The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
The Issue Whether Development Order 13-87 issued by the Monroe County Planning Commission on January 21, 1988, granting major conditional use approval to a project known as Residence Inn Resort should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Wigwam, Inc., is the present equitable owner of the subject parcel of land, is the successor to the development authorizations for a proposed hotel and marina known as Residence Inn Resort to be constructed on that parcel, and is the developer of the project. Respondent Peter Louis Edwards is the legal owner of the subject parcel of land. The subject parcel is a tract of land located at Mile Marker 52.4 on U.S. 1, on a portion of Government Lot 2, in Section 6, Township 66 South, Range 33 East on Key Vaca, Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. The site plan prepared for Ocean Resort now know as Residence Inn Resort, Marathon, Florida, by Kris Mihelich, Inc., last revision 9/3/87, pages SD-1 to SD-6 is the site plan approved by Monroe County for the subject parcel. The subject parcel consists of 4.82 acres of land above water located between U.S. 1 and the Atlantic Ocean. The subject parcel includes within its boundaries a dredged harbor at least 8 feet deep below mean sea level at mean low tide. The current Monroe County Land Use Maps show the land use designation for the subject parcel as Destination Resort (hereinafter "DR") for the oceanward three-quarters of the parcel and Suburban Residential (hereinafter "SR") for the landward one-quarter of the parcel adjacent to U.S. 1. The companion case, Residence Inn Resort v. Department of Community Affairs, DOAH Case No. 88-3469RGM (Final Order issued simultaneously herewith), is a challenge to a proposed rule of the Department of Community Affairs rejecting a portion of a Monroe County ordinance which would change the designation of the "SR" portion of the parcel to "DR" so that the entire parcel would be designated "DR." That rule challenge has been dismissed in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order. Accordingly, the designations for the subject parcel remain "DR" for the oceanward portion and "SR" for the landward portion. Even if the rule challenge had been successful thereby allowing the entire parcel to be designated "DR," the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law contained within this Recommended Order would remain the same. The Development Order under appeal in this cause, Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-87, would approve a major conditional use for the subject parcel. That Development Order would allow construction of a 96-unit hotel resort and would allow the harbor located within the property to be used as a marina. The 96-unit density is computed by including 24 transferrable development rights known as TDRs purchased by Wigwam, Inc., which increase the density on the subject parcel to 96-units. The maximum permittable density for this parcel designated "DR" in part and "SR" in part is not sufficient to allow a 96-room hotel. The maximum permittable density if the entire parcel were designated "DR," or as the parcel is now designated as partially "DR" and partially "SR," will not allow the development of 96 permanent dwelling units. Section 3-101.P-4. of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations provides that "permanent residential unit means a dwelling unit that is designed for, and capable of, serving as a residence for a full housekeeping unit which includes a kitchen composed of at least a refrigerator and stove." Section 3-101.T-2 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations provides that "temporary residential unit means a dwelling unit used for transient housing such as a hotel, motel or guestroom that does not contain a kitchen " The 96 hotel rooms approved by Monroe County in the Development Order under review herein each include a kitchen. If each unit of the proposed Residence Inn Resort is constructed with a kitchen, as Resolution 13-87 would allow, each of the 96 units would be a permanent unit. The Institute of Transportation Engineering (hereinafter "ITE") Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of traffic data that has been accumulated over a number of years by transportation engineers on many types of land uses. The data has been categorized by land use and summarized in terms of average number of trips generated by each individual type of land use. The ITE studies of trip generation rates are performed by placing a standard traffic counter with a pneumatic hose at the entrances and exits to the land use in question. The traffic counter records both hourly and daily summaries of vehicle trips over the traffic counter. The ITE trip generation rate for hotels and motels is 10.189 daily trips per occupied room. The ITE trip generation rate for hotels is 8.7 trips per room on a weekday basis. The ITE definition of a hotel for the purpose of that trip generation rate is a place of lodging, providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants, a cocktail lounge, meeting and banquet rooms with convention facilities, and other retail and service shops. The only significant difference between the proposed Residence Inn Resort and the typical hotel studied in the ITE Trip Generation Manuel is that the proposed Residence Inn Resort has a marina. All of the other proposed amenities are typically found in ordinary hotels. The proximity of the proposed Residence Inn Resort to an airport is also not unusual for hotels. As discussed hereinafter, the marina, which is the only real distinguishing feature between hotels and the Residence Inn Resort, does not qualify for approval as part of this project since it is not in compliance with the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. A hotel providing 50 or more rooms is permitted as a major conditional use in a destination resort district only if the applicant has demonstrated through a traffic impact study prepared by a qualified professional that traffic generated by the use will not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual. Section 9-213.B.1.c., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Prior to the issuance of the subject Development Order by Monroe County, Respondent Wigwam, Inc., prepared a transportation study for the proposed development. That transportation study did not demonstrate, and made no attempt to demonstrate, that the traffic generated by the proposed Residence Inn Resort would not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. On the contrary, the transportation report submitted to Monroe County simply utilized the same trip generation rates that appear in the third edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. A June 21, 1988, letter directed to Monroe County from Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan after the Development Order under appeal in this cause had already issued indicates that Monroe County simply assumed that the proposed Residence Inn Resort would have a trip generation rate 50% less than the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. No traffic impact studies submitted to Monroe County prior to the issuance of the Development Order under review in this case support such a conclusion. Respondent Wigwam, Inc., presented the testimony of two experts in the field of transportation engineering, Dan Hoyt and Richard Mercer. Both Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer had prepared transportation reports subsequent to the issuance of the Development Order under review in this cause, which concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed Residence Inn Resort would not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Both believed that the number and type of amenities included in the proposed Residence Inn Resort would be so attractive that the hotel guests would not want to leave the premises. However, Mr. Hoyt's opinion is based upon a list of amenities significantly larger than the amenities actually approved for the Residence Inn Resort. A large part of Mr. Mercer's opinion is based on the assumption that the type of people that will be guests at the proposed Residence Inn Resort simply will not want to leave the hotel, and not upon any particular merit to the amenities planned for the hotel. Both experts testified that their conclusions were based upon their overall professional judgment rather than upon specific empirical data. The Department presented the testimony of one transportation expert, Rick Hall. Mr. Hall testified that there are two methods of demonstrating an "internal trip capture rate" (the retention of guests on-site due to the number of amenities which guests would normally have to travel to off-site) that is greater than what is normally expected. The