The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Broward County Ordinance 1999-26, amending the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (Plan), is "in compliance," as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and more specifically whether that portion of PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999-26, which limits the use of flexibility units and reserve units east of the Intracoastal Waterway is not "in compliance" under Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Hallandale Beach.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Petitioner, the City of Hallandale Beach (the City or Hallandale) is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (the City's Plan). In August of 1999, the City of Hallandale officially changed its name to the City of Hallandale Beach. The Respondent, Broward County (the County or Broward) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is a charter county. The County has adopted the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (the County's Plan). The Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency which under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, is responsible for, among other things, the review of municipal and county comprehensive plans to determine if the plans, and subsequent amendments thereto, are "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Standing The transmittal hearing for the proposed amendment was conducted on February 23, 1999. The adoption hearing was held June 22, 1999. During the plan amendment process, the City submitted three letters dated January 22, 1999, February 11, 1999, and April 30, 1999, in opposition to the proposed amendment. These letters, along with other materials in support of and in opposition to the proposed amendment were forwarded to the Department in the adopted amendment package on June 30, 1999. The City is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County Charter The Charter of Broward County took effect on January 1, 1975. (The current Charter submitted as Joint Exhibit 1 is revised as of November 5, 2002). With reference to land use planning, the County Charter in Article VIII creates the Broward County Planning Council (Planning Council). The Planning Council is the local planning agency for the Broward County Land Use Plan (BCLUP). The Planning Council employs a staff, which includes professional planners, gathers data, performs analyses of data, conducts hearings, and recommends the adoption of land use ordinances by the Broward County Commission. The Planning Council has final authority over the approval, or recertification, of municipal land use plans and amendments. Under the Charter, the County has primary responsibility for land use planning. Municipal comprehensive plans must be in conformity with the BCLUP. Pursuant to section 11.01 of the Charter, County Ordinances relating to land use planning prevail over municipal ordinances. Flexibility Units/Reserve Units Broward County is a highly urbanized, fast-growing county located in the southeastern portion of Florida. The estimated 1998 population was 1,460,890, a 16.4 percent increase over the 1990 census. In addition to the County government, there are 29 municipalities in the County. In November 1977, Broward County first devised the concept of allowing flexibility to municipalities in land use planning by creating "flexibility units" (flex units) which could be used by municipalities in land use planning. The number of flex units is equal to the difference between the density permitted on the BCLUP map and the density permitted on the applicable municipal land use plan for any particular parcel of land. Flex units are unique to Broward County in the State of Florida. The entire County is divided into 126 flexibility zones. Each flexibility zone has a determined number of available flex units based on the difference in densities between the future BCLUP map and the municipal land use plan. Within each of the 126 flexibility zones, designated on the future BCLUP map, the appropriate municipality may rearrange and revise land uses and densities, within limits specified in the County Plan, without the necessity of an amendment to the County Plan. The total density within any particular flexibility zone cannot exceed the density on the future BCLUP map. The Administrative Rules Document contains rules and procedures regulating flexibility zones and units. Modifications to flexibility zones may be requested by the municipality, the County, or the Planning Council, subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Municipal plan amendments revising land uses by use of flex units within flexibility zones are subject only to recertification by the Planning Council. Without the use of flex units, the land use category for a particular piece of property on the BCLUP map can be amended through an amendment to the BCLUP. "Reserve units" are additional permitted dwelling units equal to 2 percent of the total number of dwelling units permitted in a flexibility zone by the future BCLUP map. Reserve units function similarly to flex units and may be allocated by a municipality to rearrange and revise densities within a flexibility zone. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, reserve units shall be treated as flex units. Hallandale contains flexibility zones 93 and 94. Review of the Operation of Flexibility Rules In 1996, in response to state requirements for periodic evaluations of county comprehensive plans, the planning council staff, including Henry Sniezek of the County planning staff, prepared the Broward County Land Use Plan "Flexibility Rules" Study. After many hours spent obtaining data and analyses, the staff recommended that flexibility rules include more consideration of compatibility with surrounding land uses and the impacts on public schools. The 1996 report concluded: (1) that flexibility rules generally continued to serve the purpose of allowing local governments to address local planning issues and market concerns; (2) that local governments have utilized the flexibility rules consistent with their intent; and (3) that flexibility rules should continue to be available for local government use. The issue which is the subject of this proceeding, as to whether flex units should continue to be authorized for land planning uses in areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway to increase density from 25 to 50 units per acre, was not specifically within the scope of the 1996 report. Coastal Densities An April 24, 1998, version of the County land uses plan map, which is apparently still in force, designated a number of parcels throughout Broward County, east of the Intracoastal Waterway on the Atlantic Ocean, as land use category "H," for high density dwellings of 50 units per gross acre. Under the Broward County land use regulations, gross acreage is calculated by including the property owned by the landowner and half of adjacent right-of-way. In County-designated "H" parcels, developments of 50 units per acre are permitted, without the need to allocate flex units to the parcels. The Hallandale Ordinance In 1998, Hallandale passed an Ordinance 1998-3, creating a new Residential High Density-2 Land Use Designation (HD-2), allowing developments up to 50 residential dwelling units per acre, but only by the allocation of available flex units. On June 1, 1999, the Mayor of Hallandale was notified, by letter, that the land use element, as amended to create the HD-2 category, was recertified by the Planning Council. The recertification process constitutes a determination that the municipal plan amendment substantially conforms to the County Plan. The DCA found Hallandale's HD-2 ordinance in compliance. The Regional Planning Council determines whether comprehensive plan amendments comply with the 1995 Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Planning Council approved the City's HD-2 category as consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The intent of the ordinance was to promote and attract redevelopment to Hallandale, particularly the beach area, where many buildings date from the 1960's and 1970's, and may be approaching the end of their useful lives. The City used the HD-2 for the redevelopment of a property called Riviera Beach, which consisted of a deteriorating motel, a restaurant, and offices. The City also used the category to promote the redevelopment of the Ocean Marine property site of another deteriorating motel with a yacht club on the Intracoastal Waterway, which is currently going through the approval process. The City's former Director of Growth Management, Lorenzo Aghemo, opined that with existing average density on the beach in the range of 86 to 89 units an acre, redevelopment up to only 25 dwelling units per acre is not economically advantageous. The Proposed Amendment The Amendment that is the subject of this proceeding began as a "housekeeping" amendment which was initially designed to establish a uniform cap of 50 units per acre for the use of flex units to be consistent throughout the County Plan. During the process of meetings and public hearings before the Planning Council and the County Commission, and in response to comments and suggestions from members and staff as well as comments from DCA, the Planning Council, the Broward County League of Cities and various municipal governments, the Amendment evolved as more particularly described below. The Amendment ultimately became a mechanism to further goals contained in a Governor's Commission report entitled "Eastward Ho!" which was published in July 1996 and discussed in more detail below. A primary focus of the Eastward Ho! report is the recommendation that development in Southeast Florida, including Broward County, should be redirected into a corridor of land that generally consisted of the land between CSX and Florida railroads. The precise parameters of the Eastward Ho! corridor are undefined and the corridor eventually was expanded beyond the lands between the railroads; however, it is agreed that this corridor contains many of the older municipal regions of the County west of the Intracoastal Waterway. In its adopted form, the portion of the County's challenged amendment PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999- 26, implements several changes which encourage the redevelopment of the County's urban corridor, and redirects development away from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) as well as away from the environmentally sensitive western areas of the County. With respect to the use of flex units, the challenged Amendment establishes four areas ("Areas A-D") within the County. Each area is given its own designation regarding the use of flex units. Area A This area generally encompasses all land west of the Urban Infill Area line. It is treated differently from the other areas for planning purposes because of its environmentally sensitive lands. Included in this area are portions of the Florida Everglades, other wetlands and well fields. In recognition of the environmental features of this area, the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre and helps to minimize urban sprawl. Area B This area is defined as all land east of the Intracoastal Waterway. It lies entirely within the County’s CHHA, which includes the land and water eastward of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean. CHHAs are areas that are prone to damage from flood and wind from a hurricane event. This vulnerability to hurricanes presents special planning issues which led the County to limit the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre. In order to better protect human life and property, the County not only places a limit on flexibility units in this area, but encourages development and redevelopment in other portions of the County outside the CHHA. Area C This area generally comprises all of the land east of the Urban Infill Area Line and West of the Intracoastal Waterway. It includes many of the County’s older cities, where there is the greatest need for redevelopment. This area generally includes the Eastwood Ho! corridor. In order to encourage redevelopment in this area, the County continues to allow local governments to use up to 50 flexibility units an acre. Area D This area contains pocket areas that lie west of the Urban Infill area. Although the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre in this area, no compatibility review is required. At this time, there are two areas with this designation. Both of these pocket areas lie close to the Urban Infill Area. Application to Hallandale Most of Hallandale lies within Area C. A small potion of the City consisting of the beach east of the Intracoastal Waterway is in Area B and also within the CHHA. Under the challenged Amendment the City is limited to a maximum allowable density, with the allocation of flex units, to 25 units per acre, because the area is east of the Intracoastal Waterway. For purposes of this proceeding, the objectionable effect of the challenged Amendment is that it prohibits the use of flex units to that small portion of Hallandale that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway to attain densities greater than 25 units per acre. Lorenzo Aghemo, formerly Hallandale's Director of Growth Management, testified that the County's challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the following elements of the County's Plan: Objective 8.03.00, on discouraging urban sprawl by directing development to areas with existing facilities and services; Goal 13.00.00, on maximizing intergovernmental coordination and cooperation; Policy 13.01.08, on the Planning Council's responsibility to ensure consistency, as compared to its decisions to approve 50 units and than a few months later 25 units per acre; Goal 17.00.00, directing growth to identified urban infill, in areas of existing infrastructure and services to promote redevelopment; Policy 17.02.02, on urban infill and redevelopment to promote economic development and increase housing opportunities. Mr. Aghemo testified that the County's Ordinance, limiting the flex units to 25 per acre is also inconsistent with the following statutes: Section 163.3177(11)(c) - on maximizing the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment and urban infill development; Section 187.201(15)(a) and (b) - on directing development to areas which have, in place, land and water resources, fiscal abilities and service capacity; Section 187.201(16)(b)5. - on allowing local government flexibility to determine and address urban priorities. Henry Sniezek testified that the proposed Amendment viewed in its entirety, is consistent with the above-cited provisions. Evolution of the Proposed Amendment On January 15, 1999, the County Planning Council's Land Use/Traffic Ways Committee discussed, for the first time, an early version of a County amendment to limit the density allowed from the use of flex units. At that time, the staff recommended that flex units should result in densities no higher than 50 units per acres. As stated above, the maximum of 50 units an acre, recommended in 1999, was intended for "housekeeping" purposes to establish the same cap for flex units consistently referenced throughout the plan. Robert Daniels, the principal planner for the Regional Planning Council, first recommended that the coastal barrier island be excluded from certain flex unit allocations in a letter to Mr. Sniezek, on January 27, 1999. Mr. Daniels testified that his concern was based on the Strategic Regional Plan goal and policy of reducing densities on coastal barrier islands, the beaches and areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Broward League of Cities Technical Advisory Committee, composed of planners from various municipalities in the County, also recommended to the County Commission that it attempt to direct growth to the area between the Everglades on environmentally sensitive west and the CHHA. That policy is included in the County's "Eastward Ho" voluntary initiative. The Broward County urban infill area has a western boundary that coincides with the western boundary of the challenged amendment but extends east to the Atlantic Ocean. The Amendment, as adopted, ultimately excluded the area east of the Intracoastal Waterway within the urban infill area, as designated on the County land use map, from the maximum flex unit uses without County Commission approved. Eastward Ho! "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida’s Urban Core" is a 1996 planning initiative of