property and the dredging thereon, Petitioner alleges the project will interfere with other "rights" of the homeowners of the Isles of Capri. Although this Hearing Officer has considerable doubts as to the validity of these alleged rights, the facts presented relating thereto will be first considered. WCMI owns the uplands adjacent to this submerged land and this land is zoned General Retail Commercial, which includes use as a proposed marina. Use as a marina would create less additional vehicular traffic than would any of the other 12 uses considered most likely for this land. (Testimony of Barr) The proposed marina will provide wet dock space for 32 boats and dry storage for 116 boats in sheds with the boats stacked three-high. No ramps will be provided and boats will be launched and picked up by use of a forklift at the concrete seawall. Parking space for 54 vehicles will be provided. This parking space complies with local requirements, as does WCMI's proposed construction. Collier County and the area of Collier County in the vicinity of Isles of Capri is an area of rapidly increasing population. A need for some six additional marinas has been recognized by Collier County authorities. Numerous witnesses opposed the use of WCMI property as a marina because: They do not think the site is suitable for a marina, and a much smaller marina would be preferred. Installation of a marina would increase boat traffic, thereby increasing the risk of boat collisions, increase wake action which might damage seawalls, disrupt the peace and quiet now enjoyed by these residents, and increase the possibility of boats striking manatees. Property values in the vicinity of the proposed marina and elsewhere in the Isles of Capri might decline. Operation of a marina would increase the noise level, thereby disturbing occupants of residences closest to the proposed marina. Vehicular traffic would be greatly increased on the Isles of Capri once the marina commences operation. Most of these objections are beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal. This property has been zoned for the use proposed and if this use is inappropriate, the proper recourse is with the local zoning authorities. The credible evidence submitted is that the operation of the marina would increase boat traffic in and out of Snook Bay some 20 round-trips per day and this increase will create and insignificant additional risk of collision with other boats or with the occasional manatee that is sighted. While most of this traffic will use the deeper channel that follows the seawalls and boat docks of residents, an alternate channel is available for use by boaters with local knowledge of its characteristics. Even if all traffic used the deeper channel, no serious hazard to navigation would thereby result. No credible evidence was presented that the increased boat traffic caused by the marina would increase the damage to a properly constructed seawall. Navigation of these waters is a right to be jealously guarded. If wave damage results, local authorities have jurisdiction to establish speed or wake restrictions. Furthermore, the more credible evidence presented was that at the Isles of Capri more subsidence of soil behind the seawalls is caused by tidal action than by wake action. No credible evidence was presented that the operation of the proposed marina would decrease property values. Even if this could be shown, such a use would be consistent with the usage for which this property is zoned. There are two marinas across the street from WCMI's proposed marina and no evidence was presented that the operation of these smaller marinas affected property values. The uncontradicted evidence that was submitted was that property values on the Isles of Capri have increased at a rate as great as, if not greater than, land values elsewhere in Collier County. The roads on Isles of Capri are presently operating far below capacity and the additional traffic expected to be generated by the proposed marina will have no significant impact on these roads, nor will the construction of the marina create any vehicular safety problems. Petitioner's contention that the construction and operation of the marina will create additional pollution because of septic tank, oils and greases, and water runoff from impervious surfaces is not well-placed. It is not well-placed in the first instance because this is not the proper forum in which to air these complaints. Local health and safety ordinances regulate the installation of septic tanks, installation of fueling facilities and retention of water falling on the property. Secondly, the evidence presented here is that WCMI will comply with all regulations regarding septic tanks, no live-aboard boats will be moored at the marina other than temporarily for fuel or supplies, fuel tanks will be underground on the upland area, provided with proper protection and insulation, and the fuel will be dispensed by hose from the fueling dock by experienced personnel. WCMI will provide containment booms and retrieving material to take care of the accidental spill that might occur. Collier County Ordinance requires the first 1-inch of rainfall be retained on the property and WCMI will comply with this requirement. From the testimony of the numerous residents who testified, the primary concern of most of those who object to the proposed installation is that "their" waters will become more available to people living elsewhere and this will somehow detract from the use and enjoyment of these waters by these residents. If access to the Isles of Capri is facilitated for people living elsewhere by the installation of this marina, these waters will become more crowded, resulting in less fish per resident, and this aquatic preserve will become less private and more available to the general public. These residents purchased their homesites because of the waterfront characteristics and the quietness and solitude of the area. Facilitating access by non-residents will necessitate sharing these waters with these non-residents, thereby detracting from the enjoyment residents hoped to retain undiminished forever. The allegations of Petitioner that merit the most serious consideration in both of these applications of WCMI involves those relating to the ecosystem. Petitioner contends that the proposed dredging will adversely affect the ecosystem and this requires denial of the dredge-and-fill permit. Without the permit the lease would be useless. Petitioner also contends the granting of the lease would be contrary to the public interest. WCMI's original application was to dredge from the seawall seaward some 60 feet until the desired depth contour was reached. Also, floating concrete docks would be adjacent to the seawall for berthing sites. When an inspection of the area disclosed the bottom grasses were heaviest from the seawall out to about 30 feet, the applicant was issued the Notice of Intent to Deny by DER because of these bottom grasses and the shading that would be caused by the floating docks. WCMI then proposed to do no dredging for the first 25 feet from the seawall, except for two areas 30 feet and 36 feet wide needed to launch boats, and also to move the floating docks 25 feet from the seawall so as not to shade the grassy areas. As noted above, the site under consideration was severely disturbed by the initial dredging which destroyed the original grassbeds at this site. Some of these grasses have now returned but the coverage is sparse and patchy. From the seawall out to about 30 feet the grass is Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass. Respondent's investigations and studies revealed only these two grasses. Petitioner's biologist who performed studies similar to those done by Respondent found halophila in the deeper waters (up to five feet) extending out as far as 60 feet from the seawall. Halophila is a more ephemeral grass that grows in deeper depths than Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass and is often found in previously dredged areas. The area proposed for dredging comprises some 1200 square meters, and seagrasses cover about one-fourth of the dredge area. Sample cores taken by Petitioner's expert in October while the more luxuriant summer growth predominated showed some 1600 blades of grass per square meter, while the winter sample taken by WCMI expert showed 467 blades per meter. In the 320 square meters of seagrasses in the area a total biomass of invertebrates was found to be 17 pounds. Using generally accepted conversion rates and invertebrate reproduction cycles to convert this biomass to fish, this weight of invertebrate biomass could be converted into between 2 and 10 pounds of fish annually. Removal of the seagrasses will remove feeding grounds and hiding areas for some types of aquatic animals and also take away the type of fish that inhabit such areas. On the other hand, the piling and other docking structures that will be installed will attract sessile organisms such as oysters, barnacles, etc. which currently attach themselves to rocks and mangrove roots in the vicinity. The biomass or weight of these organisms is likely to equal or exceed those to be lost by dredging away the seagrasses. While different types of fish will be attracted to the area where the shellfish and other attaching animals congregate than will be attracted to grassy bottoms, the change is not significant from a quality or quantity of fish point of view. The area to be dredged is an area that has partially recovered from its earlier destruction and there is no reason to believe a similar recovery will not recur after the dredging here proposed is completed. No evidence was presented that a collision between a boat and a manatee has ever occurred in the waters in the vicinity of the Isles of Capri. Any conclusion that such an incident is likely to occur because of increased boat traffic when the proposed marina is in operation would be sheer speculation. Furthermore, Collier County does not contain any of those designated waters wherein special manatee protection rules are to be set up. Nor is Snook Bay one of those areas where a concentration of manatees is likely to occur.
Findings Of Fact On January 13, 1983, Respondents Donia and Bobowski filed with Monroe County petitions for special use approval to deposit fill and construct an access driveway within the shoreline protection zone of Monroe County as designated by Chapter 4, Monroe County Code. The property on which the roads are proposed to be constructed consists of two lots, each 1.09 acres in size. The lots are contiguous to each other and are located on Sugarloaf Key, Monroe County, Florida. Respondents Bobowski and Donia represented in their petitions for special use approval that they owned or were in the process of purchasing the subject property. Respondent Bobowski submitted with his application a contract for sale to him of both 1.09-acre lots which specified the sale was to be closed by March 25, 1982. Ms. Donia included with her petition a letter stating that Mr. Bobowski was in the process of deeding a portion of his land to her. On January 26, 1983, Respondent Bobowski filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against James Knox Julian, Jr., owner of record of the property for which Bobowski and Donia submitted applications for special use approval. As of September 10, 1984, Julian had filed a motion to dismiss that Complaint on grounds that there had been no pleadings filed or action taken by Bobowski for a period of more than one year. There is no evidence that James Julian authorized Respondents Donia or Bobowski to submit the applications for special use approval on his behalf. Respondents Donia and Bobowski have been sent copies of pleadings in this case. The Monroe County records containing Donia's application for special use approval indicate that Catherine Donia is now Catherine Bobowski. Ms. Bobowski participated in a telephonic conference call between the parties and the undersigned in which she was specifically advised of the scheduled final hearing in this case and of the necessity for her and Thomas Bobowski to appear to present their evidence in support of their applications. Neither she nor Mr. Bobowski, nor any representative of theirs, appeared at the final hearing. On January 20, 1983, Respondents McDonald and Allen filed an application for special use approval to deposit fill and construct an access driveway within the shoreline protection zone of Monroe County as designated by Chapter 4, Monroe County Code. The McDonald/Allen property is a 2.9 acre parcel on Sugarloaf Key in Monroe County Florida. The proposed driveway runs from State Road 939A through a tidally inundated black mangrove community to a dune ridge and tropical hardwood hammock fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The driveway project described in the original application involved the deposit of 433 cubic yards of limerock fill to construct an access driveway 325 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 4 feet deep. Six culverts twelve inches in diameter were to be placed at 50-foot intervals along the access driveway. When the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation indicated disapproval of a fill permit as the project was originally proposed, the project was amended to replace the twelve-inch diameter culverts with four box culverts three feet by eight feet. The application for special use approval does not include a request to fill a turnaround area or a pad for a single-family residence, does not include a final set of building plans or a final selection of a house site, and does not seek approval for the placement of a septic tank system. Rather, the application for special use approval seeks permission for the driveway portion of the construction project only. The McDonald/Allen property is located on the southern shoreline of Sugarloaf Key in an area referred to as Sugarloaf Beach. The foreshore or foredune fronting the Atlantic Ocean consists of a beach and berm rising to a dune crest approximately 30 feet from the ocean. The sandy beach is approximately 6 to 15 feet in width. The dune top extends landward from the dune crest for approximately 100 to 125 feet before descending to the back dune and the wet land and transitional areas. The transitional area continues landward approximately 60 feet before