first and best method is to take empirical measurements of similar types of facilities that are already constructed. In the case of Residence Inn Resort, an existing hotel or motel with a marina located in Monroe County would be a similar facility for purposes of taking traffic generation measurements. No one has performed such an empirical study for the proposed Residence Inn Resort. The second method of demonstrating a greater internal capture rate is to move into the theoretical realm, as was attempted by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer. However, when the internal capture rate predicted by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer is tested with common sense, as was ably done on cross-examination, it is apparent that the amenities of the proposed Residence Inn hotel are not sufficient to keep 50% of the average number of trips on-site. For example, 112 trips per day would have to be assigned to the 5-table barbecue picnic area, 50 trips per day assigned to the small beach, and numerous trips to the other small amenities. Messrs. Hoyt and Mercer did not increase the number of trips off-site for persons to purchase those items necessary to utilize the barbecue/picnic area or for preparing meals and snacks in the kitchens provided in each unit, did not consider the fact that the small beach anticipated to keep the guests of the 96- room hotel on-site would only be approximately 50 feet by 150 feet once constructed, and considered no data regarding actual use by hotel guests of the proposed small sports court based upon such usage at similar facilities. A more reasonable internal trip capture rate for the Residence Inn Resort is 20% of the ITE Trip Generation Manual rate. However, this 20% is attributed to the marina proposed for the project, which marina is disapproved in this Recommended Order as set forth below. The dredged harbor within the subject parcel is at least 8 feet deep. Just oceanward of the project boundary, the undredged ocean bottom shoals to less than 4 feet at mean low tide. This area is more than 4 feet deep measured from mean sea level. A marina is permitted as a major conditional use in a destination resort district provided that "the parcel proposed for development has access to water of at least 4 feet below mean sea level at mean low tide." Section 9- 213.B.2.a., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The Land Development Regulations define the phrase "water of at least 4 feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" to mean locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean ... shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet ... Section 3-101.W-1., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The shallow water area just oceanward of the project boundary is comprised of a natural marine community of seagrass beds. The dominant species is turtle grass, also known as Thallassia. Monroe County Development Order No. 13-87 was rendered to the Department on April 7, 1988, and no earlier. The Department timely filed the Notice of Appeal and Petition in this cause. There is no basis for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in this proceeding, requiring the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to approve the Development Order issued by Monroe County which is the subject matter of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issue a Final Order: Denying the proposed 96-unit Residence Inn Resort and marina as preliminarily approved by Monroe County in the Development Order appealed herein; Providing that the proposed hotel without marina may be approved if: None of the hotel rooms contain kitchens; The density is reduced to comply with the current "DR" and "SR" land use designations; and Wigwam, Inc., is able to demonstrate a 50% reduction in trips from the motel and hotel rate as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Providing further that a different project may be approved so long as it complies with the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-3450 Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-24 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-3, 5, and 7-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 4 and 6 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 13 and 21-25 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting statements of a party's position. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 14-20 and 26-32 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Finding of Fact numbered 33 which is 2 1/2 pages long has been rejected primarily because it is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Finding of Fact numbered 34 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William J. Roberts, Esquire Roberts, Egan and Routa 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Tittle, Esquire Tittle & Tittle, P. A. Post Office Drawer 535 Tavernier, Florida 33070 Lucien Proby, Esquire Monroe County Attorney 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry Keesey, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Patty Woodworth, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Edward L. Allen, Sr., is the owner of a parcel of land, 10.32 acres in area, located in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. The property is located between the Atlantic Ocean and U.S. 1, across from the Marathon Airport. The property is undeveloped. The Allen property is presently designated DR (designation resort). Prior to the adoption of the current land use plan in 1986, the property was zoned for condominiums and apartments. Allen purchased his property in 1976. He expended $500 in early 1986 for an architectural drawing that was presented to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to support his request that the property be designated DR. He also paid his attorney "a lot of money" for services in obtaining the DR designation. He has neither applied for nor received any development permits for his parcel. He has no plans to develop his parcel, and he is holding his property as an investment. Petitioner Wigwam, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Wigwam has a beneficial interest in a 4.8 acre parcel located in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida, by virtue of a contract to purchase entered into on May 24, 1986. Wigwam's property is also located between the Atlantic Ocean and U.S. 1, across from the Marathon Airport. At present, the portion of Wigwam's property from U.S. 1 running approximately 300 feet toward the ocean is designated SR (suburban residential) and the remainder is designated DR. The SR designation of the approximately one-half acre fronting on U.S. 1 is alleged by Wigwam to be a map error not reflected in the actual rezoning application and approval. The correction of this map error is the subject of an administrative proceeding between Wigwam and the Department of Community Affairs styled Residence Inn Ocean Resort v. Department of Community Affairs, DOAH Case No. 88-3469RGM, pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the adoption of the present land use plan in 1986, Wigwam's property was designated SC (suburban commercial) and prior to that it was zoned for apartments and condominiums. Wigwam has not yet acquired title to its property under the Contract For Sale and Purchase. The Contract contemplates that Wigwam will develop the property by construction of a 96-room hotel. One condition that must be met before the buyer is obligated to close the transaction is: "Approval of the applicable zoning, fire control, planning commission and/or other public agencies and authorities exercising jurisdiction over the intended use of the Property to permit such intended use and/or development of the Property." If this condition is not met, Wigwam may terminate the Contract, and all deposits will be refunded to Wigwam. Wigwam applied for and received a development order from Monroe County that would authorize the construction of a 96-unit motel. The County's development approval was appealed to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission by the Department of Community Affairs, acting as the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and that appeal is currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings as DOAH Case No. 88-3450. Wigwam has expended $852,490 in pursuit of approval for the proposed 96-room hotel. Of that sum, $133,868 represents accrued interest, and $72,000 has been spent for transferrable development rights (TDRs). From the face of the Contract for Sale and Purchase, only $15,000 of Wigwam's expenditures to date have been for the land. The remainder has been spent for architects, engineers, attorneys, and other expenses to obtain the development order approving construction of its proposed 96-room hotel. On February 28, 1986, Monroe County enacted Resolution No. 049-1986, which adopted the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Resolution No. 049-1986 was approved, with amendments, by the Department of Community Affairs and the Administration Commission, effective September 15, 1986. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the entire County was re-designated or rezoned, including the properties owned by Petitioners. The properties owned by both Allen and Wigwam were designated DR in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. The rules challenged in this proceeding propose to change the designation on Allen's and Wigwam's properties from DR (designation resort) to SR (suburban residential). Allen may build up to 15 hotel units per acre (155 units) on his land under its present DR designation but may only build one residential dwelling unit per acre (10 units) if it is designated SR. Similarly, the 96-room hotel approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners for Wigwam's property will no longer be permitted under the proposed rules, and Wigwam would only be permitted to build one residential dwelling unit per acre (4 units) under the proposed rules. Immediately after the passage of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the Department of Community Affairs contracted with Monroe County to have Monroe County conduct a study of all properties located in Monroe County designated as DR. After the submittal of the DR report by Monroe County to the Department, several employees of the Department of Community Affairs and several employees of Monroe County reviewed the 22 properties designated as DR in Monroe County. They developed four criteria and applied the four criteria to each parcel. Based upon "balancing" those criteria, they decided which parcels should retain the DR designation and which parcels should receive a different designation. They selected 13 parcels for which the DR designation should be removed. The Allen and the Wigwam properties were among the 13. The Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs determined that he wished to amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations in several different ways. One of those ways involved reducing the number of DR designations in Monroe County. He instructed his staff to draft proposed rules to be presented to the Administration Commission to accomplish those purposes. Between approximately July and September, 1988, Monroe County's Planning Director, Donald Craig, and two other County employees met with Department employees on several occasions to assist in drafting the proposed rules. On September 30, 1988, the Area of Critical State Concern Administrator for the Department of Community Affairs directed a letter to the Planning Director of Monroe County advising him that the Department had prepared amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, advising him that the Department was required by statute to consult with Monroe County regarding changes the Department wished to have made in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and enclosing a copy of the rules drafted by the Department and County staff which are challenged in this proceeding. On October 18, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County passed a resolution reciting that the Department of Community Affairs was proposing to change, by rule, certain portions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and providing, inter alia, as follows: "The Board shall provide one of its members in attendance at such workshops and meetings as shall be scheduled by the Department of Community Affairs in order that the requirements of consultation as provided by statute shall be satisfied." On November 4, 1988, the Administration Commission published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 14, No. 44, notice of its proposed Rules Nos. 28-20.019, 28-20.022, and 28- 20.023. That notice indicated that workshops would be conducted on November 14, 15, and 16, 1988, at various locations within Monroe County and further advised that a public hearing on the proposed rules would be conducted on November 29, 1988. Although the notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly purports to contain the full text of the proposed rules, only the full text of proposed Rule 28-20.019 is included. Rules 28-20.022 and 28-20.023, the two rules which substantially amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and which are challenged in this proceeding, were not set forth, nor was there a short and plain explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rules. Instead, the notice only advised that the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations were being amended and that all interested persons could obtain a copy of the proposed rules by contacting the Executive Office of the Governor in Tallahassee, Florida. The notice of the workshops and public hearing on the proposed rules published in the Monroe County newspapers by the Department of Community Affairs contained no explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed changes but merely stated that changes were proposed to the following items: (1) contiguous lots, (2) designation resorts, (3) affordable and employee housing, and (4) land areas designated for commercial fishing. The newspaper notice advised interested persons that they could obtain a copy of the proposed changes at the Monroe County libraries and at the Monroe County planning offices. A review of the text of the proposed rules filed by the Administration Commission indicates that the proposed rules themselves fail to identify the specific changes being proposed. The proposed rules also amend Chapters 9J-14 and 20-20 of the Florida Administrative Code but only refer to the chapters in the Florida Administrative Code and the three-volume Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations being amended without setting forth the specific language of those administrative rules and of the Comprehensive Plan being amended so that the reader can ascertain the purpose and effect of the proposed rules. In other words, the administrative rules and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which were being extensively amended, were simply incorporated by reference in the proposed rules. The Summary of the Estimate of Economic Impact of the Rule published in the Florida Administrative Weekly reads, in its entirety, as follows: The cost to the Governor's Office will be limited to the cost of adopting the rule. There will be an economic impact on property owners in Monroe County if 1) they own areas presently designated as destination resort, 2) they construct projects which require employee housing, 3) they own areas presently affected by the contiguous lot provision, or 4) they own areas presently designated as one of the three commercial fishing districts. Monroe County will benefit due to an increase in property tax revenue. There will be no significant impact on competition, the open market for labor or small businesses. At the time the notice of the proposed rules appeared in the Florida Administrative Weekly, there was, beyond the aforementioned summary, no economic impact statement in existence. By the time of the workshops on the proposed rules conducted on November 14-16, 1988, the Department of Community Affairs had prepared for distribution its Estimate of Revised Economic Impacts on All Affected Persons. That economic impact statement fails to set forth the economic impact on the persons affected by the proposed rules. It merely contains general statements admitting that there will be an economic impact. As to the economic impact on persons affected such as Allen and Wigwam, the economic impact statement contains such language as the following: There is expected to be some economic impact.... Changes that affect owners of areas zoned as Destination Resort Districts include: a reduction in the maximum permitable [sic] density, a requirement for employee housing, the explicit statement of many of the requirements which such resorts would have to meet in order to be allowed to develop, and the rezoning of some properties. The reduction in allowable densities for hotel rooms in destination resorts, and other districts, may be expected to reduce somewhat the value of such properties, but this short term negative impact should be offset by benefits to all Monroe County property owners... The costs of providing employee housing are largely offset by the benefits derived from having employee housing.... Explicit requirements for destination resorts benefit the property owners and developers by reducing uncertainly [sic] and preventing investment of resources into impractical proposals. Similarly, the rezoning of imporperly [sic] zoned Destination Resort sites