the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. It was developed by the South Florida Regional Planning Council in conjunction with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Eastward Ho! promotes urban infill and redevelopment in order to revitalize older communities. Among its other goals is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands, prime agricultural areas, and water resources. The Eastward Ho! initiative attempts to capture some of the projected growth in the western and CHHA and redirect it to the urbanized areas. The boundaries for the Eastward Ho! initiative include portions of Palm Beach County, Broward County and Miami-Dade County. Its boundaries are not precisely defined and have evolved over time. The original study area encompassed the area between the Florida East Coast Railroad and the CSX Railroad. As the program progressed, it became apparent that additional areas should be included. This larger Eastward Ho! area includes the lands lying east to US 1 and west to the Palmetto Expressway, the Florida Turnpike, State Road 7 and Military Trail. The Amendment Area C is generally compatible with the Eastward Ho! boundaries in Broward County. Area B does not lie within the Eastward Ho! boundaries. In its totality, the Amendment advances the purposes of Eastward Ho! by redirecting growth towards already urbanized areas and away from the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County and the CHHA. The Eastward Ho! initiative is advanced by the Amendment in that the proposed flexibility units scheme promotes the goals of directing some future development away from environmentally sensitive areas and the CHHA and redirects that future development to the urban infill areas. As the Amendment is consistent with, and furthers, Eastward Ho! goals, the contents of the document entitled "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida's Urban Core" constitute relevant and appropriate data and analysis which supports the Amendment. In February 1999, a report was issued by Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research in which the Eastward Ho! program is described and analyzed. This report was prepared for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document is entitled "Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Paths to More Efficient Growth in Southeast Florida." Included in this report are data and analysis contrasting projected Eastward Ho! and non-Eastward Ho! development patterns. In this report, it is concluded that directing some residential development growth from the hurricane hazard area and the western areas into the Eastward Ho! areas in the next twenty-five years will save 52,856 acres of prime farmland and 13,887 acres of fragile environmental lands. It is also expected that housing costs would drop approximately 2.3 percent. The report also concludes that by directing some future development over a 25-year period into the Eastward Ho! areas, the following savings in infrastructure costs can be gained: $1.54 billion dollars in local road costs, $62 million in state road costs, $157 million in water capital costs, and $135.6 in sewer capital costs. As the Amendment helps implement the goals of Eastward Ho!, it reasonably can be concluded that this report contains data and analysis that supports the Amendment. Local Mitigation Strategy Broward County’s emergency management staff has prepared a local mitigation strategy (LMS), which is the County’s plan to mitigate the effects of potential natural disasters, especially hurricanes. In this document, the County identifies the trend of conversions of living units in the coastal hurricane evacuation zone from seasonal to year-round use, increasing the number of residents in the coastal hurricane evacuation zones. This area is basically the same as the portion of the County described in the Amendment as Area B. In order to minimize the impact of natural disasters, the LMS recommends discouraging additional public expenditures to expand or improve infrastructure in the CHHA. The Amendment implements these recommendations by providing an incentive for directing some future growth away from the CHHA to Area C. Accordingly, the LMS constitutes data and analysis which supports the Amendment. Consistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan: Objective 8.03.00, Goal 13; Policy 13.01.08, Goal 17; and Policy 17.02.02. Those provisions are part of the BCLUP. Objective 8.03.00 is entitled "EFFICIENT USE OF URBAN SERVICES" and reads: Discourage urban sprawl and encourage a separation of urban and rural uses by directing new development into areas where necessary regional and community facilities and services exist. The BCLUP does not define "urban sprawl." The Department of Community Affairs has a rule that defines "urban sprawl" as meaning: . . . urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low- intensity or low density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided.... Rule 9J-5.003(134), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides guidance on how to ensure that plans and plan amendments are consistent with applicable requirements pertaining to the discouragement of urban sprawl. Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The rule contains sections on primary indicators, land use evaluations, and development controls, each of which includes many factors to be carefully considered. The Amendment provides incentives for development in Area C, which is the older urban corridor of the County. Although some of it is also urban, Area B lies in the CHHA and the data and analysis support its disparate treatment. Taken as a whole, the Amendment has the effect of discouraging urban sprawl by promoting infill in older downtown areas (Area C) and directing development away from the environmentally sensitive areas (Areas A and B) and areas with inefficient land use patterns (Area A) such as the western areas of the County. Goal 13 and Policy 13.01.08 are located in the section of the plan entitled "INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION." They read as follows: GOAL 13.00.00 MAXIMIZE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. POLICY 13.01.08 The Broward County Planning Council shall continue to coordinate, cooperate and share information and services with all City and County planning offices and all local government agencies in order to ensure consistency and compatibility among the Broward County Land Use Plan and the other elements of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, as well as municipal comprehensive plans. The Amendment does not modify the intergovernmental coordination provisions. While the Amendment restricts the effect of Hallendale Ordinance 1998-2 in that small portion of the City that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway, that restriction alone does not support a finding that the Amendment as a whole is inconsistent with Policy 13.01.08. Moreover, the County complied with the letter and spirit of Goal 13.00.00 and Policy 13.01.08 in developing and adopting this Amendment. It kept the municipalities informed of the Amendment by providing written drafts and coordinated with entities including the Broward County League of Cities, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Broward County Planning Council, and its technical advisory committee. Suggestions and comments from the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the League of Cities were a major influence in the ultimate version of the adopted Amendment. Goal 17.00.00 and Policy 17.02.02 are contained in the Plan’s section entitled "URBAN INFILL AREAS, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION." They read as follows: GOAL 17.00.00 DIRECT GROWTH TO IDENTIFIED URBAN INFILL, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREAS WITHIN BROWARD COUNTY IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL, REDUCE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON RURAL LANDS, MAXIMIZE THE USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CENTRALIZE COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES. POLICY 17.02.02 Local land use plans should include policies to provide for adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents of identified urban infill, urban redevelopment and downtown revitalization area(s). In its totality, the Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 17.00.00 and may further it. By limiting development in the CHHA and the western portions of the County, the Amendment effectively encourages significant future growth to the urban infill areas and older downtown areas. The area encouraged for growth under this goal and policy is consistent with Area C, and targeted for the densest development and redevelopment. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 17.02.02. Area B as a Coastal area is not particularly economically suitable for affordable housing. By encouraging development away from the CHHA, the Amendment may promote a wider range of housing opportunities through redevelopment in the Eastward Ho! corridor. Moreover, the Amendment provides that applications of flex units for affordable housing, Regional Activity Centers and special residential facilities are exempt from the Amendment’s restrictions in specified situations should affordable housing units be developed in Area B. Even if the Amendment were construed to be inconsistent with any of the above-discussed plan provisions, there are several other portions of the Plan that the Amendment furthers by encouraging development away from the CHHA and the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County. Those provisions include Objective 9.03.00, which requires developing and implementing land use controls to protect and enhance the County's beaches, rivers, and marine resources, and Policy 9.05.09, which requires considering the impact land use plan amendments have on wetland resources and minimizing those impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Objective 9.07.00 reads: Protect identified floodplains and areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. The Amendment advances this objective by limiting development in the CHHA (Area B), which is subject to storm surge, as well as limiting development in the western portion of the County (Area A), which has many flood-prone areas. Consistency with Section 163.3177(11)(c) The City alleges that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(11)(c), Florida Statutes, which reads: It is the further intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans and implementing land development regulations shall provide strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other strategies for urban revitalization. To the extent this statute is a substantive compliance criteria, the Amendment is consistent with this statute. By promoting development in Area C, the Amendment will help achieve the goal of maximizing existing facilities through redevelopment, urban infill and urban revitalization. Consistency with the South Florida Regional Policy Plan The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SFRPP) is the regional policy plan adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. It is adopted by reference in Rule 29J-2.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Amendment is consistent with provisions in the SFRPP, particularly those related to land use, public facilities, natural resources, and emergency management. The Amendment is consistent with Strategic Regional Goal 2.1, which requires directing development and redevelopment to areas least exposed to coastal storm surges and where negative impacts on the environment are minimal. The Amendment is consistent with several of Goal 2.1's implementing policies, including Policies 2.1.2 (reducing allowable densities on barrier islands and in the Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area), 2.1.3 (restricting development, redevelopment, and public facility construction in the CHHA), and 2.1.4 (directing development away from environmentally sensitive lands). The Amendment also furthers Strategic Regional Goal 7.1 by directing future development away from the areas most vulnerable to storm surges. Viewed in its entirety, the Amendment is consistent with the SFRPP construed as a whole. Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions in the State comprehensive plan: Sections 187.201(15)(a) and (b) and 187.201(16)(b)(5), Florida Statutes. Goal (15)(a) recognizes the importance of preserving natural resources and requires development to be directed into areas which can accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. Implementing Policies (b)1., 2., and 5. requires the encouragement of efficient development, the separation of urban and rural uses, and the consideration of impacts on natural resources and the potential for flooding in land use planning. As discussed in earlier findings, the Amendment is consistent with such directives. The Amendment furthers Goal (15)(a) and Policies (b) 1., 2., and 5. Policy (16)(b)(5) reads: Ensure that local governments have adequate flexibility to determine and address their urban priorities within the state urban policy. The Amendment coordinates the policy for prioritization of urban development. Development is promoted in areas away from the CHHA and environmentally sensitive lands in the west. This is accomplished through the use of a cap on flexibility units. Local governments may choose to utilize less than the full extent of their available flexibility units or use alternative mechanisms to achieve higher densities. The use of flexibility units is only one method for controlling densities. If a local government needs more density to address its planning goals than is allowed by the Amendment, it may request a Future Land Use Map amendment. Additionally, local governments may avoid the Amendment's limits by maximizing density by the use of affordable housing developments, Regional Activity Centers or special residential facilities. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy (16)(b)(5). The Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan construed as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Broward County in Ordinance No. 1999-26 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rule promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 12th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Goldstein, Esquire City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jose R. Gonzalez, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Governmental Center, Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Jordan, Acting General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1976, the Board served its Administrative Complaint upon the Licensee. On May 18, 1976 the Licensee filed its Answer to the Administrative Complaint. The final hearing in this case was scheduled by Notice dated April 13, 1976, and was rescheduled by Notice dated May 27, 1976. John C. Ledbetter holds Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C5281 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Licensee Ledbetter has been a certified contractor at all times relevant to this proceeding. The Licensee was the co-developer of a condominium project known as Ocean Palm Villas South or Ocean Palms Riverfront Condominium. Gerald M. Hadley, Sr., a certified contractor was initially listed as the general contractor for the project. Later Neil Wayne Smith was designated the general contractor. Smith was discharged as the general contractor, and by letter dated June 11, 1973 the Licensee notified the North Peninsular Zoning Commission that he would be substituted as the general contractor. Shortly thereafter Gerald M. Hadley was again designated the general contractor, and the change was acknowledged by the forth Peninsular Zoning Commission by letter dated August 28, 1973. Construction on Ocean Palm Villas South did not commence until after August 28, 1973. No construction was undertaken during the time that Ledbetter was designated as the general contractor. The general contractor was responsible for installation of the walls in Ocean Palm Villas South. A subcontractor was utilized to install the dry wall, but the wall construction was supervised by the general contractor. The original plans called for use of 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard. The wall units were to be installed in the manner depicted in Board Exhibit 5. The gypsum was to be nailed on either side of 4" studs, with insulating material laid between the studs. 5/8" gypsum was not available to the general contractor. 1/2" gypsum wallboard was utilized. A new wall assembly was planned. With this assembly gypsum wallboard was nailed to studs, but the wallboard on the other side of the wall was nailed to alternately interspaced studs. Insulating material was woven between the interspaced studs. (See: Board Exhibit 3). The decision to use this assembly was made by Gerald A. Hadley, a labor foreman. Hadley's father was the general contractor, and was consulted in making the decision. A Mr. Rasmussen, the building inspector, was consulted about the wall assembly, and he gave his approval. At the time that construction was under way on the Ocean Palm Villas South project, the 1965 Edition with Revisions of the Southern Standard Building Code was in effect in the North Peninsular Zoning District of Volusia County. The Ocean Palm Villas South project lied within that district. The wall assembly utilized by the general contractor does not precisely follow any of the assemblies set out as appropriate in the code. The wall assembly utilized does, however, meet the one hour fire resistance standard required by the code. There was no evidence presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Licensee Ledbetter had any knowledge of the wall assembly utilized in this project other than what was set out in the original plans. Ledbetter was not the contractor for the project when the assembly was constructed.