descending into the wetlands. The wetlands run landward approximately 300 feet to the property boundary on State Road 939A. The foreshore or foredune of the McDonald/Allen property is covered by sea oats, sea purslane and cord grass assemblage. The entire dune top from the dune crest to the back dune is covered by a mature, climax tropical hardwood association. Species present include: torchwood, white stopper, inkwood, blolly, gumbo-limbo, blackbead, Spanish stopper, Jamaican dogwood, seven-year apple, sapodilla, coconut palm, short-leaf fig, gray nicker, wild lantana, buttonwood, snowberry, prickly pear cactus, bay cedar, and spider lily. The vegetation displays a stratified structure with a high canopy composed of very large, tall trees an indication of a very mature system. The transitional wetland community found on the back dune consists of saltwort, sea daisy, railroad vine, and seagrape. The wetlands-are characterized as submergent wetlands containing black mangroves. The black mangrove community is inundated year round with water depths measured between 6 and 12 inches over the majority of the property. The black mangroves reach heights of 15 feet, with large trees located over the southern extent of the wetlands (adjacent to the upland ridge). Attaining heights of 25 to 30 feet, these larger mangroves form a hammock with an open understory in a dense canopy. The mangrove area is a productive, healthy system. The wetlands of the McDonald/Allen property are a part of a larger area of healthy wetlands approximately 10 acres in extent, bounded by State Road 939A on the north, the dune ridge to the south, an unculverted fill road to the west, and a culverted fill road to the east. Wildlife present on the property include marsh rabbits, raccoons, black crown night herons, little blue herons, Louisiana herons, white crown pigeons, blue crabs, fiddler crabs, mosquito fish, killy-fish, sailfin mollies, and sheepshead minnows. On February 1, 1983, Respondent Stage filed an application for special use approval to deposit fill and construct an access driveway in the shoreline protection zone of Monroe County as designated by Chapter 4, Monroe County Code. The Stage property is a 0.64-acre lot on Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Florida. The proposed driveway runs from Long Beach Boulevard through a wet land area to a dune ridge and hammock fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The driveway project described in the original application called for the deposit of limerock fill to construct an access driveway 100 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 2-3 feet deep along the east side of the lot. Two culverts 12 inches in diameter were to be placed 50 feet apart. When the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation indicated disapproval of a fill permit as the project was originally proposed, the project was amended to locate the access driveway through the center of the lot and to replace the 12-inch diameter culverts with two 36-inch diameter culverts to be placed at the base of the access drive. The proposed access road is to lead to a proposed turnaround and a proposed single-family residence on the back dune or dune ridge of the Stage property. The application for special use approval does not include a request to fill a turnaround area or a pad for a single-family residence, does not include a final set of building plans or a final selection of a house site, and does not seek approval for the placement of a septic tank system. Rather, the application for special use approval seeks permission for the driveway portion of the construction project only. The Stage property is located on the southern shore of Long Beach on Big Pine Key. The natural systems of the Stage property are similar in many respects to those of the McDonald/Allen property. The foreshore or foredune fronting the Atlantic Ocean has a shoreline consisting of a dense mangrove fringe. The foredune rises to a dune crest approximately 28 feet landward from the shoreline. The dune top extends landward from the dune crest approximately 100 feet before descending to the back dune and wetland area. The back dune runs landward 40 feet before descending into the wetlands. The wetlands run landward approximately 10 feet to a filled area approximately 75 feet deep fronting Long Beach Boulevard. Landward of the mangrove fringe on the foredune is a dense growth of night shade, behind which the hardwood hammock vegetation begins, at approximately 10 feet from the shoreline. The understory of the hammock has a very rich growth of wild bamboo. Trees in the hammock community include blolly, spider lily, Jamaican dogwood, Keys bamboo, gumbo-limbo, darling plum, seven-year apple, wild dilly and coconut palm. The area along the lower back dune displays transitional vegetation consisting of blackbead, limber caper, sea grape, bay cedar, sea daisy, and remnant black and white mangroves. At lower elevations of the property below the back dune and abutting the roadside fill area are found buttonwood, black mangrove without pneumatophores, saltwort, red mangrove, black mangrove, white mangrove, and sea purslane. The wetland and red mangrove area is about 10 to 15 feet in size, healthy, and of high productivity. The transitional vegetation is productive in that it has a very high value to the organisms that are feeding upon it in that particular area, although its productive value is lower than that of the red mangrove system. Wildlife found on the property include marsh rabbit, raccoon, Key deer, and hermit crabs. Other species expected to be found are the eastern indigo snake the red black snake, and the silver rice rat, all species listed by the federal government as threatened. Both the McDonald/Allen and Stage properties are located in the Florida Keys in Monroe County, which has been designated an area of critical state concern. The Florida Keys is the only tropical area in the entire continental United States. The uncontroverted testimony of witnesses for the Respondents and Petitioner was that virtually every natural feature found there is unique. The Long Beach and Sugarloaf Beach coastal dune structures are particularly significant natural systems because of the scarcity of these sandy beaches and dune systems in the Florida Keys. Such systems have been estimated to represent only 2 percent of the land mass of the Florida Keys. They are even more scarce when considered in reference to the land mass of the United States because there are no comparable natural systems in North America. The dune systems on Sugarloaf Beach and Long Beach are storm berms or storm beaches, which are created when near source material is driven by storm effect onto the beach and ridge. These beaches are stable when highly vegetated and undisturbed. The plant communities found on the dune system have adapted to resist the impact of storms, both wind and wave. Seagrape trees, for example, diminish the shearing effect of the wind by absorbing wind energy. Many of the plant species are deeply rooted and essentially adapted to the intermittent effects of storms. When the natural systems and vegetative communities are altered, the dune system loses its resistance to storm and is subject to instability and erosion. Many of the plant and animal species present in the Florida Keys and on the McDonald/Allen and Stage properties are only found in the Keys. They are endemic species which have deviated from the mother populations on the mainland, and they are of particular interest to the scientific community. The McDonald/Allen property, in particular, is unique because it combines a very mature hardwood system with the coastal dune structure. Maturity of the hardwood hammocks is evidenced by the large dimensions of the trees, especially the gumbo-limbos and inkwood, and the height and structure of the tree canopy. The mangrove wetland areas on the McDonald/Allen and Stage properties could also be called unique by virtue of their location in the Florida Keys, though they are similar to other mangrove wetland areas. They are both productive, healthy systems. Such mangrove systems are considered to be one of the most important natural resources in Southern Florida. They provide shoreline protection, build up land areas, provide nutrients to the marine environment, and serve as nurseries for marine species and wildlife habitat for reptiles and wading birds such as herons, egrets, white crown pigeons and gray king birds. Transitional areas may have lower productivity than the wetland areas, but they still have a very high value to organisms feeding upon them. A community of animals will still be dependent upon the transitional vegetation, and removal or stress to that vegetation will also stress the dependent animal elements. On April 22, 1983, the Zoning Board of Monroe County denied the McDonald/Allen application for special use approval to deposit the fill and construct the access road. Reasons for the denial were that the project failed to comply with Sections 19-75(2)a, 19-111, and 19-59(6), Monroe County Code. Section 19-75(2)a requires a determination of the effect of the change under review on that particular property and on surrounding properties. Section 19- 111(a)(4) requires that all applications for a permit in wetland areas consider the natural biological functions, including food chain production, general habitat, nesting, spawning, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or terrestrial species, the physical aspects of natural drainage, salinity and sedimentation patterns, and physical protection provided by wetland vegetation from storm and wave action. Section 19-59(6) requires consideration of the project's compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Board was particularly concerned about the fact that the project was contrary to the policy expressed in the County's Comprehensive Plan to prohibit new construction that would threaten the stability of dune ridges, and about the cumulative impact on the wetland areas and on the dune system of several nearby projects for which applications had been submitted. On August 5, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners reversed the denial of the McDonald/Allen application for special use approval by adopting Resolution No. 233-1983. The Resolution authorizes the deposit of fill and construction of the access driveway as requested by the McDonald/Allen application. The Resolution makes no finding that the project meets the requirements of the Monroe County Code or Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The Resolution also fails to specify any conditions or protective measures that should be met by the applications in regard to design, construction activities or coordination with adjoining land owners to reduce the impacts of the proposed development. No evidence was introduced at the final hearing in this cause to show that the Board of County Commissioners considered these items or any provision for them. An employee of Petitioner was present at the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners meeting on August 5, 1983, when a vote was taken on the McDonald/Allen application. However, Petitioner did not receive a written copy of the Resolution reducing that action to writing until October 14, 1983, when Monroe County transmitted the Resolution by hand-delivery. On August 25, 1983, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER") issued a permit to McDonald/Allen to deposit 433 cubic yards of fill for an access road with four box culverts three feet by eight feet. The permit is based upon Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, jurisdiction and therefore only evaluates impacts on water quality. It does not address impacts on storm surge abatement; marine and wildlife resources habitats; suitability of the proposed project in regard to its location, site characteristics and intended purpose; the effect of the proposed project on surrounding properties (including cumulative impacts of several projects in close proximity of each other); or compliance with the Monroe County Code or Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan. On July 29, 1983, the Zoning Hoard of Monroe County denied the Stage application for special use approval to deposit fill and construct an access road. One of the items considered by the Zoning Board was the permit issued to Respondent Stage by DER on July 13, 1983, to deposit approximately 62 cubic yards of crushed limerock fill for an access road with two 36-inch diameter culverts. The DER permit addressed only impacts to water quality as specified by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. As was the case with the permit issued to McDonald/Allen, the determination by DER to issue the permit did not include the analysis required by the Monroe County Code and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan of impacts to natural systems. Reasons cited by the Zoning Board for the application's denial are the project's failure to meet the requirements of the Monroe County Code regarding the Suitability of the use in regard to its location, site characteristics, and intended purpose; and the project's failure to comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan encouraging protection of wetlands to the maximum extent possible and prohibiting new construction that would threaten the stability of dune ridges. On October 28, 1983, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners reversed the denial of the Stage application for special use approval by adopting Resolution No. 296-1983. Again, there are no protective or limiting conditions specified in the Resolution in regard to construction of the road or its relationship to the remainder of the project. The access road proposed by the McDonald/Allen application will eliminate approximately 4,000 square feet of high-quality submerged mangrove wetlands. This, in turn, would eliminate high-quality habitat used by a variety of large birds such as herons, ibises, little blue herons; gastropods; species of small fish such as killifish, sheepshead minnow, sailfin, mosquito fish; blue crabs, fiddler crabs and Saltwater snakes. The proposed fill road would also present a 325-foot long barrier to the existing tidal flow, thereby impeding the natural flow of water, particularly during a storm event