may reduce the speculative value of the property but will benefit the owners by giving them realistic expectations. [Emphasis added.] Contrary to the vague statements of economic impact contained within the economic impact statement, proposed Rule 28-20.023(5), Florida Administrative Code, would reduce allocated and maximum net densities for hotel units by 33-1/3 percent in all districts, including DRs. Proposed Rule 28- 20.023 (6)(A) and (B) would completely redefine the uses allowed in DR districts. The current uses include hotels of less than 50 rooms as a minor conditional use, and 50 rooms or more as a major conditional use. The minor conditional use has been eliminated entirely in the proposed rule, and all DR hotels under the proposed rule must have at least 150 rooms. The proposed rule would also add the following additional requirements to the at least 150 room hotel: Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(a): an on-site or adjacent restaurant that can seat 1/3 of all hotel guests, at maximum capacity, at a single seating; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(b): at least 2 satellite eating and drinking facilities, each with at least 25 seats; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(c): a separate banquet hall capable of seating 1/3 of all hotel guests, at maximum capacity, and functioning as a meeting/conference and entertainment area; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(d): a lobby with 24-hour telephone and reservation service; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(e): at least 6 tennis or racquetball courts (1 per 25 rooms), or a 500 sq. ft. spa/exercise room, and 2 "active" recreation facilities (list provided) and 1 "passive" recreational facility (nature trail, game room, or garden area); Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(f): water-oriented recreation facilities, including at least a 1,050 sq. ft. pool (7 sq. ft./room) or 150 linear feet of beach (1'/room); Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(h): a shuttle transport service to major tourist attractions accommodating 10 percent of the local trip requirements of employees and guests; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(i): on-site employee housing area equal to 10 percent of the floor area in guest rooms; Rule 28-20.023(6)(B)(1)(j): at least 200 sq. ft. of convenience retail, food sales, and gifts, plus 1.3 sq. ft. of commercial retail space per room for each room over 150, and other retail or services provided that there is no signage advertising on-site retail or services to the public. These proposals go beyond "reducing uncertainty" as the Department maintains in its 3-page statement. As to the data and methods utilized by the Department of Community Affairs in assessing the economic impact on persons affected by the proposed rules, the economic impact statement only states as follows: Agency experience with implementing Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, indicates that the economic impact of most of the provisions of the proposed rule will not be significant, since the development regulations are adopted and enforced by the local government. The other costs and benefit are based on estimates provided by Monroe County. [Emphasis added.] The statement that the regulations are adopted by the local government is not accurate. These proposed rules are not being adopted by Monroe County; rather, they are proposed rules to be adopted by the Administration Commission upon the recommendation of the Department of Community Affairs The text of the proposed rules filed by the Administration Commission and challenged herein is 28 pages long. On page 13, proposed Rule 28-20.023(7) reads as follows: "The Land Use District Maps are hereby altered as indicated on the maps incorporated by reference and attached to this rule as DR-1 through DR-13." Attached to the rule are 22 aerial photos and Land Use District Maps. None of them are numbered, and there are, therefore, no Land Use District Maps DR-1 through DR-13. That reference on page 13 of the proposed rule and the unmarked Land Use District Maps attached to the 24-page text are the only notice to Petitioners Allen and Wigwam that the designation DR currently applicable to their properties is being amended to SR. Although the Department of Community Affairs knew that it was proposing to the Administration Commission that the land use designation on the Allen and Wigwam properties be changed, (especially as to the Wigwam property since the Department of Community Affairs had appealed to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission the development order that Wigwam obtained from Monroe County), the Department of Community Affairs did not advise either Allen or Wigwam that the designation of their properties was being changed. Further, the Department of Community Affairs did not contact either Allen or Wigwam to determine the economic impact on those persons affected by the proposed rules, nor did it contact any other persons affected by the many changes made by the proposed rules or undertake any independent study. Monroe County Commissioner Lytton, then also Mayor of Monroe County, attended each of the three workshops conducted on November 14-16, 1988, as part of the presentation panel. Two other county commissioners each attended one of the three workshops. Additionally, the County Administrator and the County Planning Director appeared before the Administration Commission on behalf of Monroe County to urge adoption of the proposed rules. The Estimate of Revised Economic Impacts on All Affected Persons was filed with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee by the time of the final hearing in this cause. Petitioners timely filed this Petition for administrative determination of the validity of the proposed rules on November 23, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Legislature created Respondent in 1963 by enacting Chapter 63-573, Laws of Florida, codified as Chapter 348, Part V, Florida Statutes. Section 348.754(1)(a) authorizes Respondent to construct, maintain, and operate the Orlando-Orange County Expressway System. Petitioner constructs highways. In 1991, Respondent awarded Petitioner with two highway construction contracts. The two construction contracts incorporate by reference the 1991 edition of the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction ("Gray Book"). Commonly used in Florida highway construction, especially on state projects, the Gray Book is a code of standards for road and bridge construction projects. In 1993 and 1994, Petitioner requested $5 million from Respondent in extra compensation for the two construction contracts. In reviewing the requests, Respondent asked Petitioner for various documents, claiming that Article 3-8 of the Gray Book entitled Petitioner to receive these documents for audit. Article 3-8 of the Gray Book states: Upon execution of the Contract, [Respondent] reserves the right to conduct any necessary audit of the Contractor's records pertaining to the project. Such an audit, or audits, may be conducted by [Respondent] or its representatives at any time prior to final payment, or thereafter pursuant to 5/13. [Respondent] may also require submittal of the records from either the Prime Contractor, the Subcontractor or both. For the purpose of this Article, records shall include all books of account, supporting documents and papers deemed necessary by [Respondent] to assure compliance with the contract provisions. Failure of the Contractor or Subcontractor to comply with these requirements may result in disqualification or suspension from bidding for future contracts or disapproval as a Subcontractor at the option of [Respondent]. The Contractor shall assure that his Subcon- tractor will provide access to his records pertaining to the project upon request by [Respondent]. Petitioner declined to give Respondent audit access to all the requested records, taking the position that the records were not necessary and that Article 3-8 did not give Respondent the access to records claimed by Respondent. By letter dated July 11, 1995, Respondent notified Petitioner that it intended to consider whether to suspend or disqualify Petitioner from participating in future public bidding on Respondent's construction contracts. The letter advised that Respondent would hold a public hearing to consider the facts and circumstances of [Petitioner's] failure to provide contract documents requested by [Respondent]. At the hearing the Board will decide whether to suspend or disqualify [Petitioner] for its failure to comply with the Contract." The July 11 letter informed Respondent that it had the right to be represented by counsel, to present oral and written evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present rebuttal