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.
Findings Of Fact During 1974, Beker Phosphate Corporation applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County for a development order approving proposed phosphate mine operations. Beker is seeking to engage in phosphate mining on over ten thousand acres of land located in Manatee County in the watersheds of the Manatee and Myakka Rivers. The TBRPC is the regional planning agency which reviews development of regional impact applications in Manatee County. On December 9, 1974, the TBRPC recommended that the proposed mine be approved with modifications. On January 28, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County issued a DRI Development Order. The order approved the application submitted by Beker subject to thirteen specified conditions which are set out in the order. A copy of this development order was received in evidence at the final hearing as a Appellant's Exhibit 3. Neither the Division of State Planning nor any appropriate regional planning agency appealed the development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County did attempt to appeal the order; however, on June 17, 1975, the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission accepted the Hearing Officer's recommended order and dismissed the appeal. This action was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1975). In its application for development order, Beker had proposed to construct two secondary dams prior to commencing mining activities. One of these was to be constructed on the East fork of the Manatee River, and one on Wingate Creek. The dams were located down stream from initial waste clay settling areas. One of the purposes of the secondary dams was to serve as a back up system in the event that there was a break in the primary dam. In approving the application, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County required that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary motivation of Manatee County in requiring construction of the secondary dams was not protection from leaks in the primary dam system, but rather a desire to plan for the County's long term water needs. The Board anticipates that a reservoir would eventually be constructed behind the secondary dams, and that these reservoirs would serve the long-term water needs of the people of Manatee County. Since the secondary dams were to be constructed in wetland areas, Beker needed to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation in order to construct the dams. An application was submitted. On November 29, 1976, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Beker subsequently petitioned for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp). The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A final hearing was scheduled, but due to subsequent action taken by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, and due to this proceeding, the hearing was postponed and the case has been held in abeyance since April 5, 1977. No formal hearing has been conducted with respect to the application to construct the secondary dams, and no final order has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. While the Department of Environmental Regulation matter was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Louis Driggers, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, became concerned that the proceeding could have an adverse effect upon the county's long-range desire to construct a reservoir which would serve water supply needs. Mr. Driggers had a conference with Secretary Landers of the Department of Environmental Regulation, and learned that the agency's initial objections to the secondary dams were that the dams themselves would cause destruction of wetlands areas, and that since the primary dams were being constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, there would be no need for the secondary dams. This opinion was set out in a letter from Mr. Landers to Mr. Driggers dated March 14, 1977 (Beker Exhibit 1). Mr. Driggers subsequently relayed this information to other members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on April 12, 1977, the Board adopted a resolution modifying a portion of the DRI development order which it had issued on January 28, 1975. The earlier order was specifically amended to delete the requirement that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the beginning of mining operations. The requirement that the secondary dams be constructed has not been altogether deleted; however, it is no longer a purpose of the dams to provide any secondary protection from a putative phosphate spill. The dams now have as their primary purpose long-range water supply and flood control. Manatee County is in effect now able to insist that Beker construct the dams at any time that the county so desires, assuming that all proper permits can be obtained. It is unlikely that the county will ever request that a secondary dam be constructed in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County did not submit the issues resolved in the April 12 order to the appropriate regional planning agency, and did not, through its order specifically consider all of the potential regional impacts of the order. The Commission concluded that the amendment did not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Following entry of the order the SWFRPC filed this appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The SWFRPC, and Sarasota County contend that the April 12 amendment constitutes a substantial deviation from the original development order, and that the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County should have entered the order only after conducting all of the proceedings contemplated in Florida Statutes Chapter 380. Beker Phosphate, Manatee County, and the TBRPC contend that the April 12 order does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Testimony presented at the hearing related primarily to the secondary dam originally proposed for construction in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. An initial waste clay settling area with a capacity of 8,848 acre- feet is proposed for construction primarily within the Myakka River watershed adjacent to Wingate Creek. Phosphate slimes would be stored above ground and permitted to settle in this area. The proposed secondary dam would have been located approximately three miles downstream from the settling area. The secondary dam would have had a capacity of 260 acre-feet. The secondary dam would thus have the capacity to contain a limited spill from the primary settling area. The secondary dam would provide no protection from a complete destruction or break down of the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of any spill from the primary area greater than 260 acre-feet. Such a spill would result in destruction of the secondary dam. Spills of less than 40 acre- feet of material from the primary settling area would have no substantial impact on areas below the secondary dam whether the dam was constructed or not. Spills of a volume between 40 acre-feet and 260 acre-feet could, without the construction of secondary dams, have an impact upon areas below the secondary dams. Turbidity caused by such a spill, and deleterious substances contained in the slime could result in substantial environmental impacts, including destruction of vegetation, and short-term and long-term fish kills at least as far down the system as upper Myakka Lake, which is located in Sarasota County. No evidence was presented to indicate that a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet from the primary settling area is likely or more than a mere hypothetical possibility. The only testimony respecting the likelihood of any spill was that if the dams surrounding the primary settling area were constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, and were properly inspected, there is no likelihood of a breakdown in the dams or of a spill. Argument was presented at the hearing to the effect that phosphate slimes could escape the settling area, or other areas within the mining operation, but there was no evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence that such leakages or minor spills would be as large as 40 acre-feet. Deletion of the requirement for construction of secondary dams prior to commencement of mining activities as set out in the January 28, 1975 development order, would constitute a substantial deviation from that order only if there were some likelihood of a breakdown in the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of some leakage at some point in the mining operations that would result in a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet of material into the Myakka watershed. No evidence was offered that would serve to establish even the remotest likelihood of such an event. The evidence does, however, establish that construction of the secondary dam in Wingate Creek would have adverse environmental consequences. The construction would take place in a viable wetlands area. The natural flow of water through the Myakka watershed would be disturbed. Construction of the dam would appear to constitute a concession that more than 4 acres of valuable and viable flood plain along Wingate Creek would be given up for the sake of the phosphate mining operations. It is possible that without the dams the result of any spill could be confined to a smaller area than that surrounded by the secondary dams. Without the dams the normal flow of water through the system will not be disturbed, and areas below the primary settling area can remain in their natural condition.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Jim and Paulette Holzinger own Lot 17, Section B, Long Beach Estates, located on Big Pine Key in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. The property is south of Long Beach Drive. The property is located within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Under these statutes, Monroe County adopted a comprehensive plan and implemented it with land development regulations which are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs approved the County's comprehensive plan in Rule Chapter 9J-14, Florida Administrative Code, and the Administration Commission approved the comprehensive plan in Chapter 28-29, Florida Administrative Code. The County's comprehensive plan is implemented through its land development regulations, codified as Chapter 9.5 of the Monroe County Code. Monroe County is responsible for issuing development orders for land development in unincorporated Monroe County, including these development orders (building permits). The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, restricts the County from permitting development which is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Sections 163.3161(2) and 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes. No person may undertake any development within an area of Critical State Concern except in conformity with Chapter 380; Section 380.05(16), Florida Statutes. After the County issued the three related permits, the Holzingers engaged Pinewood Enterprises, Inc., as general contractor, for the construction of their single-family residence. Those permits were rendered to the Department of Community Affairs on July 21, 1992, and the Department issued its notice of appeal of those permits on September 4, 1992. No party disputes the timeliness of the appeal. The Holzingers' lot is vegetated by mangroves, transitional plant species, and beach berm plant species. The site plan, and which was part of the Holzingers' application for the permits, which Monroe County approved, includes the approval of dredging of a portion of Lot 17 and the placement of fill on site to provide driveway access to the single-family residence. The site plan locates the single-family residence in an area of Bay Cedar thicket. The mangroves are located along the north of the lot along Long Beach Drive. Facts Found Based on Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The Holzingers' lot is located at the southernmost area of Big Pine Key, and is separated from the rest of the key by a wetland to the north of the property. To its south is the Atlantic Ocean. The lot is approximately 100' x 230' and contains approximately 22,750 square feet from property line to property line. On the lower keys land elevations only extend from sea level to a maximum of approximately five or six feet above sea level. The soil or substrate conditions on the lot are white calcareous deposits which appear to the untrained eye to be sand. It is not quartzite, but deposits from the breakdown of marine grasses or marine algae which have the appearance of sand. There is no caprock on the property. B (1). Habitats Recognized in the Monroe County Plan The Monroe County Comprehensive Development Plan is based upon the Data and Analysis found in volume 1 of the Plan. According to that Data and Analysis, there are different types of habitat found in the Keys. These include salt marsh, salt marsh and buttonwood association, mangrove community, tropical hardwood hammock, and beach berm complex. The most significant one here is beach berm complex; it includes: "bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of and usually parallel to the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organism such as corals, algae and mollusks. The berm may include forested costal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation." Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code [the land development regulations]. In the Data and Analysis, the County records that on Long Beach Key the most landward area of the berm is tropical hardwood hammock. The low hammocks are upland hardwood forest communities containing species such as blolly, buttonwoods, darling plums, spanish stopper and wild dilly, all of which are found on the vegitation survey of the lot done by a biologist for Mother Nature's Enterprises, Linda Pierce, as part of the Holzinger building permit application. See Section 9.5-4(L-10), Monroe County Code, which defines low hammocks. Low hammocks include berm hammock, and the beach berm association described in the County comprehensive plan includes berm hammocks (Tr. 184). B (2). The Land Use Maps and their Designations The existing conditions map which is part of the Monroe County comprehensive plan designates the area of the Holzingers' property as beach berm association. That map is drawn at the sale of one inch equals 2,000 feet. Similar aerial maps at a scale an order of magnitude smaller (one inch equals 200 feet) also show the land as beach berm with fringing mangroves. These aerial photographs have been overlaid with the Comprehensive Plan's habitat designations for use in the practical application of the land development regulations by County employees. Under the land use regulations found in the Monroe County Code, the County Commission is required to follow the existing conditions map it adopted, Section 9.5-227, Monroe County Code. Under the first paragraph of Section 9.5- 345 the environmental design criteria applicable to development of a parcel of land depend upon the habitat designated for the parcel on the existing conditions map (the map drawn at the larger scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet). Ground proofing of the habitat on the lot done by the Lower Keys' biologist, Diana Stephenson, and by the Department of Community Affairs planner/biologist, Kathleen Edgerton, show that the land is actually beach berm from the ocean to the mangroves, and there is a small area of disturbed saltmarsh landward from the mangroves to the county road which runs down the center of the key. I am not persuaded by the testimony of the biologist for the Holzingers, Mr. Smith, who believes that there is a separate tropical hardwood hammock habitat on the Holzingers' lot. A full habitat analysis would have been required if there were mixed habitats on the lot (Tr. 88, 96) and the Holzingers did not submit one to the County as part of their application. Because the County biologist found no separate low hardwood hammock habitat on the lot, she believed that no habitat evaluation index was required in processing the Holzinger application, and none was done independently by the County. Mr. Smith contended at final hearing that there are several distinct habitats on the single lot. Moving south from Long Beach Drive toward the ocean he first finds a disturbed saltmarsh of approximately 4,000 square feet; then a mangrove community of about 2,500 square feet; then a saltmarsh and buttonwood association of about 2,500 square feet; next a tropical hardwood hammock of moderate quality and finally, closest to the ocean, beach berm complex. This analysis, which designates a separate saltmarsh and buttonwood association waterward of the mangrove community, and then a separate tropical hardwood hammock waterward of the saltmarsh and buttonwood association, fails to give significant weight to the fact that low hammocks are typically found within beach berm complex. While Mr. Smith testified to the square footages for each of the five habitats, he only performed rough calculations for their size, he was not working with, nor did he perform an actual survey which would define the boundaries of the various habitats he believes are present. He readily acknowledged his preliminary habitat analysis was incomplete. Moreover, accepting for the sake of argument that there is a mixed habitat on the lot under the evidence adduced by the Holzingers, a complete habitat evaluation index should have been performed by the Holzingers as a necessary part of their application, since the County biologist did not do one in the belief there was no need for one. The essential problem with the view expressed by Mr. Smith that there are five habitats on this 100-foot lot is his contention that due to the very small changes in elevation through the Keys, one must identify different habitats recognized in the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations by assessing the predominance of different types of vegitation typical of a habitat. To Mr. Smith, if the vegitation is of a type normally found in a tropical hardwood hammock, and it predominates over the other vegitation, that area must be classified as a tropical hardwood hammock. At that level of generalization, the statement is no doubt true. Neither the land development regulations or the County's Comprehensive Plan require, or even permit, a microanalysis of the vegitation for the purpose of defining multiple habitats on a lot. Taking a broad view, such as that embodied in the existing conditions map, the predominate vegetative and soil conditions on the southern part of the island where Lot 17 is located are consistent with the categorization as beach berm association. The same is true using the aerial maps on which the different habitat designations from the land development regulations have been overlaid. What Mr. Smith has done is to look for small areas within the 100' x 230' parcel to identify areas where tropical hardwood species may be said to "predominate." The obvious purpose of Mr. Smith's division of the lot into small areas is to be able to characterize these uplands species as "predominating." This is essential to justify intensive use of the property. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not permit any use of areas colonized by mangroves, which are wholly protected by a 100 percent open space requirement. This means that 100 percent of the area colonized by mangroves must be maintained in its natural condition and free and open to the sky, Section 9.5-343, Monroe County Code. Open space ratio for saltmarsh and buttonwood associations is .85 but for moderate quality low hammocks is only .60. Beach berm association is highly protected, with an open space requirement of 90 percent. Only 10 percent of the land area waterward of the mangrove habitat, therefore, can be covered with the footprint of the single-family residence and any associated driveway or other access way because it is beach berm complex. Accepting the mangrove line contained in the vegitation assessment submitted by the Holzingers in their application done by Mother Nature's Enterprises, and then using a "planimeter" to measure the area from the mangrove line to the mean high water line on the lot, there is 16,594 square feet of property. Given the 90 percent open space requirement, a very small area of 1,659 square feet may be covered with the footprint of the single-family home, including its porch, eaves, and driveway. The footprint of the house, its porch, and driveway shown on the site plan approved by the County, with the addition of a five-foot clearing zone around the footprint of the house [because it is essentially impossible to clear land only to the footprint of the completed building] reveals that the County's permits would allow the clearing of 2,880 square feet. Even without the five-foot construction zone around the house, porch and driveway, the County permits allow the clearing of 2,172 square feet. It is very difficult to understand how the Monroe County official in charge of the office which issues building permits could have determined that the development proposed by the Holzingers was permittable. That official did not testify. The County biologist for the Lower Keys who did testify, Ms. Stephenson, was adamant that the project was never permittable under the Monroe County land development regulations. The only explanation by which the permit conceivably could have been granted would be to do something the land development regulations do not permit: aggregate the square footage which the code makes available for development on the landward side of the mangroves, in the area of disturbed saltmarsh between the road and the mangroves, and add the usable square footage for that habitat area to the usable square footage on the waterward side of the mangroves, in the beach berm association. But the amount of each habitat which must remain as open space is determined for each habitat type. They cannot be aggregated across habitats, to give some total usable number of square feet, to be cleared anywhere on the property. That would ignore the significance of the separate habitat designations. The 1,659 square feet available for development in the beach berm association must be used only within that habitat, and square footage available for development within the disturbed salt marsh cannot be added to it. Fill Issues The site plan approved by the County permits fill to be used to construct a driveway on the property through the mangrove area and the beach berm area. This is simply an error on the part of the County, for no party disputes that fill is forbidden in these areas. The performance standards in the land development regulations do permit certain piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways over mangrove areas, but no fill is permitted. Section 9.5- 345(m)(1), Monroe County Code (Tr. 139). The Holzingers could receive a permit to build a raised bridge over the mangroves for access to the beach berm association portion of the lot, as has been done on a nearby lot to the west of the Holzingers' lot. They cannot, however, fill the mangroves to create the driveway shown on the site plan the County approved. The building permit the County granted which purports to allow fill in mangrove areas is inconsistent with the County's own land development regulations and cannot stand. The next question is whether there is some alternate means of access to the lot which can be used instead of that permitted. At the final hearing Mr. Smith stated that on a recent visit to the Holzingers' property, he found an old road on the east side of the property which is high land which could serve as a location for a driveway or accessway to the interior of the Holzingers' property. There is, however, actually no old road anywhere on Lot 17. There was an old road on Lot 16, and a bit of the spoil from that road may be found on Lot 17, but there simply never has been a road on the Holzingers' lot which they can use for a driveway. Fill will be required to locate any driveway, and that is inconsistent with the County land development regulations. The only thing the Holzingers can do to overcome this problem would be to build a bridge over the mangrove area and completely avoid the use of any fill. Summary of Findings The scarified or a disturbed saltmarsh area from the county road to the mangrove area is too small to be useful. The Holzingers do not plan to build in that area. Whatever portion of that area which is not required to be open space cannot be "banked" to allow additional clearing in the beach berm association on the waterward side of the mangroves. For all practical purposes, that disturbed saltmarsh area adds nothing to the buildable or clearable area on Lot 17. The mangrove area has a 100 percent open space requirement. Mangroves are a highly protective habitat, which contribute nothing to the buildable area on Lot 17. The remaining portion of the Lot 17 waterward from the mangrove area to the mean high water line is too small to permit the construction and erection of the house and driveway permitted by the development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County. The buildable area in the beach berm association is no more than a total of 1,660 square feet for the house, its porch, the driveway. The County has issued a permit to use 2,880 square feet of that habitat (including an allowance for a construction zone), or at least 2,172 square feet, assuming the location of the house, porch, and an eight-foot wide driveway and no construction clearing around the footprint around the house/porch. This fails to meet the 90 percent open space requirement found in the Monroe County Code. The building permits issued by Monroe County to the Holzingers are therefore invalid. To obtain valid permits, the Holzingers must substantially reduce the footprint of the house, including an allowance for a construction clearing zone. A house that small may be undesirable, but it could be permitted. What the County has attempted to permit, however, is invalid under its own regulations.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that development approval for the subject lot be denied, unless the applicant presents, and the County and the Department approve, a revised permit and site plan which demonstrates compliance with the mandatory open space requirements for the beach berm and mangrove habitats, and which eliminates the placement of fill in the beach berm complex and the mangrove wetlands on site. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of July 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of July 1993. APPENDIX The Findings of Fact proposed by the Department have been generally adopted, although the long quotation from Volume I and II of the County Comprehensive Plan are not essential or necessary. See proposed finding 10. The Respondents submitted no proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie M. Callahan Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Harbor Course South is a one hundred and seventy two lot real estate development which is a portion of the Ocean Reef Club located at the extreme northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The Harbor Course South property was acquired in approximately 1964 along with over 1200 acres of adjoining property for approximately 1.5 million dollars. Driscoll Properties, Inc. ("Driscoll"), a Florida Corporation, is the developer of Harbor Course South. Driscoll Foundation, Inc., (the "Foundation") is a non-profit Florida corporation which owns a portion of the Harbor Course South property. (Driscoll and the Foundation are collectively referred to as the "Intervenors" or the "Permittees.") The Ocean Reef Club is a one thousand two hundred unit development encompassing approximately eight hundred acres including at least two eighteen hole golf courses, a marina and an air strip. Nine holes of golf are located in Harbor Course South. These nine holes were leased to the Ocean Reef Club in 1974-1975 pursuant to an agreement providing for creation of golf course lots and lake-front lots in Harbor Course South. The nine holes of the golf course located in Harbor Course South were in place by at least 1978 and have been in use since that time. In order to install those nine holes, some roads were cut through the property and the lakes were dredged. Thirty-eight of the one hundred and seventy-two lots in Harbor Course South were originally platted in 1978 or 1979. These thirty eight lots are referred to as Section 1 of Harbor Course South. All of lots in Section 1 have been sold to individual purchasers for an average price of $34,210.00 per lot. The thirty-eight lots in Section 1 were all sold prior to 1988. In approximately 1979, some roads were cleared and paved on the Harbor Course South property in order to provide access to the thirty-eight originally platted lots in Section 1. A number of the lots in Section 1 have been permitted for construction by Monroe County and houses have been constructed on several of them. No individual lot owner in Section 1 has been denied a permit for clearing at least some of his land for a homesite. Both the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ("U.S.F.W.S.") and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (the "Commission") have determined that the clearing and/or development of the lots in Section 1 will not require permits for the taking of endangered or threatened species or their nests. In 1985, the Intervenors, in conjunction with the Ocean Reef Club, sought a determination as to the extent of their vested development rights with respect to the Harbor Course South property by initiating a vested rights hearing before Monroe County. These proceedings were initiated under Chapters 380 and 120, Florida Statutes and resulted in a Joint Stipulation on February 23, 1988 recognizing that the Intervenors have vested rights to develop the Harbor Course South plats. (The Joint Stipulation is referred to as the "Vested Rights Determination.") The Vested Rights Determination recognized that the Intervenors and the Ocean Reef Club had incurred obligations and expenditures based upon the approval of the master plan for development of Ocean Reef in 1977 in accordance with the then-existing regulations of Monroe County. The expenses and improvements upon the property included the construction of roadways, water main extensions, medical facilities, and golf courses. As a result of these expenditures, the Vested Rights Determination established that the Intervenors were authorized to continue development under the master development plan for the Ocean Reef Club, notwithstanding the enactment of a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations by Monroe County on September 15, 1986. No appeal of the Vested Rights Determination was filed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs or any other party. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots in Harbor Course South were subdivided into three plats in 1986. These plats have been designated Ocean Reef Plat Numbers 17, 18 and 19 (also referred to as Sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively of Harbor Course South.) The Intervenors were not required to obtain a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission prior to subdividing and/or selling lots of the Harbor Course South property. Most of the infrastructure for development of Plats 17, 18 and 19 is in place. Paved roads were completed in 1987-1988. The electrical lines and sewer lines are in place and operational in all three plats. The water lines are in place and connected in Plat 17. The waterlines are also in place, but not connected, in Plats 18 and 19. The total area of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Harbor Course South is 134.09 acres. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots occupy approximately 53.66 acres of this total. The lots in the area are priced at an average of $127,000 each. The Intervenors have begun selling the lots in Plat 17 (Section 2 of Harbor Course South). This plat consists of twenty-five lots. No competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the exact number of lots sold or houses constructed in this area, but it appears that ten to twelve lots were sold between July 1, 1989 and December 13, 1989. At least one house has been constructed on this plat and three building permits are pending before Monroe County. Prior to selling the lots in Plat 17, the Intervenors reached an informal agreement with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission as discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 33 below. In accordance with that agreement and because there was no indication of the presence of endangered or threatened species on these lots, it was determined that none of the lots sold in Plat 17 would require the issuance of a permit from the Commission before land clearing could take place. The sales of the lots in Plat 17 were not completed until after the issuance of a Proposed Permit by the Commission for the "incidental taking" of endangered and threatened species with respect to the entire Harbor Course Property. (This Proposed Permit is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 44.) After the Proposed Permit was issued and this challenge was filed, the titles to the lots sold in Plat 17 were transferred to the purchasers. As indicated above, some of these lot owners have proceeded with the development of their property without the need of a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission. None of the lots in Plats 18 and 19 (Sections 3 and 4) have yet been offered for sale. The natural vegetation of North Key Largo, including the Harbor Course South property, consists largely of tropical hardwood hammock. The quality of the vegetation varies widely throughout the area. Development of the Ocean Reef Club has largely supplanted the hardwood hammock in that area. The golf course which is located on the Harbor Course South property was placed in the midst of the hammock. The golf course and the infrastructure for development of Harbor Course South have fragmented the hammock in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo is a unigue flora to North America, being extremely tropical in character. It is characterized by vegetation more commonly found on the tropical islands of the Carribean and is different from the tropical hammocks of mainland South Florida because of a difference in hydrology, i.e., the Florida Keys are substantially drier and have a lower water table. The hammock of North Key Largo has a very high species diversity with one hundred and five species of trees and shrubs and fifteen species of woody vines in the hammock vegetation. The ecology of a hardwood hammock is cyclical. Over the years, the hammock has demonstrated its ability to regenerate naturally. Thus, while much of North Key Largo was used as agriculture land in the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, the hammock has recovered in those areas where it has been allowed to naturally regenerate. The species of plants in the hardwood hammock are well-adopted for colonizing. The trees are "good at getting their seeds into places where they will grow." Many of the species of hammock trees and shrubs have fruits that are attractive to birds and some animals such as raccoons. These animals, birds, and raccoons eat the fruit, do not digest the seeds, but pass them in their fecal material which helps spread the vegetation. Tree growth in a young hammock is initially rapidly vertical before spreading out to provide larger coverage. A mature hammock provides a "closed canopy" of branches which affords protection and transportation for many animals including woodrats and cotton mice. As the hammock matures, there is an accumulation of humis and leaf litter on the ground beneath the trees. This humis layer serves as a seed bed for new growth and accumulates over the years. The humis layer is an important factor in assessing the quality of a hammock as habitat for endangered species. It takes decades for a hammock to fully mature to the point that it provides habitat and food sources for woodrats and similar creatures. Because of the biological richness of the hardwood hammock, as well as to protect the off-shore coral reefs from the detrimental effects of run-off from development, the State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreational Land Acquisition program, ("CARL") has designated much of area of North Key Largo at the top of the acquisition priority list. The area slated for acquisition under the CARL program extends approximately twelve miles from the point where U.S. Highway 1 enters Key Largo northeastward to the southern boundary of Harbor Course South. The State of Florida has already acquired large tracks of North Key Largo under the CARL program. These tracks include a large portion of the land on the east side of State Road 905 from Port Bougainville to the southern border of the Ocean Reef Club (Harbor Course South.) Moreover, the Foundation is currently negotiating with the State regarding the acquisition of approxiately twelve hundred acres immediately adjacent to Harbor Course South. The federal government has established the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge which embraces most of the land lying west of State Road 905 from Card Sound Road (near and west of the Ocean Reef Club) south to Lake Surprise, a distance of approximately twelve miles. In sum, a large portion of the property in North Key Largo outside the Ocean Reef Club and Harbor Course South does not have vested development rights. A vast majority of this property is, or will likely become in the near future, publicly owned for conservation purposes. Thus, large quantities of high quality tropical hardwood hammock habitat have been, or are in the process of being, acquired in the immediate vicinity of the Harbor Course South property. The hardwood hammocks of North Key Largo are inhabited by certain endangered and threatened species. The Commission has the authority to determine endangered species within the area of its jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 35 U.S.C.A. 1531, et seq. The Key Largo woodrat (neotoma floridana smalli) and the Key Largo cotton mouse (peromystus gossypinus allapaticola) are animals which can be found in the secondary growth and mature tropical hardwood forests of North Key Largo. Both the woodrat and cotton mouse as well as the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (heraclides aristodemus ponceana,) have been listed as endangered species in Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo also serves as a habitat for the Eastern Indigo snake (drymarchon corais couperi), which has been listed as a threatened species by the Commission pursuant to Rule 39-27.004, Florida Administrative Code. Rock piles, tree roots, mounds, piles of sticks, holes in the rock substrate, holes in the humis layer beneath the trees and similar hiding areas all serve as nests or "refugia" for the woodrat. A mature hammock provides an ideal habitat for the woodrat. Destruction of the habitat of the woodrat has been a key factor in the woodrat becoming an endangered species. The Key Largo cotton mouse occupies much of the same habitat as the woodrat. Although the density of the population has not been established, there is no dispute that some portions of the Harbor Course South property are populated with woodrats and cotton mice. The quality of the habitat varies significantly throughout the property. There is only limited evidence of the presence of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly on the Harbor Course South property. There have been a few citings of the species in the vicinity of Harbor Course South, but it does not appear that this property is an important habitat for the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. There is no specific evidence of the presence of the Eastern Indigo snake on the subject property. Before a lot owner in Harbor Course South can clear his homesite, the Monroe County Code requires the owner to secure a habitat analysis which must be prepared by an accredited biologist approved by the County. That analysis determines the quality of the hammock on the lot, which in turn determines the amount of vegetation which the County will allow the lot owner to clear. This requirement was in place for the first thirty eight lots that were originally platted in Section 1. Under the existing Monroe County Land Clearing Regulations, only twenty percent of a lot with high quality tropical hardwood hammock can be cleared; forty percent of a lot with medium quality hammock can be cleared and forty to eighty percent of a lot with low quality hammock can be cleared. As of the date of the hearing in this case, all lot owners in Harbor Course South who have applied for a building permit were allowed to clear at least a portion of the lot for construction of a homesite. It does not appear that any lot owner was permitted to clear more than forty percent of his lot. As indicated above, no permits from the Commission or the U.S.F.W.S. were necessary in order to clear the lots and commence building on the thirty- eight lots in Section 1. Likewise, the Commission determined that the habitat quality in the area of Plat 17 was sufficiently low that a permit would not be required for development on that Plat. However, the Intervenors were aware of the presence of endangered and threatened species in this area. Around the time that the Vested Rights Determination was obtained, the Intervenors entered into discussions with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission in an attempt to obtain an overall permit for Plat 17, 18 and 19 with respect to endangered and threatened species. During these negotiations, the Intervenors received permission from the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to proceed with development in Plat 17 even before a permit was issued. The Commission determined that the Intervenors could proceed with the development of Plat 17 without obtaining a permit because of the relatively low habitat value of most of the parcel and the apparent absence of any endangered species in this area. As part of the negotiations regarding this authorization, the Intervenors agreed to seek a permit with respect to the remaining one hundred and nine lots in the subdivision. The negotiations were prompted, at least in part, by an agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (which provides water to the area) that established certain requirements before water connections could be made to new residential property in North Key Largo. This agreement requires that, before water connections can be made to an area inhabited by endangered or threatened species of wildlife, a permit must be obtained by the U.S.F.W.S. During the negotiations, the U.S.F.W.S. indicated to the Intervenors its desire to address the conflict between the endangered species on North Key Largo and development interests in "one big conflict rather than having to handle it land owner by land owner." The Commission agreed with this approach feeling it could better protect the subject species through required mitigation by the developer which would probably not be possible or practical when dealing with individual lot owners. Although the Intervenors questioned the legality of the requirements imposed as a result of the agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, the Intervenors decided to try and work with both the federal and state agencies and attempt to meet their concerns rather than engage them in a legal battle over their authority to impose mitigation requirements on new developments. A permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission is not necessary for the Intervenors to sell the lots in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors sought permits from the Commission and the U.S.F.W.S. in a good faith attempt to cooperate with the agencies responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act and to eliminate obstacles to the clearing and development of the lots by individual lot purchasers. The U.S.F.W.S. has developed specific rules and procedures for protecting the habitat of endangered species and issuing "incidental take" permits for activities that may impact on the species or their habitat. The Commission has not adopted any rules that specifically protect the habitat of endangered species other than a prohibition against molesting or harming their nests. Similarly, the Commission has no specific rules regarding "incidental take" permits. The Intervenors filed an application with the U.S.F.W.S. on March 13, 1989 seeking a permit for covering all of Plats 17, 18 and 19. Attached as exhibits to the application were copies of the pleadings from the proceedings whereby Intervenors received their Vested Rights Determination, a summary of a proposed revegetation project to be undertaken in connection with the permit; the Harbor Course Subdivision construction plans together with construction details; a report prepared by Dr. Earl Rich regarding North Key Largo endangered rodent preservation measures; a report by Dr. Jack Stout setting forth the results of woodrat and cotton mice trapping in the subject area; and an aerial photograph of the subject area. The application sought a "permit for the incidental taking of endangered species in connection with completion of development of a residential subdivision and related site improvements surrounding an existing golf course. The area to be cleared may include habitat for the Key Largo woodrat, cotton mice, or Schaus' swallowtail butterfly." A permit has not been issued by the U.S.F.W.S. with respect to Plat 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors' application for a permit has been transmitted to the Commission. It is not clear how the application filed with U.S.F.W.S. came before the Commission for consideration. The Commission has no direct agreement with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regarding water connections. The Commission's authority for asserting jurisdiction over the development is not based on any existing rules or statutes regarding "incidental take" permits. The U.S.F.W.S. has apparently agreed to defer to the Commission with respect to the issuance of a permit for the Harbor Course South development. The U.S.F.W.S. has been kept abreast of the negotiations and terms of the Proposed Permit and has suggested various changes during the negotiation process in an effort to coordinate the conditions of the two permits. By letter dated July 24, 1989, the Commission set forth conditions for the issuance of a permit to the Intervenors which would authorize them to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, and to take Eastern Indigo snakes, "incidental to land clearing operations and building construction of single family and cluster homes" on Plat 17, 18 and 19. The permit does not authorize the killing of woodrats, cotton mice or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies. The Commission stated that the permit was being issued pursuant to Rules 39-27.002(1) and 39- 27.