when even very large culverts are blocked by vegetation and other debris. A fill road would also provide a substrate for colonization by exotic vegetation, to the detriment and possible exclusion of native vegetation. In addition, the evidence indicates that at least four more fill roads are proposed in immediate proximity to the proposed McDonald/Allen fill road, within the same 10-acre wetland area. If approved, the cumulative impacts of several roads would be significantly greater than the one road. There would be a significant increase in the direct removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat and an even greater impact on tidal flow through the area with each additional road (even ignoring the fact that each road is merely a portion of the real project). This is because each barrier to tidal flow placed downstream from the source water diminishes the ability of the tidal water to reach other areas even further downstream. The essence of Respondents McDonald/Allen's testimony and exhibits in regard to cumulative impacts is that with proper planning only one access road need be built in the 10-acre wetland area in which the McDonald/Allen property lies. No evidence was submitted to show that such planning efforts exist or are likely to be fruitful. There is no reasonable assurance that only one access road will be sought or constructed in that area; rather, the evidence is to the contrary. Respondent Stage's proposed access road would eliminate a small amount of productive red mangroves and would eliminate transitional wetlands of somewhat lower productivity, thereby exacerbating the existing stresses to the transitional community on the Stage property. The road would also be subject to blockage during a storm event, which would further diminish the existing tidal flow. Current intended use of both the McDonald/Allen and Stage properties is for a single-family residence, although neither applicant has finalized any design for that residence. Construction and occupancy of even a single-family residence in the tropical hardwood hammock on the dune back or dune top of either property can be expected to produce a typical range of impacts to the natural systems. The most significant is the removal of hardwood hammock trees and understory vegetation. At a minimum, clearing is required for a house pad, a turnaround (and parking) area, a septic tank and drain field, and a surrounding area sufficient to accommodate construction equipment and workers. Additional clearing can be anticipated by occupants of a single-family residence who seek to take advantage of ocean breezes and view and who create pathways to the beach. Any opening of the hammock's tree canopy or understory would increase exposure of the lower forest to the drying effects of wind and salt and upset the hammock's microclimate, causing progressive destruction of vegetation. Clearing also provides conditions which make the site conducive to colonization by exotic species. Additional impacts customarily associated with single-family residence occupancy are the introduction of pets who are natural predators of endangered species, of noxious chemicals used for spraying insects, and of intrusion into the habitat of wildlife which now utilize the area and are not tolerant of human activity in immediate nesting and feeding areas. Several dwellings constructed on a dune ridge would cumulatively impact and even further threaten destruction of the hardwood hammock and dune system. Once in place and occupied, a single-family home will create impacts that are extremely difficult to prevent or mitigate and which are uncontrolled by any County ordinance or State regulations. The current and future owners of both the McDonald/Allen and Stage properties have access to that property since either a state-- or county-- maintained road borders one entire side of each of those properties. Accordingly, neither proposed driveway is necessary to provide access to the property. Since the special use approvals given by Monroe County to McDonald/Allen and Stage are not conditioned upon the obtaining of permits for the construction of the now-intended dwelling structure, the actual use of the driveways remains speculative. Although the Stage property may be zoned exclusively for a single-family residence, the McDonald/Allen parcel appears to be in an area of Monroe County in which single-family residences are only one of the uses allowed. Additionally, several years ago Respondent Stage, without first obtaining a permit, has placed fill on his property which covers the width of his property along Long Beach Boulevard. Although Respondent Stage eliminated a wetlands area 100 feet by 75 feet by placing fill therein, he has not been required to remove that fill, and it is speculative as to whether any agency with the authority to require the removal of that fill would do so since no mitigation has yet been required of him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered denying the applications of Respondents McDonald/Allen, Donia, Bobowski, and Stage for special use approval. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes (1983): There are no changes in the proposal by Respondent Donia that would entitle her to receive the special use approval requested herein; There are no changes in the proposal by Respondent Bobowski that would entitle him to receive the special use approval requested herein; Respondents McDonald and Allen could make their driveway application eligible for a special use approval by altering the design of the driveway to piling or boardwalk construction rather than fill construction; and, Respondent Stage can make his driveway application eligible for a special use approval by altering the project design so that the primary structure utilizes the portion of his property which was previously filled. It is further, RECOMMENDED THAT each application for special use approval submitted herein remain ineligible to receive such approval until such time as it can be demonstrated, such as through the issuance of all necessary permits, that the intended primary use--residential construction--will not degrade or destroy the tropical hardwood hammock, dune ridge, or other natural systems located on or surrounding Respondents' properties. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Graham Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John T. Herndon, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sheri Smallwood, Esquire County Attorney, Monroe County 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 James Hendrick, Esquire Albury, Morgan & Hendrick 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Catherine Donia Post Office Box 502 Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Thomas Bobowski Post Office Box 502 Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Sarah E. Nall, Esquire C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to the St. Johns County 2015 Future Land Use Map (FLUM), adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-31, is "in compliance" with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part, II, Florida Statutes. A second issue raised by St. Johns County (County) and The Estuaries Limited Liability Company (Estuaries) is whether, if the proposed amendment is not "in compliance," it is nevertheless valid and authorized pursuant to Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julie Parker, resides in St. Augustine, Florida, less than one and one-half miles from the proposed project site. Parker also owns other property in St. Johns County. Parker submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM Amendment and Ordinance No. 2002-31. The parties agreed that Parker has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The County proceeded with the evaluation and appraisal report process in 1997 and 1998. This process ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and Adopted EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment in May 2000 (May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment), which was subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department and found "in compliance." Estuaries owns the 9.99 acres (the Property) that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment. Estuaries also owns approximately 8.5 acres outside, adjacent to, and west of the Property. The 8.5 acres are subject to a Conservation Easement, which prohibits any development activity thereon. (The total contiguous land owned by Estuaries is approximately 18.5 acres.) The parties stipulated that the legal description of the Property attached to Ordinance No. 2002-31 contains less than 10 acres. Estuaries submitted comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM amendment. Estuaries has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. The Property The Property is part of a larger tract owned by Estuaries, i.e., approximately 9.9 acres out of a total tract of approximately 18.5 acres. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on Anastasia Island, a barrier island, which extends from the St. Augustine Inlet to the Matanzas Inlet. According to the 2000 Census, there are approximately 12,000 dwelling units on Anastasia Island. This includes condominium units and single-family units. The approximately 18.5-acre site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area under the County May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. The Property is part of Butler Beach (bordering the Atlantic Ocean), which is an historic area because it was settled in the early 1900's by black citizens and provided them with access to the beach, which was previously unavailable. However, no historic structures or uses have occurred on the Property. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on the south side of Riverside Boulevard. The Property is located approximately 300 feet west of Highway A1A South (A1A runs north and south). The Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River are west and adjacent to the 18.5 acres. The Estuaries site is also located adjacent to the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Property is vacant, partially wooded, and also consists of undeveloped wetlands. Of the 9.99 acres, approximately 6.7 acres are uplands and developable, and 3.29 acres are wetlands. As noted, the remaining approximately 8.5 acres of the Estuaries' property, and to the west of the Property, is subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of the County. The properties adjacent to the Property include the following: Single-family residential units are located along and on the north side Riverside Boulevard. The existing FLUM designations for this area are Residential Coastal Density A and C, with the existing zoning of open rural (OR). (Residential Coastal Density C permits 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre.) The Intracoastal portion of Butler State Park is to the south of the Property, with a FLUM designation of parks and open space and existing zoning of OR and is not in a conservation area. To the east of the Property is a utility substation site, Butler Avenue, various commercial uses, Island House Rentals or Condominiums (three-story oceanfront condominiums), and the Mary Street Runway. There is another condominium called Creston House, directly south of the Butler Park (ocean portion) area (distinguished from the Butler State Park), consisting of three stories. (Butler Park and Creston House are located east of A1A and southeast of the Estuaries property.) The existing FLUM designations are Coastal Residential Coastal Density A and C, and have existing zoning designations of Residential General (RG)-1 and Commercial General (CG). There are no Residential Density D FLUM land use designations in the contiguous area. In short, the Property is proximate to a state park, a densely developed area comprised of small residential lots of 25 by 100 feet lots, and the two three-story condominiums, which were built prior to the adoption of the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan and EAR-Based Amendments On September 14, 1990, the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan-1990-2005, with amendments (the 1990 Plan). Under the 1990 Plan, the Property was assigned a Residential Coastal-A land use designation under the existing FLUM, which meant that residential development was restricted to no more than one residential unit per upland (non-wetland jurisdictional) acre. Under this designation, approximately seven units could have been built on the Property. The zoning on the Property was and is RG-1. According to the County, at least as of a June 11, 1999, letter from the County's principal planner, Timothy W. Brown, A.I.C.P., to Kevin M. Davenport, P.E., the total units which would be allowed on the Property were 116 multi-family units, derived after making a detailed density calculation based in part on using 40 percent of the wetlands used for the density calculation. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Plan Amendment, with supporting data and analysis, which the Department of Community Affairs found to be "in compliance." As required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, this would have included data and analysis for the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of these plan amendments. This is part of the data and analysis which supports the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment continued the Residential Coastal A land use designation of the Property, which allows 0.4 to 1.0 units per acre. (Residential Coastal B allows 2.0 units per acre; Residential Coastal C allows 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre; and Residential Coastal D allows 4.0 to 8.0 units per acre.) The Residential Coastal A designation authorizes residential and non-residential uses, such as schools, public service facilities, police, fire, and neighborhood commercial. Restaurants and banks without drive-thru facilities, gasoline pumps, and professional office buildings are examples of neighborhood commercial uses. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment does not limit the lot size, subject to limitations on, for example, impervious surface ratios, which do not change regardless of whether the land use designation is Residential Coastal A or D. Also, any development would also have to comply with the textural provisions of the May 2000 EAR- Based Plan Amendment, including the coastal and conservation elements. The Circuit Court Litigation There are many documents in this case which pertain to the litigation between Estuaries and the County. The civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for St. Johns County, Florida, and styled The Estuaries Limited Liability Company v. St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CA-00271. On February 11, 2000, Estuaries filed a Complaint against the County "relating to certain representations made by the County in connection with the development of certain real property located south of St. Augustine Beach in St. Johns County, Florida." A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 30, 2001. Estuaries claimed that County staff made representations to Estuaries, which resulted in Estuaries having a vested right to develop its Property up to a maximum of 116 multi-family residential units. (The County took the position that Estuaries could build no more than 25 units on the Property.) Estuaries claimed that it had vested rights based upon a claim of equitable estoppel against the County. (One of Estuaries' claims was brought pursuant to the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, Chapter 70, Florida Statutes.)1 After discovery and the denial of motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Complete Release" (Settlement Agreement). The "General Terms of Settlement" in the Settlement Agreement provided in part: Estuaries shall prepare and file an application to amend the future land use map of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan to amend the designation of only that portion of the Property such that Estuaries may build 56 multi-family residential units on the Property and such that the amendment be a "Small-scale Amendment" as defined by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Estuaries agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns to build not more than 56 units on the Property. County will waive or pay the application fee and will expedite its processing. The parties will forthwith prepare and submit to the Court a joint motion for the approval of this Agreement pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, §70.001(4)(d)2. During the review and consideration of the amendment application, the County will expeditiously process the Estuaries' revised construction plans and, in connection therewith, the construction codes in effect as of November 13, 2001 (to the extent the County may do so without violating county, state or federal law), the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land Development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply. In all other respects, the revised construction plans shall comply with all other Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances and regulations. On or about November 16, 2001, counsel for the parties signed a Joint Motion, requesting the circuit court to approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.001(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes. On November 16, 2001, Circuit Judge John Michael Traynor, entered an "Order Approving Settlement Agreement pursuant to Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act." Judge Traynor stated in part: The central issue in this litigation has been the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the Property. The issues in the case are legally complex and, although the credibility of the testimony and authenticity of the exhibits expected to be introduced was not expected to be substantially in dispute or challenged, the meaning of the testimony and the meaning and inferences to be drawn from such evidence was very much in dispute. The issues included the extent of vested rights, the extent to which estoppel may be applied to the County, contractual liability, and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act . . . and the relief requested included the request for a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to build up to 116 dwelling units on the Property and damages against the County. Judge Traynor also "Ordered and Adjudged," in part: Pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(a) & (c) and applicable law, this Court finds that proper notice of a Bert Harris Act claim was timely provided to the County, and other governmental entities, and the County did make a written settlement offer to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Bert Harris Act, that was accepted by Plaintiff. Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c) permits, inter alia, for an adjustment of land development provisions controlling the development of a plaintiff's property; increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development; the transfer of development rights; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; issuance of a development order, a variance, special exceptions, or other extraordinary relief; and such other actions specified in the statute. While the parties may dispute whether an amendment is necessary to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the parties have agreed that the Plaintiff shall submit a small-scale amendment to the County for consideration and approval pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; without waiver of either party's rights to contest and defend the necessity of submitting such an amendment, in light of this Court's approval of the settlement agreement pursuant to the Bert Harris Act and applicable law. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release is fair, reasonable and adequate; is in the best interests of the parties and protects the public interest served by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the County's regulatory efforts from inordinately burdening the Property with regard to density, impact on public services, the environment and the public health, safety and welfare of the community and the rights of individuals to reasonably utilize their property and to rely on the representations of government, taking into consideration the risks that both parties had in this litigation. This litigation has been ongoing for more than 18 months, and substantial discovery and record has been presented to the Court that provides ample basis for this Court's approval of this settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate and appropriate under the Bert Harris Act. There is no evidence before the Court that would suggest that the proposed settlement is the result of any collusion among the parties or their counsel. In fact, the record is to the contrary, whereby counsel on both sides have aggressively and zealously pursued the interests of their respective clients. . . . Judge Traynor directed the parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "subject to the right of the public to comment at an appropriate public hearing pertaining to the above referenced small scale amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and shall cooperate to accomplish in good faith the responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release." There is no evidence that Judge Traynor's Order has been rescinded or otherwise modified. There is no statutory authority to collaterally attack Judge Traynor's Order in this proceeding nor is there any authority which provides that this Order can be ignored. Also, this is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether Estuaries has, in fact, vested rights. Accordingly, Judge Traynor's Order, approving the Settlement Agreement, is accepted as binding authority. The Small Scale Development Application In compliance with Judge Traynor's Order and the Settlement Agreement, on March 26, 2002, Estuaries filed a "Small Scale Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form" with the County. Estuaries requested a change in the Property's FLUM designation from Residential Coastal A, Zoning RG-1 to Residential Coastal D, Zoning RG-1. Estuaries represented, in part, that the Property consisted of 9.99 acres of vacant land, including 3.2 acres of wetlands and approximately 6.7 acres of developable land (uplands) "which will be developed into a 56 unit Multi-Family Condominium." County staff reviewed the application and recommended approval. As part of the agenda item for consideration by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, County staff, in light of the criterion of "Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, State Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Florida Regional Policy Plan," stated: "[t]he approved Settlement Agreement was filed pursuant to Chapter 70.001." With respect to "Impacts on Public Facilities and Services," County staff stated: "The project has received a Certificate of Concurrency addressing the impacts on transportation, water, sewer, recreation, drainage, solid waste and mass transit. The Certificate of Concurrency is based on impacts of 84 multi-family dwelling units. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the project contains 56 multi-family dwelling units. St. Johns County provides central water and sewer." With respect to "Compatibility with Surrounding Area," County staff stated: "The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, park (Butler Park), and vacant land of various zoning." According to Mr. Scott Clem, the County's Director of Growth Management Services, County staff felt that there were adequate public facilities for a 56-unit project, because Estuaries had previously demonstrated that facilities were available for an 84-unit project. However, County staff expressly noted in the Planning Department Staff Report submitted to the Planning and Zoning Agency that "[t]here are no development plans included in the Application. However, all site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the Development Review Process to ensure that the development complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits shall authorize development prior to compliance with all applicable regulations." At this point in time, County staff were "analyzing the potential for 56 units to be on the property. It was a site specific analysis at that point." On April 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. After a properly noticed public hearing, on May 28, 2002, the County approved the FLUM Amendment in Ordinance 2002- 31. In Ordinance 2002-31, the County approved the FLUM Amendment at issue, which changed the FLUM land use classification of the Property from Residential Coastal A to Residential Coastal D. Ordinance 2002-31 also provided: "The Land Uses allowed by this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height." The Challenge Parker filed an Amended Petition challenging the lack of data and analysis to support the FLUM Amendment; challenging the increase in density of the Property located in a Coastal High Hazard Area; challenging the internal consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment; challenging the decision by the County to process the application as a small scale development amendment; and challenging the failure to provide Parker with adequate notice of a clear point of entry to challenge Ordinance No. 2002-31. Notice The County provided notice, by newspaper, of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 28, 2002. Before this meeting, a sign was placed on the Property, providing notice of the meeting. Parker personally attended the May 28, 2002, meeting and addressed the Commission regarding the FLUM Amendment. Ordinance No. 2002-31 provided: "This ordinance shall take effect 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this ordinance shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted small scale amendment is in compliance." This Ordinance does not advise a person of the right to challenge the Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Rules of Procedure, or Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This type of notice is not required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Does the FLUM Amendment, covering 9.99 acres, involve a "use" of 10 acres or fewer, pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes? "A small scale development amendment may be adopted only [if] [t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes.2 In the Amended Petition and in her Prehearing Stipulation, Parker contends that the "use," which is the subject of the FLUM Amendment, relates to more than the 9.99 acre parcel and, therefore, the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment defined in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker contended that because the FLUM Amendment authorizes a maximum of 56 residential units to be developed on the Property, and the maximum density under the Residential Coastal D and RG-1 zoning designations is 42.12 units, using the on-site wetlands density bonus, that Estuaries "must be using the off-site wetlands that are contained within the 18.5 acre parcel to obtain the density credit necessary to reach 56 units for the site under" the FLUM Amendment. The 56 residential unit maximum was the product of the circuit court litigation and Settlement Agreement, as approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences between the County and Estuaries regarding the maximum residential density which could be authorized on the Property. Parker also contended that because Estuaries may use a proposed lift station owned by the County off-site, that this causes the proposed "use" of the Property to exceed 10 acres. It appears that at some prior time in the "vesting rights" chronology of events, Magnolia S Corporation, in order to downscale the project, agreed to sell a 40' by 80' parcel to the County, located adjacent to the Property and in the northeast portion, to expand the existing County lift station on Riverside Boulevard. There is a lift station adjacent to the Property that serves as "a repump station that serves the development along Riverside [Boulevard] west of the lift station and serves all the development in St. Johns County on the island south of Riverside Boulevard." It is proposed that sewage effluent from development on the Property would be deposited on site and then pumped into an adjacent force main which eventually ends up in the