evidence. The letter prohibited ex parte communications with members of Respondent's board because they would be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Orlando-Orange County Expressway System consists of about 81 miles of multi-lane limited access highway in Orange County. Respondent's offices are in Orange County, which is where its employees work. Respondent establishes its own annual budget and sets tolls without review by the Legislature or Department of Transportation. Respondent compensates its employees without regard to State of Florida personnel policies or guidelines. Respondent's employees do not receive State of Florida health insurance benefits. They receive health insurance through the Orange County group health policy that covers all otherwise- covered Orange County employees. Transportation issues involve frequent contact between Respondent's employees and employees of the Public Works Department of Orange County and the City of Orlando. Contact between Respondent and the governments in and of surrounding counties is largely limited to participation in the Greater Orlando Metropolitan Planning Organization. In general, Respondent engages in transportation planning for, and studies the transportation needs of, Orange County, but not other counties. In 1994 the Legislature enacted Chapter 94-237, Laws of Florida. Section 11 of Chapter 94-237 created 348.7545, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which authorized Respondent to construct, finance, operate and maintain that portion of the Western Beltway known as the Western Beltway Part C, extending from Florida's Turnpike near Ocoee in Orange County southerly through Orange and Osceola Counties to an interchange with I-4 near the Osceola-Polk County line . . .. Chapter 94-237, Laws of Florida, did not expressly authorize Respondent to exercise powers of eminent domain in Osceola County. In 1995 the Legislature enacted Chapter 95-257, Laws of Florida. Section 61 of Chapter 95- 257 amended 348.7545 to allow expressly Respondent to use its eminent domain power in connection with the Western Beltway Part C. Not considering itself an agency subject to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Respondent has not complied with any requirements of Chapter 120 except for the adoption of rules governing bid protests, as provided by 120.53(5). Respondent has not adopted as rules pre-qualification procedures and requirements, disqualification and suspension procedures and provisions, or procedures for formal hearings. Respondent has adopted various rules and policies, but not in accordance with Chapter 120. As far as it is aware, Respondent has not previously considered whether to suspend or disqualify a contractor, and therefore Respondent issued the July 11 letter on an ad hoc basis.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This controversy began when respondent, Narbi International Investments Company, Inc. (Narbi or applicant), made application with respondent, Lake County (County), to rezone a 108.5 acre tract of land from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The land lies one and one-half miles west of U. S. Highway 27 and just north of County Road 474 in the southeastern part of Lake County. It is also within the boundaries of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. The purpose of the rezoning was to allow Narbi to construct a residential development to be known as Corinthian Park. After certain modifications to the project were made, including a restructuring of the project to eighty single-family residential units, the County adopted Ordinance No. 63-90 on December 18, 1990, which granted the rezoning request. Because the ordinance is a "development order" (DO) within the meaning of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the County rendered a copy of the ordinance to petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for its review. Concluding that the ordinance was inconsistent with the principles for guiding development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern as codified in Chapter 28-26, Florida Administrative Code, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (plan) and the County land development regulations, and had been improperly "rendered" to DCA for its review, DCA filed a petition for appeal of development order with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC). The petition was later amended in minor respects. At hearing, petitioner withdrew its contention that the order had been improperly rendered. In addressing the above issues, the parties have presented numerous expert witnesses. As might be expected, there is conflicting testimony on many of the issues. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and the accepted testimony is embodied in the findings below. The Parties Petitioner has been designated as the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. It has the authority to appeal any development order issued in an area of critical state concern within forty-five days after the development order is rendered to the DCA. The appeal herein was timely filed. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has the responsibility for issuing development orders for developments in unincorporated Lake County. Ordinance No. 63-90 is such a development order and is the subject of this appeal. Narbi is the corporate owner and developer of certain real property in an unincorporated part of southeastern Lake County consisting of approximately 108.5 acres. The eighty-unit project will be known as Corinthian Park. The Proposed Project and Adjacent Properties From a geographical perspective, Narbi's property lies approximately twelve miles south of Clermont, Florida, or just north of the Polk County line, and less than five miles west of the boundaries of Reedy Creek Improvement District (Walt Disney World) and Orange County. The tract of land is odd-shaped with a small part fronting on the north side of County Road 474 and the remainder extending northward through a tract of undeveloped acreage, a small part of which is an abandoned, dead orange grove. Indeed, because of three hard freezes in a seven year period, the County has an abundance of former orange grove operations that are now available for development purposes, and Narbi seeks to convert its property from agricultural purposes to a residential development. Except for the development described in the following finding of fact, the area is largely forests and wetlands, and the area surrounding Narbi's land is vacant. Approximately one mile west of the project site and to the north of County Road 474 lie an asphalt plant and excavation fill area. Both of these activities predated the designation of the Green Swamp as an area of critical state concern. In addition, a corridor of development lies along U. S. Highway 27 to the east. However, that development sits on or near the Lake Wales Ridge, which is a high, dry sandy ridge on the eastern boundary of the Green Swamp area and out of the hydrologic basin of the Green Swamp. The development in that area includes another approved residential development project known as the Greater Groves Subdivision, which was given an approval by the DCA for 150,000 square feet of retail space and 445 homes having a density of 2.75 units per acre, a large, mixed-use tract of land known as South Lake Subdivision having 8,000 units and a DCA-approved density of 13 units per acre, a travel trailer park, a campground and travel trailer park, and migrant housing. In addition, there is a 900 acre project one mile west of Corinthian Park called the Ray Ranch development which is the subject of another DCA challenge. However, at the time of the final hearing, the parties were in the process of executing a settlement agreement, the terms of which are not of record. It is noted that there was no evidence that the Ray Ranch development or any other approved project was comparable in any respect to Corinthian Park or had the same physical characteristics as are found on Narbi's land and thus those developments have no precedential value in this proceeding. The project is designed to have eighty single-family dwelling units on separate lots with a gross density of .74 units per acre. Prior to the approval of the rezoning, the site was zoned agricultural with a permitted density of one unit per five acres. Present plans call for each home, including driveways, to have a maximum 3,000 square feet. A central water system will serve the subdivision but individual septic tanks will be utilized for each home. Narbi proposes to construct the project in three phases consisting of 30, 27 and 23 lots, respectively. However, the third phase cannot be constructed until the County adopts a new stormwater management ordinance that meets the DCA's approval. After the build