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. (The July 24, 1989 letter setting forth the conditions for the permit will be referred to as the "Proposed Permit.") The Proposed Permit states that the permit will inure to the benefit of the Intervenors and their "successors in title or their agents." In other words, purchasers of lots from the Intervenors would be covered by the Permit and no additional permit would be necessary to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, or to take the Eastern Indigo snakes incidental to the development of their lots. The terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit were prepared after several meetings and discussions between Commission personnel, the Intervenors' expert biologist Dr. Stout and the developers themselves. The Proposed Permit requires both on-site mitigation and off-site mitigation. The on-site mitigation requires the permanent dedication in the form of a conservation eastment of 5.94 acres in Tract E of Harbor Course South, Section 3 ( Ocean Reef Plat 18) to provide perpetual protection for the habitat for the species listed in the Proposed Permit. The exact provisions of this conservation easement are not speficified in the Proposed Permit and were not established in this proceeding. The Permit also requires specific habitat enhancement of Tract E by planting torchwood seedlings as a means to attract Schaus' swallowtail butterflies in the area of an old service road on Tract E, revegetation in accordance with specific planting instructions of another road that bisects Tract E and the placement of ten piles of rocks and logs of at least four cubic yards each in the old roadway. A ten thousand dollar surety bond or letter of credit is required to ensure compliance with the planting and debris placement provisions within three years of the date of the issuance of the permit. The Intervenors had intended to subdivide Tract E into ten additional lots to be sold as homesites. While Petitioner contends that the development of lots in Tract E may have been prohibited because of the high quality hammock on some of these lots, the evidence established that most, if not all, of the lots in Tract E will be sold and developed as individual homesites if the area is not set aside as a conservation area pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Permit. The establishment of a conservation area in Tract E will help preserve a continuous habitat area for the endangered species. Tract E is adjacent to a large track of property that has been or is in the process of being acquired by the state for conservation purposes. By requiring the Intervenors to provide rubble and debris piles and revegetation on Tract E, the Proposed Permit will further enhance the quality of the habitat in this area. The Proposed Permit requires the existing dirt road which currently cuts through Tract E to be closed and revegetated. There is no requirement that the fill installed for the road bed be removed. While Petitioners contend that such a condition is necessary for the development of this tract into high quality habitat for the endangered species, the natural regeneration of the hammock will be enhanced by the revegetation plan and this area will ultimately develop into high quality habitat. Planting torchwood in the area of Tract E, which is close to the golf course and areas that will be developed, may actually harm the survival potential of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. The butterflies are extremely susceptible to chemical insecticides. Planting torchwood in areas where insecticides will be used may create an attractive nuisance to the butterflies. Therefore, the requirement for planting should be moved to an off-site area that is remote from the development to guard against this problem. The area of the old service road should be revegetated pursuant to a schedule similar to the one used for the other revegetation area. Off-site mitigation is to be provided through the enhancement of hammock succession on five, one acre segments of the right-of-way of Old State Road 905 or an alternative similar site approved by the Commission with an area of enhancement to equal five acres. The amount of off-site mitigation was baseed upon a calculation of the amount of road surface in Harbor Course South. The Proposed Permit requires the old road bed and asphalt to be removed and the road restored to original grade. The enhancement of the site is to be accomplished by planting tropical hardwood vegetation from a specified vegetation list, adherence to specific planting instructions governing phase of planting, survival rate and watering conditions, placement of twenty rock and debris piles, (each four cubic yards in volume), removal of exotic plant species semi-annually for a five year period and removal of weedy species of trees and shrubs in an area within a radius of three feet around each planted tree over a similar time period. Four lots in Plat 18 are to be set aside as an assurance against failure to complete the planting or failure to provide an alternative site. A surety bond or letter of credit in the amount of $50,000.00 is also required to ensure compliance with the planting requirements. Old State Road 905 is currently owned by the Florida Department of Transportation. There are plans to convey this right-of-way to Monroe County which in turn plans to abandon the road, remove the road bed and asphalt, and cooperate with the restoration. Thus, it appears that Monroe County may assume responsibility for removing the asphalt road along Old State Road 905. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenor to ensure that this removal is accomplished. Old State Road 905 is utilized by some utility companies to service their utility lines. At this point, it is not clear whether the utility easements will preclude the revegetation required by the Proposed Permit from becoming effective. The Proposed Permit provides adequate procedures for selecting alternative sites in the event that Old State Road 905 can not be effectively used for a mitigation area. With respect to both the on-site and off-site mitigation, the revegatation requirements in the Proposed Permit are reasonably related to the Commission's goal of enhancing the long term survival of woodrats and cotton mice on North Key Largo. While the diversity of the flora in a natural hammock is greater than that called for in the proposed mitigation, the revegetation will accelerate the development of the mitigation areas into high quality habitat for the endangered species. While a hardwood hammock has a natural capability to regenerate on its own, the regeneration can be enhanced by planting trees in a scarified area. The revegetation required pursuant to the Proposed Permit will be placed mainly in corridors replacing old road ways. This placement will hasten the redevelopment of these areas into high quality habitat. The Intervenors are required to ensure a two year, seventy five percent survival rate for trees planted. Any trees that die are to be replaced by the species with the highest survival rate. The evidence established that the most effective way to enhance the revegetation process is to plant those species of trees that are slow to seed or that are relatively rare. It is not clear whether the planting schedule and sucession procedures attached to the Proposed Permit have taken this fact into consideration. While the diversity of species detailed in the attachments to the Proposed Permit could be reallocated between species to further enhance the revegetation process, the proposed schedules are adequate except for the requirement of planting torchwood on Tract E. Torchwood is an important habitat and food source for Schaus' swallowtail butterflies and should not be placed in an area where chemical insect control efforts are likely. As indicated above, the Proposed Permit requires a survival rate of 75% for the planted trees within two years of the initial planting. The Intervenors are also required to inspect the revegetation sites semi-annually for five years and to remove invasive exotic plants. In addition, Intervenors are required to remove weeding trees, shrubs and vines within a radius of 3 feet around each planted tree for a period of five years. Semiannual reports must be filed with the Commission for the first five years after planting to advise as to the presence of such species. There are no enforcement mechanisms in the Proposed Permit to ensure that the monotoring and removal of exotic species requirements will be completed. The bond requirements of the Proposed Permit only apply to the plantings and installation of debris piles. The requirement for removal of exotic species will help ensure that those exotic species cannot invade the mitigation sites and prevent or retard the natural hammock regeneration process. This requirement will enhance the development of a high quality hammock which will hopefully provide habitat for the endangered species. It is important that an enforcement mechanism be provided in the permit with respect to this requirement. The State Department of Natural Resources has a program for the removal of exotic plants from state lands. DNR is currently preparing a major management plan for North Key Largo and DNR employees are currently involved in removing exotic species from the right-of-way of Old State Road 905. The requirements of the Proposed Permit will augment the on-going efforts of DNR and free-up resources to focus on the removal of exotic species in neighboring areas. The Proposed Permit does not impose qualifications on the individuals who will be responsible for removing the exotic species. The permit should require the Intervenors to retain qualified people to identify the exotic species. The spacing, watering and survival rate aspects of the revegetation plan were based, in part, upon the experiences with revegetation at a previous mitigation site (the Budd Post site discussed below) and represent a reasonable effort for enhancing the revegetation of the hammock. While there is no requirement that the planted trees survive longer than two years after the initial planting, the 75% survival requirement during the first two years provides reasonable assurance that the revegetation will be done properly and with a high probability of success. General Condition 1 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Commission will review the Permit periodically and "may initiate enforcement or revocation action for any violation of the Permit Conditions by the Permittee, its agents, its employees, or representatives." There is no provision for enforcement or revocation of the permit for violations of the permit conditions by purchasers of lots or other third parties who obtain title to the property from the Intervenors. This enforcement mechanism will become essentially obsolete if and when the Intervenors transfer their interests in the property. General Condition 2 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Permit is valid "only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits." This provision is meaningless since there are no "specific processing operations applied for" and there have been no approved drawings or exhibits other than the planting schedules which are part of the revegetation aspect of the mitigation requirements. There are certain provisions of the Proposed Permit which are vague and/or ambiguous. Special Conditions 4(b) indicates that the requirements of Specific Condition 3(j) are applicable to the restoration of Tract E. Special Condition 3(j) requires the placement of twenty debris piles. However, Specific Condition 4(c) only requires a placement of ten such piles in Tract E. This ambiguity should be clarified. Special Condition 4(d) indicates that there are utility lines in the revegetation area which will have to be maintained. Under this provision, the applicant is allowed to maintain, using hand tools only, a clear path of up to eight feet wide over each utility line. It is not clear from the evidence presented how many utility lines are involved and whether a separate eight foot area can be cleared for each utility line. If several separate utility lines are involved, this provision could effectively prevent the regeneration of the area into high quality hammock habitat. Free ranging domestic pets, especially cats, are a significant threat to the endangered species. One of the conditions imposed by the Proposed Permit would prohibit free ranging pets within the subdivision pursuant to a subdivision covenant to run with the land. The specific wording of such a covenant has not been provided. The Proposed Permit does not provide for any enforcement mechanism with respect to this covenant. Some enforcement mechanism must be provided in order for this condition to provide any effective protection for the endangered species. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenors to hold four lots from sale until the off-site mitigation requirements have been met. If the planting is not accomplished within a five year period, the Intervenors are required to include these four lots as part of the conservation easement in Tract E. The lots being withheld for sale have an average market value in excess of $120,000 per lot. Thus, this requirement places a major incentive on the Intervenors to comply with the terms of the Proposed Permit. However, it is not clear whether this enforcement mechanism can be applied to the provisions of the Proposed Permit regarding the removal of exotic species. The Proposed Permit does not allow the Intervenors to kill any member of the endangered species. The Proposed Permit does allow the "incidental taking" of the threatened species (Eastern Indigo snake). The term "incidental taking" is interpreted by the Comimssion to include the killing of a member of the threatened species which is incidental to the conduct of otherwise lawful activities. The Commission contends that it has the jurisdiction to issue such an "incidental take" permit for an endangered species under appropriate conditions and mitigation requirements. The Commission did not believe an incidental take permit was necessary with respect to the endangered species on this site because the Commission felt that the habitat quality was relatively low and the likelihood of encountering a member of the species at the site was also low. The evidence established that there is a possibility that some members of the endangered species, i.e., woodrats and cotton mice, will be killed during the development and building of the subdivision. While this possibility is speculative, the chances of such a killing can be minimized by incorporating further protections in the permit. The evidence did not indicate any likelihood that East Indigo snakes or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies will be killed incidental to land clearing and/or development of Harbor Course South. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a habitat conservation plan ("H.C.P.") before it will issue an incidental take permit. A habitat conservation plan committee was established by the Governor in 1985 to prepare an H.C.P. for the North Key Largo area. The goal of the Committee is to designate areas which would be suitable for development and areas which may be necessary for conservation. A Draft Habitat Conservation Plan has been prepared, but it has not yet been officially approved. Harbor Course South is outside the study area of the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and therefore is not proposed as a conservation area. The framework and structure of the Proposed Permit reflects the Commission's desire to apply a comprehensive permitting approach to the Harbor Course South development rather than rely upon a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction with each individual lot purchaser at the time clearing or development activities are sought. The evidence established that there is insufficient indicia of woodrat or cotton mouse presence on a number of the lots in Harbor Course South. Thus, if a lot-by-lot approach was used, the Commission would not have the authority under its current rules to require a number of the individual lot owners to obtain a permit before land clearing. Without question, further fragmentation of the hammock will reduce the quality of the habitat for the endangered species. If a lot-by-lot permitting process is utilized, the owners of the lots that do not show any signs of the presence of woodrats or cotton mice would be able to clear to the maximum extent allowable under the Monroe County development ordinances. Such an approach would not halt the further fragmentation of hammock. By utilizing a comprehensive permit, the Commission can establish uniform standards for development and require stronger mitigative measures to offset the impact of development in the area on the endangered and threatened species. The approach is further justified in view of the Commission's determination that the Harbor Course South property is of only minimal importance as a habitat for the endangered and threatened species. See, Findings of Fact 80-81 below. In sum, land development and land clearing activities are likely to take place on the Harbor Course South property regardless of whether the Proposed Permit is issued. If the Commission utilizes a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction, a large portion of the lots on Harbor Course South would not be required to obtain a permit