station. According to Mr. Kevin Davenport, Estuaries' civil engineer, "56 units added to that pump station would be extremely miniscule in the overall amount of sewage that goes through it." Thus, Estuaries anticipates having their own on-site lift station, which "would be pumped through a pipe to the Riverside right-of- way, where it would connect to an existing county-owned pipe which currently goes to the lift station." Mr. Clem stated that "[u]tilities are very commonly done off site where water or sewer distribution or transmission lines are constructed to the site." This would include the use of off- site lift stations. However, the proposed use of the lift station does not necessarily compel the conclusion that the FLUM Amendment exceeds 9.99 acres. If this were so, any proposed use of any off-site utilities would cause a pro rata calculation and increase of the size of the site providing the service, then be added to the 9.99 acres. This is not a reasonable construction of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also claimed that when the Estuaries granted the County a Conservation Easement for the approximately 8.5 acres (out of 18.5 acres) of wetlands adjacent to the Property, Estuaries "used" this property to secure the FLUM Amendment, and therefore, exceeded the 9.99 acres. The Conservation Easement precludes development activity on the approximately 8.51 acres. ("The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property." Prohibited uses include "[a]ctivities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.") The "use" of the 8.51 acres as a potential visual amenity for potential residents on the Property is not a "use" within a reasonable reading of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also suggested that Estuaries will need to improve Riverside Boulevard (paving and drainage) and the public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, which is not owned by Estuaries. It appears that Riverside Boulevard is already open, improved, and paved. Also, Mr. Clem stated that it is common to have off-site improvements associated with a project, which might include intersection or roadway improvements that are not on or within the project site. Mr. Clem opined that while these improvements would be required for the project, they would have been off-site. Some improvements, such as improvements to Riverside Boulevard, would most likely benefit the general public, and not be limited to the future residents on the Property. It is common for local governments to require improvements to public infrastructure as a condition of development. These off-site improvements do not necessarily make the "development activity" larger than the size of the landowner's site, here the Property. Data and Analysis Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As noted herein, Estuaries sought approval of a FLUM Amendment for its Property, i.e., a land use change to the FLUM. No text (goals, objectives, and policies) changes to the May 2000 EAR-Based Amendment were requested nor made. This is normal for a "site-specific small scale development activity." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes. Consideration of the FLUM Amendment in this proceeding is unusual for several reasons. First, the necessity for the FLUM change arose as a result of the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences existing between the County and Estuaries regarding the number of units which could, as a maximum number, be developed on the Property. Second, the data and analysis, which normally is presented to the local government, here the County, at the time the plan amendment is adopted, is not in its traditional format here, largely, it appears, because of the manner in which consideration of the FLUM Amendment arose. Nevertheless, this situation is not fatal for, under existing precedent, see, e.g., Conclusion of Law 96, data, which was in existence at the time the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the County, may be considered in determining whether there is, in fact, adequate data supporting the FLUM Amendment. The data relied on by the County and Estuaries to support the FLUM Amendment was compiled and initially presented to the County on or about July 6, 1999, when Estuaries sought authorization from the County for a proposed project to construct 84 multi-family residential units on the same general area as the Property. This started the County's development review process. Estuaries began the process at this time, believing that it had "vested rights" to develop the Property. Mr. Clem explained that the development review process is "extremely detailed. It involves 11 or 12 different programs within the [C]ounty, looking at everything from the actual site plan itself, water and sewer provision, for all the things that would go into site construction, roadway design, the environmental considerations. We basically look at how this site will be developed in accordance with the land development code and any other regulations. We ensure that the water management district permits are obtained, if applicable, or other state agencies." This record contains County Department comments which pertain to a host of issues, including but not limited to, drainage, traffic, fire services, urban forestry (trees and landscape on-site), utilities, zoning (e.g., buffers, setbacks), concurrency requirements, etc. County staff raised questions (identified as submittals) on at least four separate occasions followed by written responses by the applicant on at least three occasions. However, not all issues were resolved. A July 1999, Land Development Traffic Assessment, prepared by Beachside Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted to the County as part of the request for a concurrency determination. The analysis "indicates that the roadway segments within the impact area will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS through the construction of this project." The "Summary" of the assessment states: "This project meets traffic concurrency standards, as defined by the St. Johns County Concurrency Management Ordinance, for all roads within the traffic area." "Stormwater Calculations" for the 84-unit, multi-family housing development were also provided in a report dated July 7, 1999. The applicant also furnished the County with a "geotechnical report," which analyzed the soil conditions related to storm water ponds and to the placement of the buildings and the support of the buildings on the site. Soil borings and other testing revealed the capabilities of the soil for, for example, percolation rates for the storm water ponds. There is no evidence that there are any specific historic buildings or geological or archeological features on the Property. In July 1999, the applicant submitted an application for concurrency. At that time, County staff analyzed this information to ensure that public facilities and services were in place to serve the project. This application was reviewed in relation to the County's concurrency management provisions of the County's Land Development Code. On September 3, 1999, the County's Planning Department prepared a report regarding this application and recommended "approval of a Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions for the development of 84 residential condominium units." (Staff made findings of fact, which included a discussion of traffic, potable water/sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, and mass transit.) On September 8, 1999, the Concurrency Review Committee met and adopted the Staff's Findings of Fact with conditions, including but not limited to, the applicant providing a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection permits "necessary for connection to central water and wastewater service prior to Construction Plan approval," and "[t]he applicant receiving approval of construction/drainage plans from the Development Services Department prior to commencement of construction." The Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions was issued on October 1, 1999, and was due to expire on September 8, 2001. However, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, that "the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply." (Emphasis added.) (Ms. Teresa Bishop's (County Planning Director) November 7, 2001, letter indicated, in part, that Estuaries' request for "tolling [of the Final Certificate of Concurrency] cannot be reviewed until the outcome of the pending litigation is known. . . . After the litigation is concluded, your request for tolling may be resubmitted for review." The Settlement Agreement post-dates this letter.) In evaluating a small scale plan amendment, County staff evaluates the availability of public services which, according to Mr. Clem, is "one of the major components," and County staff "is looking at virtually the same issues that [the County] would look at in concurrency to evaluate and make recommendations on small scale amendments." Mr. Clem also advised that the County's analysis of the 84-unit project did not involve, and was not based on, "a specific site plan with buildings at a certain location or parking in a certain location. It was more an 84- unit project with certain data and analysis associated with that site or project." By letter dated October 4, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated that it had received a "Notification for Use of the General Permit for Construction of an Extension to a Drinking Water Distribution System" submitted for the Estuaries project. The Department stated further: "After reviewing the notice, it appears that your project will have minimal adverse environmental effect and apparently can be constructed pursuant to a general permit as described in Chapter 62-555, F.A.C." The permit expires on October 4, 2004. This permit allows the applicant to demonstrate that it will offer a central water service, available to be served through the County's utility department. This would ensure that there is sufficient potable water available. By letter dated October 6, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection also issued a permit for the construction of a sewage collection/transmission system (domestic waste). By letter dated November 11, 1999, the St. Johns Water Management District issued a "formal permit for construction and operation of stormwater management system." This permit authorized "[a] new stormwater system with stormwater treatment by wet detention to serve Estuaries Multi-family Development, a 5.88 acre project to be constructed as per plans received by the District on 7/12/1999." This permit did not relieve the applicant "from the responsibility for obtaining permits from any federal, state, and/or local agencies asserting concurrent jurisdiction over this work." Mr. Clem believed that this permit was evidence that "the state agencies ha[d] considered the environmental issues relating to storm water and all the issues that they deal with in issuing a permit." The Property is located in a "development area boundary" as indicated on the FLUM, which means that these areas allow "development potential." Other areas, such as rural silviculture and agricultural lands, are outside the development area and only limited and low density development is allowed. Conservation areas are also designated on the FLUM. Given the location of the Property within the development area boundary, the County thereby eliminated the necessity of producing some of the data normally required.3 Mr. Clem explained: So by being within a development area boundary it's in essence already had rights to develop, depending on the classification what those rights are, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial. So by virtue of the fact that this site [the Property] was already in the developmental boundary, we didn't deal with issues such as need, which is a big issue in the county when we add developmental boundary. Is there need for additional residential units, and so forth. So that is one part of the answer. The other part is when we're looking at changing from one residential classification to another, we're not dealing with the same issues we might have if it was going from residential to commercial or residential to industrial. So in the context of a plan amendment like this, we're looking at what can this land support in terms of density and are there public facilities available? Is it generally compatible with the surrounding area? What are the potential impacts to natural resources? So those things are still analyzed, but they're done in a probably more confined context. And then the other factor is this being a small scale amendment further reduces the amount of data that is typically done. And if it was a major amendment, there's a whole new range of issues when we deal with major amendments. By definition, they can cause more of an impact. For Mr. Clem, the data and analysis which was generated during the concurrency process for the proposed 84-unit project was significant and would be applicable to a proposed 56-unit project. Mr. Clem opined that the data for this small scale amendment was "[f]ar in excess of anything [he had] seen in the county." Environmental Impacts of the FLUM Amendment The area on and around the Estuaries' property is an area of tidal marsh intermixed with upland scrub. Many wildlife species have been seen utilizing the wetlands on and adjacent to the Estuaries' site (the 18.5 acre parcel). These include woodstorks, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, little blue herons, tri-colored herons, white ibis, and ospreys. Owls, foxes, raccoons, opossums, fiddler crabs, clams, fish, shrimp, and turtles also frequent the area. Parker's environmental scientist and ecologist, Mr. Robert Burks, testified to the environmental effects of any development of the Property subject to the FLUM Amendment. Mr. Burks has worked with American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) designated planners, providing them with opinions with respect to environmental issues. But he is not an expert in land use planning. The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. It is a program to do research and education on estuarine systems. The estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers has been designated as a NERR. There is testimony that development and increases in population in the area, in general, have been responsible for, for example, the decline and closure of shell-fishing and decline of water quality in the area. Conservation Goal E.2 provides: The County shall conserve, utilize, and protect the natural resources of the area, including air, water, wetlands, water wells, estuaries, water bodies, soils, minerals, vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and other natural and environmental resources, insuring that resources are available for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 provides: Native Forests, Floodplains, Wetlands, Upland Communities, and Surface Water The County shall protect native forests, floodplains, wetlands, upland communities, and surface waters within the County from development impacts to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitats. Policy E.2.2.5.