out is completed, approximately forty-eight percent of the acreage, or fifty-two acres, including all wetlands on the property, will be dedicated to conservation, preservation, recreation and open space areas. At the same time, eight percent of the acreage will have impervious surfaces, roads and houses, while the remaining ninety-two percent will have pervious or noncovered areas. Narbi's property contains 26.1 acres of wetlands and approximately ten acres within the 100 year flood plain. The only alteration to the flood plain will be one road crossing, and all water retention areas are to be located outside of the 100 year flood plain. In addition, stormwater runoff will be treated before going into the flood plain. The remainder of the property consists of pine flatwoods and uplands. The center of the property, which once contained a small orange grove, has been cleared. The features on this property are similar to those found on other property in the immediate area, all of which is zoned agricultural. The Green Swamp and its Significance In 1979, a part of an area known as the Green Swamp was designated by the legislature as an area of critical concern. As such, it is one of only four areas in the state given this designation. The area was accorded special protection because of its significance as a source of potable water, its function as a wildlife habitat and refuge, and its importance as a high recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer. The designated area covers approximately 900 square miles in parts of Lake and Polk Counties and consists largely of undeveloped forested and wetland areas. In addition, five major rivers originate in this portion of the State. It should be noted that all of the land in and around Narbi's project which lies west of U. S. Highway 27 is within the Green Swamp area. The Floridan Aquifer underlies the entire state except for the extreme northwestern corner. It serves as a source of drinking water for one-half of the state's population and thus constitutes the state's principal water supply aquifer. The Green Swamp is a source of recharge (or replenishment through the downward percolation of surface water into the aquifer) of the groundwater in the aquifer thereby allowing the aquifer to maintain its volume and high quality of water. A principal feature of the aquifer is a series of limestone formations which lie below the ground surface keeping the fresh water under pressure. The high point (potentiometric surface) of the pressure system occurs in the Green Swamp thus giving that area critical importance. In the area around Narbi's project, there is a layer of sand overlying the aquifer. There is also a geologic fault that allows direct connection to the aquifer. This means that in this area there is direct recharge into the aquifer with very little filtration to remove contaminants. Even where a clay layer exists over the aquifer, it is not confining because it contains cracks, fissures, and outcroppings of limestone which allow direct contact into the aquifer. Moreover, clay soils do not retain organic compounds, but allow them to filter through to the aquifer. Thus, the aquifer is vulnerable to contamination found in runoff which percolates without filtration into the aquifer. The Documents Governing this Controversy The land use element of the comprehensive plan was originally adopted in February 1977 and has been amended from time to time. It applies within the unincorporated portions of the County. On November 5, 1985, the County adopted Ordinance 1985-19 which brought the plan into conformity with all state regulations regarding the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, including the principles for guiding development. Those principles are codified in Chapter 28-26, Florida Administrative Code. It is noted that in 1986 the DCA determined that the 1977 plan, as amended through 1985, and the land development regulations, as amended through 1985, were in compliance with state law as they applied to those portions of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern within Lake County. That approval is codified in Chapter 9J-8, Florida Administrative Code. The conservation element to the plan was adopted on June 4, 1980, and sets forth various goals, objectives and policies "aimed at protecting the natural environment from misuse." There is also a compendium of land development regulations found in a document known as the Lake County Zoning Regulations, as amended 1988, which are relevant since they provide regulations governing the development of a PUD and include the zoning map which was changed by virtue of the rezoning application. Effective July 9, 1991, the County adopted a new comprehensive plan. However, Narbi's rezoning request is subject to the old plan requirements. Consistency with County Comprehensive Plan According to the amended petition for appeal, as later clarified by the DCA, Ordinance No. 63-90 is inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan in two respects. First, DCA contends that the proposed residential density for Narbi's project is inconsistent with a land use element, three general plan policies and one objective set forth in the comprehensive plan. More specifically, it contends that the approved density contravenes the conservation subsection of the plan categories for residential uses, policies 4, 10 and 11 of the general plan policies, and objective 5 of the conservation element of the plan. All of these items were specifically incorporated into the plan to provide special protection to the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. DCA also asserts that the ordinance is in conflict with Section 3.C. of the land use element (the Urban Containment Policy) in that the project would constitute or contribute to "leapfrogging and uncontrolled urban sprawl." These contentions are addressed separately below. The conservation plan category for residential uses is found in section 4 of the land use element. In all, six plan categories were established to provide a range of residential density to be used in various categories of land use, including conservation areas. As is relevant here, the conservation element provides that county lands lying within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern are determined to be of environmental value and should be "conserved". The conservation element goes on to define the term "conserve" to mean: uses such as parks, agriculture, very low density residential which will not overly damage natural conditions, as well as, "no development" use. The cited general plan policies are found in the land use plan element and were developed for the purpose of "implement(ing) the urban containment policy and to establish policies to develop the land use map, upon which the resulting zoning map will be based." Among them is policy 4 pertaining to residential development in the County. In 1985, the County amended policy 4 by adding subsection E. to provide that all residential development within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern shall conform to the principles of guiding development. Those principles of guiding development are more fully discussed in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order. Also relevant is policy 10 requiring that the County give "full consideration . . . to environmental factors . . . as they pertain to land use" and that a conservation element be established. Finally, policy 11 recognizes agriculture as an important and necessary economic activity within the County, provides that adequate and appropriate water shall be reserved for its continuance, and provides further that urban development shall be discouraged in those portions of the County presently used as agriculture. The last item cited by the DCA is objective 5 of the conservation element which pertains to environmentally sensitive areas. It establishes a goal of preserving "those environmentally sensitive areas . . . in order to safeguard Lake County's natural resources for present and future residents." The above cited provisions of the plan show clearly that the site of Narbi's project is considered to be an environmentally sensitive area which must be afforded special protection. The plan itself uses such terms as "very low density", "no development", "conserve" and "preserve" in describing the type of development to be allowed. At the same time, in order to comply with its plan, the County is obliged to give full consideration to environmental factors, discourage urban type development in portions of the county now zoned agricultural, and preserve sensitive areas for future residents. In devising residential densities for various plan categories, the County has adopted the following guidelines: Estate 1 unit per 3 or more acres Low Density 1.1 - 2.75 units per acre