from the Commission because many of those lots do not have nests or any indication of the presence of the endangered species. Under these circumstances, the Commission would probably not be able to obtain comprehensive mitigation conditions and the habitat for the endangered species would be further fragmented with little or no mitigation. As noted above, the Commission has not adopted any rules setting forth its policies and procedures for issuing an overall blanket permit for the "incidental taking" of endangered species. Similarly, there are no formal guidelines adopted to establish when the Commission has jurisdiction over land- clearing activities. In determining whether to assert jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, the Commission looks for evidence of existing nests or habitat of an endangered species or the probability that a taking, killing or some other molestation will occur to a particular member of the species. In connection with the Proposed Permit, the Commission determined that it had the authority under Rule 39-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to issue permits for clearing and development activities that molest the nests of endangered species. As discussed below, the Commission has issued only one prior permit for land clearing and development activities. That prior permit is was not timely challenged. No rules or standards have been promulgated by the Commission to set forth the mitigative requirements that can be imposed, if any, upon individual lot purchasers. An important factor in the Commission's decision to issue the Proposed Permit in this case was the Commission's determination that the overall quality of the Harbor Course South property as habitat for the endangered species was minimal. In determining that the Harbor Course South property was of minimal importance to the survival of the endangered species, the Commission took into consideration various reports on the sparse density of the population of the endangered species on the subject property. The Commission also took into account what it deemed to be inevitable future development as reflected in the Vested Rights Determination, the fact that the site was not designated for preservation in the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, and the fact that the site was not part of the North Key Largo CARL acquisition project. Finally, the Commission considered that the site was already a highly fragmented tropical hardwood hammock as demonstrated by Landsat Thematic Mapper Classfied Satellite Imagery. The only previous instance in which the Commission has issued a permit to molest or harm the nests or habitat of endangered species pursuant to land clearing or development activities involved another residential sub-division in North Key Largo. In June of 1986, separate permits were issued by the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to the Nichols/Post Hendrix Corporation to destroy nests and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse. (The permit issued by the Commission in connection with this prior project will be referred to as the "Budd Post Permit.") The property covered by the Budd Post Permit is south of Harbor Course South. It lies approximately six miles south of the intersection of Old State Road 905 and Card Sound Road. That property consists of approximately ten acres of high quality hardwood hammock located within the project area of the North Key Largo Hammocks, CARL land acquisition program. Thus, the property was essentially surrounded by high quality tropical hardwood hammock. The Budd Post property is similar to the Harbor Course South property in that both areas run from County Road 905 east to the ocean and both tracts contain habitat suitable for use by endangered species. However, Harbor Course South is a lesser quality habitat than the Budd Post property because it is more highly fragmented and is bordered on the north by the highly developed Ocean Reef property. Overall, there was a significantly greater indication of the presence of the subject endangered species on the Budd Post Property than there is at Harbor Course South. The Budd Post Permit was the first of its kind issued by the Commission and was processed simultaneously and concurrently with the comparable federal permit from the U.S.F.W.S. As a condition to issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission required the permittee to set aside a preservation area, build debris piles to encourage nesting of woodrats and cotton mice and plant vegetation off-site to mitigate the loss of hammock habitat. A condition of the Budd Post Permit required the permittee to trap and remove the endangered species during land clearing activities. A similar condition in the Proposed Permit would help reduce the likelihood of any killing of the endangered species. The results of the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit indicate that such a plan can serve to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by providing high quality habitat and accelerating the revegetation of scarified areas. A little more than two years after the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit was implemented, it appears that the efforts are achieving their intended results. Specifically, the plants that were planted as a result of the revegetation plan are flourishing and at least some of the debris piles have been colonized by woodrats. Thus, it appears a viable habitat has been created. There is no definitive method for determining the density of population of woodrats or cotton mice at a given site. In making its jurisdictional determination with respect to the Budd Post property, the Commission looked for the presence of stick nests, (which are widely presumed to be constructed by woodrats) as the primary jurisdictional indicator. Subsequent to the issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission has recognized that stick nests are not the sole indicators of the presence of wood rats and the Commission now considers other factors as well. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a trapping study of woodrats and cotton mice as part of its permit application. The permittee for the Budd Post Permit provided the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission with a "trapping report" prepared by Dr. Stout. The Intervenors also hired Dr. Jack Stout, who is a biologist and professor at the University of Central Florida, and a similar report was prepared for Harbor Course South. The same methodology was used to trap woodrats and cotton mice on both sites. Dr. Stout concluded that the Harbor Course South property had a low density population of woodrats and cotton mice. Dr. Earl Rich, a biologist and ecologist and a former professor at the University of Miami with extensive experience researching woodrat habitat on North Key Largo, also inspected the Harbor Course South property on behalf of the Intervenors. His inspection took place after the date of the Proposed Permit. He determined that the overall quality of the subject property as habitat for the endangered species was low because of the fragmented and uneven quality of the hammock. These qualities are largely attributed to the existing intrastructure and the golf course which winds throughout the subject property. Julie Hovis, a wild life biologist employed by the Commission, performed a site inspection report in connection with the application for the Proposed Permit. While not an expert on the endangered species, she was qualified to identify certain signs of the presence of the species. She found that there was some evidence that woodrats and cotton mice were present on the Harbor Course South property. She noted that the quality of the habitat varies greatly. Her inspection and conclusions were the basis for the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over the subject site. Dr. Steven Humphrey and Dr. Numi Goodyear inspected the area on behalf of the Petitioners to determine the presence and/or density of the endangered species populations. While their studies find more evidence of the presence of wood rats and cotton mice on the subject property than the prior studies had indicated, they also conclude that the property is a mixed quality habitat for the endangered species. While there are some areas that appear to be high quality habitat, these experts recognize the fragmented character of the habitat and the effect of the golf course in disrupting the habitat and producing "islands of vegetation." The Goodyear and Humphrey studies confirm that the densities of the endangered species are lowest in areas where the hammock is highly fragmented. The Goodyear and Humphrey studies do not refute the Commission's conclusion that a significant number of the lots of Harbor Course South do not reflect sufficient indicia of the presence of the endangered species to allow the Commission to assert jurisdiction on all the property if a lot-by-lot permitting process was utilized. The Commission has concluded that the continuing development of Harbor Course South is inevitable. The Commission has also concluded that its authority over clearing of individual homesites is limited. In view of these conclusions, the Commission has attempted to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by imposing certain mitigation requirements on the Intervenors. The evidence has established that, assuming the development of Harbor Course South is inevitable, and the Commission lacks the authority to halt the development of Harbor Course South, the Commission's comprehensive approach to permitting will be more favorable to the survival potential of the endangered species than a lot-by-lot jurisdictional determination would be.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission enter a Final Order setting forth the terms and conditions for an Agreement with the Intervenors for a specific period of time as set forth in Paragraph 30 of Conclusions of Law, whereby permits will be issued for the incidental destruction and/or molestation of the nests and habitat of the subject endangered species in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit as modified in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 32 of the Conclusions of Law above. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of October, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether Permit Number 9220003617 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Jeanne and Aldo Faga is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Three areas of dispute were involved in this proceeding: Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions requiring development to be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site; Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions pertaining to construction in mangroves and submerged lands; and Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions establishing setback requirements from beach berms that are known turtle nesting areas.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Jeanne Faga and the Estate of Aldo Faga, deceased, hereafter referred to collectively as the "Fagas," are the owners of approximately ten acres of real property known as Lots 23 through 32, Block 21, Coco Plum Beach subdivision, Fat Deer Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. This property, acquired by the Fagas in 1971, has been subdivided by the Fagas into four parcels. Lots 23-24 have been consolidated and will be referred to as Parcel A. The remaining lots have been divided into Parcels B, C, and D. Grill Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation and is the general contractor for Respondent for the building permit at issue. Monroe County, Florida, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Monroe County did not actively participate in this proceeding. THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND ITS HISTORY Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (M.C.C.). While Respondent originally applied for a development permit for one residence on each of the four parcels and for an access bridge on Parcel A, the subject of this permit appeal proceeding is the development order for Parcel A only. If the project is permitted, it is contemplated that the access bridge at issue in this proceeding will provide access to the residences the Fagas hope to build on Parcels B, C, and D. The initial permit application for a residence on each of the four (4) parcels and an access bridge on Parcel A capable of use by motor vehicles was denied by Monroe County staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the staff denial to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and affirmed the denial by staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the denial by the Planning Commission to the Monroe County Commission. On July 28, 1993, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 299-1993, which reversed the denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission, and authorized the Fagas to go forward with the building permit applications. On September 23, 1993, Monroe County issued to the Fagas and Grill Construction Co. building permit number 9220003617, the development order that is the subject of this proceeding. This development order includes public works permit number 0764 and building permit number 9220003615, which address the proposed access bridge on the subject site. The development order approves the permit for the access bridge that was issued by the Department of Environmental Protection. This development order authorizes the construction of a 4,501 square foot single family home with 2,426 square feet of porches, a 813 square foot enclosure for parking and storage, fill for a driveway, a separate guest house and an elevated bridge approximately 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. The building permit issued by Monroe County at issue in this proceeding did not include construction on Parcels B, C and D. The Department timely filed its challenge to the subject development order pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. STIPULATED PERMIT CONDITIONS The parties stipulated that the following modifications to the development order would be made if the project is permitted: 2/ The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to state that the subject site plan shall include no drainage swales and no concrete slabs. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended such that the site plan shall include no fill or excavation between the proposed structures and the salt water slough, for a driveway or for any other purpose, except for minimal fill necessary for the ramp at each end of the proposed bridge. No fill or excavation shall occur within the existing mangrove habitat as depicted on the site plan and as verified in the field prior to construction. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect the guest suite be connected to the main structure (single family residence, or "SFR") by an enclosed interior hallway, atrium or the like, so as to form a single habitable unit. In addition, the Fagas will execute a restrictive covenant to run with the land which prohibits rental, sale or lease of the guest suite, or anything less than the entire single family residence. Each stairwell to the SFR will access a deck which provides uniform access to each room in the SFR, and the site plan shall include no additional independent access to the guest suite. Only minimal excavation will be allowed for transplantation on the beach berm, i.e., the absolute minimum amount necessary to transplant the native species identified in the County-approved transplantation plan. The transplantation shall occur in a manner which preserves the contour of the beach berm and ground cover resources on site and restores the area cleared for development to natural conditions which include native plant species transplanted on site. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A Most of the land constituting the four Faga parcels was "created" in the late 1950s, by depositing seaward (south) of the then existing shoreline spoil material from offshore dredging. The original "beach" in this area of Fat Deer Key (prior to the dredge and fill activities) existed just south of Coco Plum Drive, which now serves as the northern border of the Faga parcel. As a result of this dredge and fill activity, most of the dry land that presently exists on Parcels A-D was created from lands that were submerged. Additionally, the saltwater slough that exists on Parcels A-D was created as a result of this dredge and fill activity. The subject site, Parcel A, is bordered on the north by Coco Plum Drive, on the West by a multistory condominium development, on the South by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the East by Parcel B. Parcel A is rectangular, with the East - West measurement being approximately 215 feet and the North - South measurement being approximately 375 feet. The Eastern third of the central portion of the Faga parcel contains a shallow, manmade water body (the "saltwater slough"), which is fringed with mangroves. Because the saltwater slough was created by the dredge and fill activity, it is appropriate to classify the saltwater slough as a manmade water body pursuant to Section 9.5-4 9(M-4), M.C.C., which defines the term "manmade water body" as follows: (M-4) Manmade water body means a water body that was created by excavation by mechanical means under human control and shall include a canal, cut basin or channel where its edges or margins have subsequently been modified by natural forces. All of Parcel A, meets the following definition of "disturbed land" found at Section 9.5-4(D-14), M.C.C.: (D-14) "Disturbed Land": Disturbed land means land that manifested signs of environmental disturbance which has had an observable effect on the structure and function of the natural community which existed on the site prior to the disturbance. The remainder of the property, including the sandy beach area and beach berm, will be discussed in detail below. CLUSTERING REGULATIONS Section 9.5-345(a), M.C.C., requires clustering of development as follows: "Clustering": When a parcel proposed for develop- ment contains more than one (1) habitat type, all development shall be clustered on the least sensitive portions of the parcel subject to the maximum net densities of Section 9.5-262, the open space requirements of Sections 9.5-262 and 9.5-269 and the performance standards of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the sensitivity of habitat types shall be as listed with subsection being the most sensitive and subsection (18) being the least sensitive. The least sensitive part of the parcel shall be fully utilized prior to the distribution of density to the next least sensitive habitat type. High hammock (high-quality); Palm hammock; Cactus hammock; Beach/berm; Pinelands (high-quality); Salt marsh and buttonwood associations; High hammock (moderate-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (moderate-quality); Pinelands (low-quality); High hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Disturbed with hammock; Disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood; Disturbed beach/berm; Disturbed with exotics; Disturbed with slash pines; Disturbed. Landowners are required to cluster development on the least sensitive portions of their property, subject to open space requirements for the respective classifications and subject to the maximum density for a parcel. An area classified as "disturbed" has a twenty percent open space requirement. Parcel A has a maximum density limit of 2.5 units per acre. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- GENERALLY To determine whether it is necessary to cluster this development, it is necessary to determine the habitat classification for Parcel A. Monroe County has adopted an existing conditions map that purports to show the existing habitat classifications on Parcel A. The existing conditions map reflects two habitat classifications for Parcel A: open water (the area of the saltwater slough) and disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh. The area designated on the Aslan survey 3/ as the saltwater slough is properly designated as open water. The parties agree that the classification on the existing conditions map for the remainder of Parcel A as "disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh" is incorrect. The parties disagree as to the appropriate habitat classification for the portions of Parcel A landward and seaward of the saltwater slough. Brian Winchester, on behalf of the Fagas, spent in excess of 80 hours on the four Faga parcels, conducting visual observations and taking core samples. He conducted field surveys of the four parcels during July 9-11, September 23- 24, October 20-22, and November 11-12, 1992. Staff of the Monroe County Environmental Resources Department conducted a joint site visit to the parcels with Mr. Winchester on September 23 and October 21, 1992. Mr. Winchester identified each small area of the parcel that he believed justified a distinct habitat classification and, based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis (which included counting individual stems in some areas), determined whether there was a dominate species for each area. In October and November, 1992, Mr. Winchester staked the edges of each portion of Parcel A that he believed constituted a distinct habitat. Those staked areas reflecting a plant community were then measured by Aslan, Inc. and depicted on the Aslan survey. The Aslan survey also marks the mean high water line on the property and measures the topography of all four parcels. Kathleen Edgerton and Patricia McNeese, the biologists who testified for the Petitioner, disagreed with Mr. Winchester's habitat evaluation. They conducted separate on-site inspections of the property, each with the benefit of the Aslan survey, and each determined what she considered to be the appropriate habitat classifications on Parcel A. Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese were in agreement as to how the habitats of Parcel A should be classified. Petitioner's experts determined the extent of the saltwater slough and the mangrove fringe surrounding it. They determined the extent of the beach berm (which they consider to extend to the mangrove fringe on the seaward side of the slough) and determined the habitat of Parcel A seaward of the mangrove fringe. They then determined the habitat classification for the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe. Based on their on-site evaluations of the property, Petitioner's experts did not believe that the portion of Parcel A lying landward or seaward of the mangrove fringe justified more than one habitat classification. In resolving the conflicting testimony between Respondents' expert and Petitioner's experts, more weight is given to the opinions expressed by Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese because they have had extensive experience in conducting habitat classifications for lands in the Florida Keys as a part of their official responsibilities. While Mr. Winchester is an accomplished biologist, his experience in making habitat determinations in the Florida Keys is limited. The undersigned is persuaded by the testimony from Petitioner's experts that observations of species on site for making habitat determinations involve the subject parcel in larger perspective than that used by Mr. Winchester. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- LANDWARD OF THE SLOUGH Mr. Winchester expressed the opinion that the following habitat classifications exist on the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe: a small strip of land adjacent to the road that should be classified as "disturbed"; a larger strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with exotics"; and a third strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood". Petitioner's experts testified that the entire portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". This dispute is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". While exotics, including Australian Pines and Brazilian peppers, exist in different areas of this part of the property, Petitioner's experts established that other vegetation exists and that exotics do not dominate the portions of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with exotics". Likewise, it is concluded that the portion of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood" should be classified as "disturbed" since there is little salt marsh and buttonwood does not dominate. Further, there exists in this area trees and vegetation that are not typically found in an area designated as "salt marsh and buttonwood". THE MANGROVE FRINGE AND THE SALTWATER SLOUGH The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has claimed jurisdiction of the saltwater slough, an assertion that is not challenged in this proceeding. The parties disagree as to whether the saltwater slough is tidally influenced and whether the mangrove fringe around the saltwater slough meets the definition of a "mangrove community". The salt water slough consists of shallow, landlocked water over mud, sand and marl bottoms. The water level increases with heavy rains and infrequent storm tides, and decreases during periods of drought. The slough has been observed to be dry during time of drought, negating any inference of regular tidal influence. Based primarily on Mr. Winchester's observations and quantitative measurements, it is concluded that there is no regular tidal influence on the slough. That the saltwater slough is ecologically significant and provides a valuable resource for birds, especially during storms, was not seriously disputed at the formal hearing. The birds that normally use the beach will come into the slough, where they can stay within the protection of the mangroves. They feed there, and are not subjected to wave force and wind that they would receive if they were on the outside. The salt water slough is encircled by a fringe of mangroves. Mr. Winchester classified the mangrove fringe as "disturbed with mangroves". This classification is consistent with similar classifications on Monroe County's existing conditions maps, but the classification is not separately listed in the County's land development regulations pertaining to clustering because specific regulations limit development in mangroves. 4/ Whether the areas delineated by the Aslan survey as being the mangrove fringe is classified as "mangroves" or as "disturbed with mangroves" is irrelevant for determining the issues presented by this proceeding. HABITAT DETERMINATION - WATERWARD OF THE SLOUGH Section 9.5-4(B-3), defines the term "beach berm" as follows: Beach berm means a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. Parcel A contains a sandy beach, including a seaweed wrack and some low vegetation which is typical of beach berm vegetation as defined in the Monroe County Code. Behind the low vegetation, lies an area of Australian Pine trees that extends to the seaward extent of the mangrove fringe. Petitioner asserts that the beach berm on Parcel A extends to the mangrove fringe and that the proper classification for all of Parcel A seaward from the mangrove fringe is "disturbed beach berm". Respondents assert that seaward from the mangrove fringe on the east side of the parcel there is a small section that should be classified as disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood, that the area with the Australian Pines should be classified as disturbed with exotics, and that the remaining portion should be classified as disturbed beach berm. The accepted characteristics of beach berm soil, as defined in the LDRs and Comprehensive plan, are "calcareous" and "unconsolidated". Reference to the soil as calcareous refers to its origin, while the consolidation of the soil refers to its compression and its cohesiveness. The soil from the mean high water line to the mangrove fringe seaward of the slough is unconsolidated, calcareous sand. The only area that appears to exhibit consolidated soils is that which has been compacted by vehicular use in the property. Vegetation typical of beach berms is scattered throughout the parcel between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe. The area of Parcel A that lies between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe seaward of the saltwater slough, is beach berm. This portion of Parcel A is properly classified as "disturbed beach berm" as opposed to "beach berm" because the entire parcel is disturbed lands and because Australian Pines have encroached on a portion of the beach berm. CLUSTERING ANALYSIS Petitioner established that development on Parcel A (with the exception of the access structure to be discussed below) should be limited to the area landward of the slough that should be classified as "disturbed". The Petitioner established that this area of Parcel A is large enough to accommodate a reconfigured version of the development. TURTLE NESTING SETBACK Section 9.5-345(3)(f), M.C.C., provides for a setback of construction from turtle nesting areas in areas designated as disturbed beach berm as follows: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds . . . While no specific sites on Parcel A were identified as active nesting sites, the beach on which Parcel A is located is a known turtle nesting area. The expert testimony from Patrick Wells established that marine turtles most frequently nest within 50 feet of the mean high water line. The expert testimony of Mr. Metcalf established that the setback of fifty feet required in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C., should be typically measured from the backslope of any beach berm crest. If there is no beach berm crest on a parcel or if the beach berm crest is more than fifty feet from the mean high water line, the setback should be measured from a line that is parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. 5/ Mr. Winchester identified the existence of a beach berm "crest" within the area of Parcel A that is designated on the Aslan survey as disturbed beach berm. Mr. Winchester testified that he observed a three or four inch drop behind the crest and was of the opinion that the beach berm crest was formed by wind and wave action. The crest, as identified by Mr. Winchester, is marked on the Aslan survey and is just a few feet from the mean high water line. Petitioner's experts testified that there was no crest and that there was a gradual rise in the beach berm elevation from the mean high water mark to the beginning of the mangrove fringe. This conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that there is no discernible beach berm crest until it reaches the mangrove fringe. This finding is consistent with the expert testimony presented by the Petitioner, the photographic evidence, and the topographical markings on the Aslan survey. Further, this finding is consistent with the manner in which this property was created by the depositing of fill. Based on the foregoing findings, it determined that the beginning of the setback line should be from a line parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. The distance of the setback itself should be fifty feet as required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C. The development order at issue in this proceeding does not comply with the turtle nesting setback requirement. THE ACCESS STRUCTURE Section 9.5-345(m), M.C.C., authorizes construction of piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways on areas with mangroves and submerged lands. All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves are required to be designed, located, and constructed on pilings or other supports. DEP has issued a permit for the access structure that, if constructed, will be on pilings that are set in areas of the mangrove fringe and in areas of the slough. As permitted by DEP, the access structure would be 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. As noted above, the parties have stipulated that the subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The DEP permit contains appropriate special and general conditions to assure that the access structure will be constructed consistent with pertinent permitting criteria. The primary objection to the access structure raised by the Petitioner is to the width of the structure. Mr. Metcalf testified, without contradiction, that the acceptable standard in the planning profession for the maximum width for a walkway is six feet. Based on that testimony, it is found that the access structure should be authorized with the conditions imposed by DEP and as modified by the parties's stipulation, but with the additional condition that the width of the structure be changed from twelve feet to six feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and denies the subject development order number 9220003617. The permit can be approved if the Fagas choose to modify its application to conform to the findings and conclusions contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November 1995.