(a)(1)(b) provides: The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternate types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and modify buffers between the wetlands/ OFW/ estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: * * * Except a minimum of a 50 ft. natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development areas and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams and other interconnecting water bodies. Policy E.2.2.13(b)(6) provides: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: (b) The County shall recognize the following vegetative natural communities as Significant Natural Communities Habitat. Due to the rarity of these vegetative communities, a minimum of 10 percent of the total acreage of the Significant Natural Communities Habitat (excluding bona fide agriculture and/or silviculture operations) shall be preserved and maintained by the development. * * * (6) Scrub. Where on-site preservation of the native upland communities are not feasible, the County as an alternative shall accept a fee in lieu of preservation or off-site mitigation in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burks opined that "generally," and if Goal E.2 is read "literally", the FLUM Amendment did not meet this Goal and afford protection for wetlands, vegetative communities, estuaries, wildlife and wildlife habitat. He perceives that "[a]nytime there's a development there will be impacts to the estuarine--the water bodies because of surficial runoff from the parking lots, from the impervious surfaces, and it will carry pollutants into those areas. And that includes soils also. . . . As far as upland habitat, when you develop an area like this, unless you leave certain parts, the upland habitat will be negatively impacted obviously. There won't be the trees there, the vegetation that was normally there before the development." For Mr. Burks, any development of the Property would generally be inconsistent with the Plan provisions recited above. But, his opinion is specifically based on how each system or plan for the site, or here, the Property, is actually designed--"it would depend on the design of the housing structures themselves and where they were placed. If you design anything in a manner which is going to protect that buffer and literally protect the water quality and the runoff in that area, then you may--it may not violate it." For example, if the Property were developed with 25-foot buffers instead of 50-foot buffers, Mr. Burks says that, from an ecology standpoint, there would be insufficient protection for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. He offered the same opinion if the FLUM Amendment did not require a minimum ten percent set aside of the total acreage for significant natural communities habitat on the Property, such as, scrub of approximately 6.7 acres, a protected vegetative community existing on the upland portion of the Property. Furthermore, Parker introduced into evidence proposed site plans for the Property dated May 24, 2002, which show, in part, a 25-foot buffer, not a 50-foot buffer.4 Parker contends that these site plans are the best available data and analysis regarding whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance." However, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance," not whether specific draft, and not approved, site plans are "in compliance" with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment or the LDRs. If site plans are approved and a development order issued by the County, Parker, and any other aggrieved or adversely affected party may file a challenge pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. But, this is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge proposed site plans. This is not to say that proposed site plans cannot be considered data and analysis; only that they are not incorporated in the FLUM Amendment and are not subject to challenge here. See The Sierra Club, et al. v. St. John County, et al., Case Nos. 01- 1851GM and 01-1852GM (Recommended Order May 20, 2002; Final Order July 30, 2002). Internal Consistency Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. Some of these issues have been discussed above in Findings of Fact 68 to 80, pertaining to environmental considerations. Another issue is whether the FLUM Amendment, which changes the maximum density on the Property, is inconsistent with Policy E.1.3.11 which provides: "The County shall not approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increase the residential density on the Future Land Use Map within the Coastal High Hazard Area." See also Policy A.1.5.6 which offers almost identical language. The FLUM Amendment changes the land use designation of the Property, and allows a land use "limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height," and thus allows a potential increase in the density of the Property, located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. This resulted from the Settlement Agreement. In Policy A.1.11.6, [t]he County recognizes that the Plan's Objectives and Policies sometime serve to support competing interests. Accordingly, in such instances, and in the absence of a mandatory prohibition of the activity at issue, it is the County's intent that the Plan be construed as a whole and that potentially competing Objectives and Policies be construed together so as to render a balanced interpretation of the Plan. It is the further intent that the County interpretation of the Plan, whether by County staff, the Planning & Zoning Agency, or the Board of County Commissioners, shall be afforded appropriate deference. County interpretations of the Plan which balance potentially competing Objectives and Policies shall not be overturned in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the County interpretation has misapplied the Plan construed as a whole. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment Goals, Objectives, and Policies must be read in their entirety and individual provisions cannot be read in isolation. Objective E.1.3 requires the County to engage in "post disaster planning, coastal area redevelopment, and hurricane preparedness. The County shall prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards." Mr. Clem opined that Policy E.1.3.11, see Finding of Fact 81, expressed "the general intent of limiting population increases that would result in adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation of the coastal areas," and, in particular, the "barrier islands." (Policy E.1.9.5, under Objective E.1.9 Hurricane Evacuation Time, provides: "St. Johns County shall attempt to limit the density within the Coastal High Hazard Area as allowed by law.") Mr. Clem further stated that the FLUM Amendment, which restricted the Property to a maximum of 56 residential units, from a possible 116 unit maximum, was consistent with the Policy which restricts density within the coastal hazard zone. In rendering his opinions, Mr. Clem balanced the above- referenced Policies with Objective A.1.16, pertaining to "private property rights." When these May 2002 EAR-Based Plan Amendment provisions are read together, it appears that Mr. Clem's interpretations are not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that the FLUM Amendment adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2002-31 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves the designation of six contiguous parcels located in the southern half of the City of St. Petersburg Beach (City), which is located on a barrier island sheltering the southern tip of the mainland of Pinellas County from the Gulf of Mexico. As a whole, the six parcels are bounded by the Gulf of Mexico to the west, 37th Avenue to the south, Gulf Boulevard to the east, and other privately owned property to the north. The southern boundary of the parcels is about 330 feet north of the Don Cesar Hotel and the Pinellas Bayway, which connects the City to the mainland of Pinellas County,. Gulf Boulevard in the area of the parcels is a four-lane arterial paralleling the beach. The northernmost of the six parcels measures about 61 feet by 290 feet and extends from Gulf Boulevard to the Gulf. The northernmost parcel, which contains apartments, is also known as Lot 33, Bellvista Beach, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 34, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Immediately south of the northernmost parcel lies the parcel on which the Shalimar Motel is located. This irregularly sized parcel measures roughly 158 feet along Gulf Boulevard, 110 feet on its south boundary, 120 feet on its north boundary, and 175 feet on the west boundary. The Shalimar Motel has been in operation on this parcel since no later than 1962. The remaining four parcels6 separate the Shalimar Motel from the Gulf. Each parcel measures about 50 feet wide and 175 feet deep. A narrow road or access easement runs in a north- south direction between these parcels and the Shalimar Motel. Three of the 50-foot parcels are developed as singled family residences. The second parcel from the south is vacant. The four 50-foot parcels plus the Shalimar Motel parcel are also known as Block G, Don Cesar Place, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 15-20, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Including the interior road or easement, the six parcels contain about 61,508 square feet or about 1.41 acres. The northernmost parcel is about 17,739 square feet or about 0.41 acres, and the remaining parcels are about 43,769 square feet or nearly one acre. Photographs produced at the hearing depict a dune that is well covered by vegetation to the south of the six parcels. No significant vegetation and little dune remains immediately north of the parcels. Hardly any dune protects the northernmost parcel, whose seawall is several feet landward of the adjoining seawalls. A small area of dense vegetation has developed in the corner of the inset seawall and the northern face of the seawall of the northernmost of the four 50-foot parcels. The dune and accompanying vegetation begin to develop toward the southern end of the northernmost of the four 50-foot parcels. It is difficult to determine the location of the dune line relative to the west boundaries of the four 50-foot parcels. The dunes appear to have widened recently and, in the process, are covering some permanent improvements evidently at the extreme westerly end of the parcels. However, the evidence fails to establish the precise location of the west boundary of the four 50-foot parcels relative to the dune line. The vacant 50-foot parcel is posted as the private property of the Shalimar Motel. A narrow portion of dune and vegetation on the vacant parcel has been eliminated by pedestrian traffic using a paved sidewalk running toward the motel from just behind the dune line. A considerable amount of sand has been swept by the wind through the pathway. Much of the sand has been deposited against a small metal shed lying behind the dune where it reforms to the north of the pathway. The dune and vegetation begin to increase in size along the southernmost of the four 50-foot parcels. The band of vegetation doubles in width at the west end of 37th Avenue and maintains this width as it proceeds to the south. The City adopted its revised local comprehensive plan on November 7, 1989 (Plan). Except for the westerly 30 feet of the northernmost parcel, which was designated Recreation/Open Space, the future land use map (FLUM) designates all-of the six parcels as Low-Medium Density Residential,7 which allows residential development at densities up to 10 units per "net" acre (10:1). All land to the west of the Coastal Construction Control Line is designated Preservation. Medium Density/Tourist Residential allows residential development at densities up to 15 units per "gross" acre (15:1) and tourist development at densities up to 30 units per "gross" acre (30:1). Recreation/Open Space is for "recreational uses." The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued a Notice of Intent to find the revised plan in compliance. No affected person filed a petition challenging the determination or plan. By Ordinance No. 90-29, which became effective December 6, 1990, the City adopted the plan amendment that Petitioners challenge. The plan amendment incorrectly recites that the Plan, prior to amendment, designates all of the subject parcels as Low-Medium Density Residential. In any event, the plan amendment designates all six parcels, in their entirety, as Medium Density/Tourist Residential. Data and Analysis Density and Compatibility The data and analysis report that the population of the City was 9354 persons in 1980. Based on data-supplied by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida, the data and analysis note that the population of the City increased at an average annual rate of 1.77% from 1972 to 1986, falling to a rate of 1.08% during the last seven years of the period. The data and analysis disclose that tie City is almost entirely built out. Only 33.5 acres, or 2.5%, of the City remains vacant. About one-third of the vacant land has been platted into 45 residential lots. Except for about seven acres designated commercial, the remainder of the vacant land in the City has been designated residential at densities ranging from 7.5 to 15 units per acre. A lengthy discussion in the data and analysis considers various methods for projecting the future population of the City during the planning timeframe. The data and analysis recommend that [a]fter consideration of the character of the community, the amount and character of vacant land remaining in the City, the desires of the residents to limit population growth, and the distaste for further high density/high rise residential construction, it was determined that for purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the City . . . would be identified as a built-out community. As such, no population projections would be made beyond the carrying capacity of the land of 10,465. Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 21. The data and analysis assume that 1.94 persons will occupy a permanent dwelling unit and 2.5 persons will occupy a transient or tourist dwelling unit, such as a motel room. After adjustment for the considerable number of nonresidents who own residences within the City, as well as applicable vacancy rates, the seasonal population was determined to be 2534 persons residing in permanent housing and 6071 persons residing in transient tourist facilities. When these seasonal populations are added to the permanent population of 10,465, the total projected population is 19,070 persons throughout the planning period. Expanding on the discussion of the preferences of residents and the built-out condition of the City, the land use analysis states: it can be assumed that any development on the remaining vacant land will be in keeping with the density and intensity of the surrounding residential properties. Any deviation from this would be counter to the direction under which this Element was prepared. FLUE, page 40. Acknowledging that no part of the City is blighted or in need of redevelopment, the analysis notes: There have been complaints regarding the development of multifamily projects adjacent to commercial tourist accommodations and, to a lesser degree, general commercial establishments. The problem is most pronounced along the Gulf side of Gulf Boulevard, in the Tourist District. Due to the purpose of this area, intense development is in keeping with its character. Although little can be done to correct the problems created by past development, amendments to' the City's land development regulations could afford additional buffering and lessen future incompatibility. With regard to redevelopment within the Tourist District, local officials are of the opinion that little change will occur in the motel/hotel density. Recent projects have resulted in the demolition of preexisting establishments and the erection and consolidation of a single new business. An example of this would be the Trade Winds Resort, where one motel was enlarged through the demolition and consolidation of three adjacent ones. FLUE, pages 40-41. The data and analysis recognize distinct neighborhoods divided by 37th Avenue. South of 37th Avenue and north of 32nd Avenue, the data and analysis identify the "Don Cesar Area" as follows: Primarily residential in character with both low density and medium density uses (single- family detached and multifamily). It is also a noteworthy area in that it contains the historic landmark Don Cesar Hotel which separates the residential Pass-a-Grille area from the more intense commercial and tourist facilities to the north. FLUE, page 6. Describing the neighborhood to the north, the data and analysis identify the "Gulf Boulevard Tourist District (Gulf Boulevard between 37th and 64th Avenues)": The most intense land use area, this district is linear in shape. It is comprised of general commercial, high density multifamily residential and commercial tourist accommodations adjacent to Gulf Boulevard. It is the one area of the City that can be considered to contain inconsistent land uses, i.e., multifamily adjacent to commercial tourist accommodations. Id. Two blocks separate the subject parcels from the Don Cesar Hotel to the south. A narrow road runs north-south through both blocks, and the lots within these two blocks are smaller than the lots constituting the six subject parcels. The dominant existing land use in these blocks is residential, with many single family dwelling units. The Plan designates the Gulf side of these two blocks as Low Density Residential and the Gulf Boulevard side as Medium Density Residential. A strip about 60 feet deep divides the Gulf side lots from the Gulf and is designated Recreation/Open Space. The west boundary of the 60- foot strip is the Coastal Construction Control Line. Thirty-Seventh Avenue is the last road connecting Gulf Boulevard to the beach for about 4300 feet to the north. After a second such road just to the north of the first, no road intersects Gulf Boulevard from the west for another 3600 feet. Except for one large parcel designated Recreation/Open Space, the land to the north of the six parcels is exclusively designated Medium Density/Tourist Residential for 3600 feet. At this point, a parcel somewhat smaller than the combined size of the six parcels is designated Medium Density Residential and two very small areas are designated Recreation/Open Space. The remaining land between Gulf Boulevard and the beach is designated Medium Density/Tourist Residential for almost one mile north of the Medium Density Residential parcel, except for a smaller parcel designated Residential/Office/Retail and two more strips of Recreation/Open Space just to the north of the Medium Density Residential parcel. The City contains about 1303 acres with about 813 acres, or 62%, devoted to existing residential uses, according to the data and analysis. About 138 acres, or 11%, of the City is devoted to existing commercial uses. The City contains no existing industrial or agricultural uses. About 57 acres, or 4.4%, of the City is in existing recreation/open space uses, and 260 acres, or 20%, is in existing public facility uses. Determining that, in 1987, 131 acres in the City were in commercial use, the land use analysis concludes that, based on a formula obtained from a publication of the Urban Land Institute, the City had 250% of the commercial acreage that it needed, based upon its population. Identification and Analysis of Dunes and Floodplain Concerning beaches and dunes, the data and analysis state in part: In the 1950s the beaches along the City of St. Petersburg Beach were narrow but there was a rather large accumulation of sand on the north end of the island, just south of Blind Pass. By the early 1970s this had changed somewhat. The beach width had increased over most of the island and erosion had occurred at the north end. The beach growth is primarily the result of nourishment projects but some may be due to erosion near the north end of the island and subsequent southerly littoral transport. The most recent nourishment along this barrier island was completed during the summer and fall of 1986. Historically, the barrier island in which St. Petersburg is located provided for the establishment of dune vegetation in the City's predevelopment days. Today, very little remains of what was once a unique ecosystem. Although the natural system has disappeared there has been a substantial effort put forth by the City to build a new dune system. Most natural sand dunes and vegetation had been eliminated and replaced by seawalls in the past. Today, the City encourages dune restoration and the construction of walkover structures. The beach area normally supports a community of salt-tolerant plants including sea oats, railroad vine and sea grapes. A few plants can still be found today scattered throughout the area. Protection or restoration of the valuable dune vegetation is necessary to maintain dune systems which in turn provide protection from high energy storm events add prevent property damage, while stabilizing the beach as well as promoting wildlife habitat areas. The City's active involvement in restoration programs has helped to alleviate many of the aforementioned problems. Coastal and Conservation Element (Coastal Element), pages 20-21. Elsewhere, the data and analysis add: Most natural sand dunes and vegetation have been eliminated by urban development. In many cases urban development can be designed to be compatible with the natural environment. However, the majority of urbanization that has occurred in the City has had a negative impact on the environment. Both natural and man-made destruction of natural dune systems and water courses has weakened the shoreline and caused erosion. Only scattered, isolated areas of marine vegetation can be found on the upland areas of the community. Due to their small size and location on private property, no attempt was made at calculating their acreage. * * * The Gulf dune systems and corresponding beach areas have also been designated as conservation areas. FLUE, page 11. Concerning the sandy beach, the data and analysis state: The entire sandy beach area is recognized as open space because it provides scenic amenities and recreation. Those portions of the beach which are privately owned (those lands lying above the mean high water line) have been recognized as municipal open space. The designation of privately owned beach lands as open space in the plan is a functional designation of how the land is used by the general public. FLUE, page 10. The data and analysis describe the protective function of the beach and dune system as follows: The beach and shoreline . . . is the City's largest and most important resource both economically and aesthetically . Management of this resource must receive a continuing effort and not be a periodic correction measure. As a result of the destruction of almost the entire dune line along the length of the Gulf beach, the potential for severe property damage during heavy or tropical storms has been significantly increased. The sand along this beach is an invaluable non-living resource which is subject to loss from wind and water, and man-made encroachments. FLUE, page 15. The data and analysis concede that the "need to preserve open space in the City . . . is critical." Recreation/Open Space Element, page 9. The relationship between open space and hazard mitigation is neatly summarized by the data and analysis as follows: Lands designated for open space and. recreational uses in high risk areas substantially reduce the amount of property at risk, leading to a reduction in future losses from hurricanes and storms. . . Coastal Element, page 56. As to the City's plan regarding recreation open space, the data and analysis state: "Currently, there are approximately 54.35 acres in [the City] dedicated to recreation open space. These areas should be protected from development and adequately maintained." Id. at page 16. The Recreation Facilities and Water-Dependent/Water-Related Facilities Map, which is part of the data and analysis included in the Recreation/Open Space Element, purportedly depicts the 57.35 acres of "recreation open space" in the City. Id. at page 9. This map, which is Map 11, inexplicably omits many parcels that the FLUM designates as Recreation/Open Space. Beginning about two blocks south of the Don Cesar Hotel, Map 11 shows the Preservation area Conservation Open Space, but fails to designate similarly any of the considerable amount of Recreation/Open Space that the FLUM depicts between the Preservation and various residential designations. In fact, except for the Preservation area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and a couple of parcels designated as Conservation Open Space, Map 11 fails to depict as recreation or open space any of the land designated as Recreation/Open Space in the FLUM in the southern half of the City north of the Don Cesar Hotel. The land use analysis acknowledges that the entire City falls within the 100-year floodplain. FLUE, page 42. Recognizing that elevations range from sea level to 10 feet with about two-thirds of the City at or below an elevation of five feet, the analysis concedes that "the City is highly vulnerable to the dangers of flooding." FLUE, page 36. The 100-year floodplain is also known as the "Hurricane Vulnerability Zone." Coastal Element, page 45. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricanes The data and analysis identify the City's coastal high hazard area (CHHA) as "that portion of the City projected to receive the most severe damage from hurricanes and coastal storms." Coastal Element, page 44. The CHHA is the land seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line set by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and within the V-Zone depicted in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) used in the National Flood Insurance Program. The FIRM divides the 100-year flood zone into A-Zones and V-Zones. The V-Zones require stricter protections because they are not only vulnerable to the storm surge up to the 100-year flood level, but are also subject to the "devastating effects of velocity wave action." Coastal Element, page 47. The Coastal Construction Control Line "define[s] that portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe weather fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Coastal Element, page 44 (quoting Section 163.053(1), Florida Statutes.) The data and analysis report that existing land uses within the coastal high hazard area are "primarily recreation and open space and seawalls." Coastal Element, page 45. According to the data and analysis, the FLUE maintains or lowers the density of residential use (overall density to a maximum of 10 units per acre, unless development as a Planned Unit Development . . . in which a 15 unit per acre ceiling shall be established) occurring within the hurricane vulnerable section of the City. This reduction is consistent with the need to reduce the risk from hurricane evacuation and response. Id. The data and analysis devote considerable attention to hurricane evacuation times and shelters, partly in recognition that the Tampa Bay Region is "one of the most hurricane-vulnerable areas in the United States with the potential for large scale loss of life." Coastal Element, page 30. The data and analysis promote hurricane preparedness due to the location of the City on a barrier island and the large number of aged persons who may require added evacuation assistance. The City is in the "most hurricane-vulnerable area" and is divided into two evacuation zones. Coastal Element, page 33. Persons residing north of 46th Avenue will be directed to cross the Corey Causeway, and persons residing south of 46th Avenue will be directed to cross the Pinellas Bayway. The approaches to these bridges, as well as the Howard Franklin Bridge, which all City residents and most Pinellas County residents must use to reach I-4, are low-lying and will be susceptible to early flooding. Breaking down hurricane evacuation times into prelandfall hazards times and clearance times the data and analysis note that the Pinellas Bayway was one of two roadway links that, in a 1984 study, was identified as critical with 15 hours required for clearance. Two years later, another study suggested that the clearance time was reduced by four hours on a base run simulating an average evacuation level. Subsequent road improvements to the Pinellas Bayway reduced the clearance time by an additional two to nine hours. Analysis of hurricane shelters assumes a need of 10 square feet of space for emergency refuge, 20 square feet for overnight shelter, and 40 square feet for extended periods. The analysis notes various demographic factors that must be considered in calculating the amount of shelter space needed, including the "shadow evacuation" phenomenon in which nonvulnerable residents evacuate to public shelters. Deriving three rates of utilization of hurricane emergency shelters, the analysis concludes that, using the 10 square foot standard, secured public shelter Space will be exhausted if more than 14.5% of the evacuating population seeks public shelter. The assumed low rate of utilization is 15%. At the low rate, therefore, secondary shelter must be opened. With this space, Pinellas County can meet the projected demand in the event of the assumed medium rate of utilization. The analysis concedes that there is "considerable debate" over the adequacy of the 10 square foot standard. The rationale for adopting this standard is not so much a justification of the 10-foot standard as it is an acknowledgement that sufficient shelter simply does not exist: [C]onsidering the densely populated coastline in Pinellas County, the 20 square foot standard must be considered a long range objective with the ten square [foot standard] (medium demand) an intermediate standard. Given the projected demand from future growth in the City as well as the County coastal and mobile home populations, the Red Cross, County School Board, and the County Department of Civil Emergency Services will be seeking additional facilities to accommodate the future demand for public shelter in the event of a hurricanes. . . Coastal Element, page 37. The City has participated actively with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Insurance Administration in the National Flood Insurance Program. By letter received May 24, 1991, FEMA announced that the City's achievements in this regard earned its residents a five percent reduction on new or renewed flood insurance policies, as of October 1, 1991. Identification of Historic Resources The data and analysis disclose only two historic resources in the City. One is the Don Cesar Hotel, which was built in 1926 and is listed on the National Register for Historic National Landmarks. The second historic resource is the Pass-a- Grille Beach Church, which was built in 1913 and is now used as a private residence. The FLUE data and analysis discuss an area between 1st and 15th Avenues and Gulf and Pass-a-Grille Ways that contains about 125 buildings dating from the turn of the century. The City has applied to the federal government to include the 15- block area, which is in the southern end of the City, on the National Register of Historic Places. Goals, Objectives, and Policies FLUE Objective 1.1 is to maintain the "integrity and quality of life in existing residential neighborhoods through the maintenance of low to medium densities." FLUE Policy 1.1.5 is to use land development regulations to "[protect] existing residential areas . . . from the encroachment of incompatible activities . . . FLUE Objective 1.4 is for the City to "enhance and protect the City's existing character through redevelopment which ensures an orderly and aesthetic mixture of land uses." FLUE Policy 1.4.2 is for the City to use land development regulations to "encourage opportunities for the rehabilitation and/or revitalization of the existing residential structures" in order to "ensure the continued maintenance of [the City's] beach residential character." FLUE Objective 1.6 is: "As of the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan, development activities shall ensure the protection of historic and architecturally significant resources." FLUE Objective 1.7 is: "As of the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan, development activities shall ensure the protection of natural resources." Coastal Element Objective 2.2 is: "As of the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan, the City shall direct population concentrations away from the designated Coastal High Hazard Area." FLUE Policy 2.1.9 is for the City to "minimiz[e] development in high risk areas, such as the hurricane velocity zone, by full support of Coastal Construction Zone limitations." Coastal Element Objective 2.3 is: "As of the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan, the City shall maintain or reduce hurricane clearance times." Coastal Element Objective 2.4 is: "As of the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan the City shall reduce the risk of exposure of human life and . . . property to natural disasters through preparedness planning and implementation of hazard mitigation measures." The measure by which attainment of Objective 2.2 is evaluated is "[p]opulation density within the Coastal High Hazard Area." The measure by which attainment of Objective 2.3 is evaluated is "Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Times." The measures by which attainment of Objective 2.4 is evaluated are "[d]evelopment of City Hurricane Plan [and] [i]mplementation of Policies." Regional Plan Policy 16.5.1 of the Regional Policy Plan of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (Regional Plan) states: Residential areas shall be located and designed to protect life and property from natural and man-made hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise. Regional Plan Policy 16.5.3 provides: Existing residential areas shall be protected from the encroachment of incompatible activities . Regional Plan Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. State Plan Goal 9 of the state plan is: to ensure that development and marine resource use and beach access improvements in coastal areas do not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Policies 6 and 9 of Goal 9 are to: 6. Encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. 9. Prohibit development and other activities which disturb coastal dune systems, and ensure and promote the restoration of coastal dune systems that are damaged. Section 187.201(9). Ultimate Findings of Fact Supporting Data and Analysis Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation given the six parcels is not supported by data and analysis in terms of densities and residential protection. The six parcels constitute 1.41 acres. The old designation allowed a density of ten units per net acre (10:1), which yields no more than 14 dwelling units. 8/ The new designation allows a density of 15 units per gross acre (15:1), which yields 21 permanent dwelling units, and a tourist density of 30 units per gross acre, which yields 42 transient or tourist dwelling units. The data and analysis support these increases in density and intensity outside of the CHHA, as are the six parcels in their entirety, and in the absence of urban sprawl considerations, which are highly unlikely due to the small, already-urbanized area involved. The original designation supported no more than 27 persons, and the new designation supports 105 persons. Even ignoring the reduced impact from actual tourist occupancy rates, the difference here is only 78 persons, which represents only 0.4% of the projected total population. The incompatibility questions are amply addressed by the establishment of 37th Avenue as a fair and practical boundary between less dense and intense uses to the south and more dense and intense uses to the north. Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation causes the plan, as amended, to fail to identify properly the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). To the contrary, the V-Zones shown in the FIRM, as well as the land seaward of the Coastal Control Line, are depicted within the CHHA in the vicinity of the six parcels and are properly designated as Preservation. Petitioners have failed to prove that any part of the six parcels falls within the CHHA established by the Plan or that the CHHA should be expanded. Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation is not supported by the analysis of existing hurricane evacuation times and hurricane shelter space for the reasons noted above in connection with population densities. Although the analysis itself suggests that the emergency-refuge standard selected for hurricane shelter space may be insufficient, the addition of another 78 persons, or 0.4% of the City's projected total population, will not have a measurable effect on the use of such space. Petitioners have failed to prove, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation is not supported by the data and analysis identifying all historic resources. The data and analysis do not compel the designation of the Don Cesar Place subdivision, rather than merely the Don Cesar Hotel, as an historic resource. Moreover, the evidence does not establish that the new designation will adversely affect the neighborhood surrounding the Don Cesar Hotel. Although the five parcels south of the northernmost parcel were originally platted as part of the Don Cesar Place subdivision, the historic value is derived more from present conditions than the area platted decade ago. Thirty-Seventh Avenue serves as an effective boundary dividing land uses of differing intensity and density and thereby protecting the Don Cesar Hotel, as well as its neighborhood. Petitioners have failed to prove, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation is not supported by data and analysis identifying all environmentally sensitive areas, such as dunes and the 100-year floodplain. The evidence fails to establish that the greater intensity and density allowed on the subject 1.41 acres will have a measurable effect upon the functions of the already-disturbed floodplain, which encompasses the entire City. Likewise, the evidence fails to establish that the existing dunes are incorrectly identified. It is at least fairly debatable that the existing dunes are located to the west of the subject parcels. However, Petitioners have proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the new designation accorded the 30-foot strip of the northernmost parcel is unsupported by data and analysis. The data and analysis, although sufficient to support increased density and intensity for land originally designated as Low- Medium Density Residential, offer no support whatsoever for increasing the density and intensity of land originally designated as Recreation/Open Space. The redesignation of the 30-foot strip defies the land use suitability analysis, which repeatedly emphasizes the importance of open space and the critical protective role of the beaches and dunes. Thus, the redesignation requires additional data and analysis, which the City failed to provide because it was unaware that the six parcels included any area designated Recreation/Open Space. Consistency with Miscellaneous Minimum Criteria Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the plan fails to contain an objective directing densities away from known or predicted CHHA's. The plan amendment does not repeal Coastal Element Objective 2.2, which addresses this issue. Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the plan fails to contain an objective mitigating natural The plan amendment does not repeal Coastal Element Objectives 2.3 and 2.4, which address this issue. Internal Consistency For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners have failed to establish, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation conflicts with plan provisions protecting existing residential neighborhoods, protecting historic resources, reducing or maintaining hurricane evacuation times, engaging in hazard mitigation measures, and directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. The question is closer as to the consistency of the new designation with FLUE Objective 1.7, which requires "development activities [to] ensure the protection of natural resources." The redesignation of the 30-foot by 61-foot strip from Recreation/Open Space to Medium Density/Tourist Residential may impede the protection of natural resources, but Petitioners have not established such a fact to the exclusion of fair debate. Specifically, Petitioners failed to prove by the requisite standard that development of the strip would jeopardize the beach or dune system. Consistency with Regional Plan For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners have failed to prove, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation conflicts with Regional Plan Policies 16.5.3 and 16.6.1, which involve the compatibility of residential and commercial uses, and Policy 16.5.1, which involves the protection of residential areas from natural and man-made hazards. Consistency with State Plan For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners have failed to prove, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the new designation conflicts with State Plan Goal 9 or Policies 6 and 9, which are to ensure that coastal area development does not endanger public safety or important natural resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs submit the Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the City's plan amendment is not in compliance because the redesignation of the 30-foot westerly tip of the Lot 33, Bellvista Beach, from Recreation/Open Space to Medium Density/Tourist Residential is not supported by the data and analysis. ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this on of day of December, 1991.