Medium 2.76 - 7.0 units per acre High 7.1 - 15.0 units per acre However, as noted earlier, the conservation element calls for "very low residential" density in lands to be "conserved", such as those in the Green Swamp area where Narbi's project will be located. As can be seen, there is no plan category for "very low residential", and this omission underpins in part the controversy between the parties. At hearing, the parties sharply differed on what gross density falls within the category of "very low residential". Since the plan defines "low density" residential as 1.1 to 2.75 units per acre, the County takes the position that anything below that level of density, including the proposed .74 units per acre for Narbi's project, would necessarily fall within the very low density category. Indeed, it has consistently interpreted the plan in this manner since the 1985 amendment was adopted. The DCA contends that a density of .2 units per acre (or one unit per five acres) is consistent with the conservation element of the plan. This view is deemed to be more credible and reasonable since that element refers to parks, agricultural, very low density and no development uses as being appropriate for the Green Swamp area. This interpretation of the term "very low density" is also consistent with other portions of the plan in that only scattered, residential housing was contemplated in environmentally sensitive lands, the residential density for agricultural lands is one unit per five acres and thus this residential density would be consistent with the lands surrounding Narbi's project, and the DCA's suggested density is lower than the one unit per three acres approved for estates, a category that falls between regular residential and agricultural densities. It is also noted that a one unit per five acres density would be more compatible with the objective of safeguarding the County's natural resources for future residents, and the general policies of discouraging urban type development on lands now zoned agriculture, "conserving" protected lands, and giving "full consideration" to environmental factors. Therefore, it is found that Ordinance 63-90 is inconsistent with the conservation subsection of the plan categories, general plan policies 4, 10 and 11, and objective 5 of the conservation element of the plan. The DCA also contends that the project would constitute or contribute to "leapfrogging and urban sprawl" and thus be violative of section 3.C. (urban containment policy) of the plan. That policy is found on page 1-12 of the land use element of the plan and provides in part as follows: Only limited expansion shall be approved beyond the current limits of any Urban Area or Urban Compact Node until the gross residential density of that existing Urban Area reaches two dwelling units per acre. Further, no urban development should be permitted unless the half section(s) in which it is situated be contiguous with the declared urban area. This limitation does not apply to agricultural uses requiring approval procedures, such as, conditional use permits and site plan approval in the agricultural zoning districts. The intent of this recommendation is to prevent "leapfrogging" and uncontrolled urban sprawl, but without creating an undesirably high density urban environment. * * * The urban containment policy then is the general framework upon which the Lake County Land Use Plan and the resultant implementative ordinances and policies are based. The Urban Containment Policy is based on limited growth in rural areas rather than on existing trends. Almost all proposed development is placed in or around existing urban areas, so that urban services and transportation facilities can be provided economically. Environmentally sensitive areas were avoided whenever possible as were agricultural areas. (Emphasis added) The same policy goes on to establish ten criteria for the location of urban activities. Among them are two which provide that (a) urban development should be "clustered around existing communities" and (b) "areas for rural density residential development are limited to existing areas that have low agricultural potential." It is noted that the County has classified the existing development along U. S. Highway 27 to the east of the project site as being an urban compact node. The County does not view the urban containment policy as being a barrier to the Narbi project for several reasons. First, it does not consider the project as being "urban development" within the meaning of the plan and thus believes the urban containment policy has no application. Second, in light of the high start-up costs for developing orange groves, which was the former use of a small part of the property, it sees no agricultural potential for the land. As to the first reason, the plan considers urban areas to be those areas in which residential use is more than one dwelling unit per gross acre. The plan does not have a similar provision for rural areas in terms of residential density. However, the County has historically interpreted its plan to mean that anything "non-urban" is rural. Since the plan defines the minimum threshold for residential low density in urban areas as being 1.1 units per acre, the County construes all development outside of urban areas to be rural or non-urban so long as the density is less than 1.1 units per acre. Thus, it considers the contention that the project constitutes urban sprawl to be misplaced. As to the second reason, the County forsees no agricultural potential in Narbi's property. Therefore, it views the project as being consistent with the criterion that "areas for rural density residential development are limited to existing areas that have low agricultural potential." On page 1-3 of the land use element, the term "urban sprawl" is defined as "the scattering of generally low-intensive developments in suburban and rural areas." The plan goes on to state that urban sprawl "causes severe problems for local municipalities and the County," imposes a "heavy" financial burden on local jurisdictions for added services, and "yields a low return on a large capital investment" by extending public services through undeveloped lands to outlying developments. After recognizing these adverse impacts, the policy states that its intent is to "prevent 'leapfrogging' and uncontrolled urban sprawl" especially in "environmentally sensitive areas." The County's definition of urban sprawl is similar in many respects to the definition used by DCA. Though the term is not defined by statute or agency rule, the agency has, on a case by case basis, utilized a nonrule policy of not favoring development orders which approve projects that constitute or contribute to urban sprawl. The DCA construes the term to mean a development pattern that is associated with scattered, low intensity, unplanned, uncontrolled development that is usually approved in what are generally rural areas. When this occurs, there is no coordination between such development and public facilities and services or the protection of natural resources. Put another way, urban sprawl results in the inefficient use of public services, higher costs to local government, and a lack of protection for natural resources. Thus, the policy used by DCA is rational, logical and persuasive and is supported by an adequate record foundation. There are three types of urban sprawl: leapfrog development, strip development, or single use pattern of development. Leapfrog development is described in the record as being a spot zone type of development in which vacant areas have been bypassed, and where a single development exists in an outlying area that is not contiguous or connected to an existing residential pattern. It is also a land use that is incompatible with the surrounding land uses. In this case, the Corinthian Park project falls within the category of leapfrog development. Applying the above considerations to the project in question, it is found that the project is inconsistent with the plan's urban containment policy. More specifically, the project falls within the definition of leapfrogging and urban sprawl as defined by the plan and DCA, and most importantly, the County's urban containment policy specifically recommends that this type of growth be "avoided whenever possible" in environmentally sensitive areas. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected the County's contention that the proposed subdivision is non-urban development and has accepted the DCA testimony which establishes that a level of density no greater than one unit per five acres is properly considered rural density. Therefore, the development is properly characterized as urban. Next, while the land probably has little potential for agricultural purposes as the County suggests, that consideration is but one of many in the determination of whether the project violates the urban containment policy. When weighed against the admonitions that there be "only limited expansion . . . beyond the current limits of an . . . urban compact node", that the purpose of the policy is to "prevent 'leapfrogging' and uncontrolled urban sprawl", that there be "limited growth in rural areas", and that such growth be "avoided whenever possible" in environmentally sensitive areas, it is found that Ordinance 63-90 is in contravention of Section 3.C. of the plan. Consistency With Land Development Regulations This issue involves allegations by the DCA that the proposed increase in residential density for the project is incompatible with subsection 696.20B. of the zoning code and that the site alteration criteria in Rule 28- 28.28.008(7), Florida Administrative Code, have not been met. The latter allegation has been categorized as a land development regulation issue since such regulations, if properly enacted, should require compliance with chapter 28-28. In addition, the County has cited section 696.13 of the zoning code as authorizing the approval of the rezoning application. Findings regarding the validity of these allegations are set forth below. Paragraph B.1. of Section 696.20 provides the following criterion for residential density in a PUD: Density. The criteria for establishing the residential gross density (not including natural water bodies) shall be: a. Compatibility with other zoning districts in the vicinity of subject property with adopted densities in the Lake County Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan. DCA contends that the approved density for Narbi's project is in violation of the above criterion. As noted earlier, the authorized (adopted) residential density for agricultural zoning is one unit per five acres. All of the land surrounding the site of the project is now zoned agricultural. Thus, with a proposed density of .74 units per acre, the project will be inconsistent with the adopted density for the surrounding lands as proscribed by subsection 696.20B. Even though the County's land development regulations do not specifically require compliance with Rule 28-28.008(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Ordinance 63-90 must still meet its requirements. That rule pertains to site alteration limitations in the Green Swamp area with the aim of preserving the natural drainage capabilities of major soil associations. The rule limits the amount of site alteration to the following percentages of the area of each association within any given total site: Upland association 60% Pine flatwood association 25% Wetland association 10% In other words, only ten percent of wetlands, twenty-five percent of pine flatwoods, and sixty percent of the uplands can be disturbed. The remainder of the area must remain in its natural state. As now proposed, the project exceeds the criteria for pine flatwoods and upland areas by some twenty acres. That is to say, Narbi proposes to develop approximately twenty acres of pine flatwoods and upland areas that should remain undisturbed under the rule criteria. All of the excess acreage is related to phase 3 of the project which, assuming the County prevails in this action, is still on hold until the County adopts a stormwater drainage ordinance meeting DCA's approval. It is noted, however, that even after the approval of an ordinance, there is no guarantee that this would cause DCA to waive the requirements of the rule. Section 696.13 of the zoning code prescribes a four-step process for a developer to secure final plat approval and construct a PUD. In general terms, these steps are rezoning, preliminary plat or preliminary plan, construction drawings, and final plat. As of the time of hearing, Narbi had only completed the first of the four steps. Later on in the process, Narbi will be required to give the County more detailed engineering and technical data regarding the project, and it will not be allowed to complete construction of the project until the final plat is approved and recorded. The County suggests that since phases 1 and 2 of the project meet the site alteration criteria for both flatwood areas and uplands, Narbi should be allowed to proceed with construction of the project as to those two phases, but not allowed to complete phase 3 until the stormwater drainage ordinance is approved and Narbi can demonstrate compliance with the rule and other criteria through more detailed information. Besides the fact that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to revoke the zoning once Narbi had completed two of the three phases of the project, the criteria in rule 28-28.008(7)(a) are applied to the entire project, and not just on a phase by phase basis. Thus, to demonstrate compliance with the rule, an applicant must show compliance with the site alteration criteria for the total project. In addition, approval of the stormwater drainage ordinance by itself does not necessarily mean that the rule criteria will be waived. Therefore, it is found that Ordinance 63-90 is incompatible with section 696.20 of the land development regulations and rule 28-28.008(7)(a). Consistency with Chapter 28-26 The Florida Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, has promulgated Chapter 28-26, Florida Administrative Code, which defines the boundaries of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and provides principles for guiding development within that area. These principles are designed to conserve and protect the natural environmental resources and public facilities within the designated area and ecologically linked areas and apply to all development within the critical area. The principles contain eleven objectives which are codified as paragraphs (a) through (k) of rule 28- 26.003(1). Relevant to this proceeding are the objectives in paragraphs (a)-(d) and (g) of rule 28-26.003(1), which seek to "minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas", "(p)rotect . . . ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concerns", "(p)rotect the water available for aquifer recharge", "(p)rotect the functions of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer", and "(p)rotect . . . existing ground and surface-water quality." By its appeal, DCA asserts that Ordinance 63-90 is in violation of each of those objectives and thus is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan which has adopted these objectives. The validity of this allegation turns on whether the use of individual septic tanks for each home in the subdivision will adversely affect the groundwater quality of the Green Swamp, and whether the project itself will negatively impact the groundwater and the Floridan Aquifer. In resolving these factual issues, the undersigned has discounted the County's contention that because it is prohibited by special act from regulating wastewater facilities with an average flow of less than 1200 gallons per day, and residential septic tanks have a much lower average daily flow, the County had no authority to deny the rezoning request on the ground septic tanks would be used at each home site. This is because the County has far wider authority under its plan to disapprove a project because of an applicant's failure to comply with chapter 28-26. The development order requires that, as a prerequisite to obtaining a building permit, the applicant meet the minimum requirements for septic tanks pursuant to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. That chapter, which is administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), provides minimum construction standards for septic tanks on a statewide basis, except for the Florida Keys. Under this chapter, an applicant must obtain a permit from HRS to install a septic tank. It should be noted that these statewide standards are construction standards and not performance-based standards for monitoring environmental degradation. In addition, the standards do not take into account environmentally-sensitive lands such as those having an Area of Critical State Concern designation. Thus, it is found that the chapter 10D-6 requirements are primarily intended to protect the public health as opposed to the environment. On-site sewage disposal systems are made up of two components: the septic tank component and the soil infiltrative component. The tank is nothing more than a holding tank designed to (a) separate solids and floatable materials contained in domestic wastewater and (b) allow anaerobic digestion of the organic materials by anaerobic type organisms. The remaining clear effluent then exits the tank into the soil infiltrative process, which is a network of drain pipes placed in a twelve-inch layer of gravel. The network is more commonly referred to as the drain field. The drain field distributes the effluent evenly throughout that area of land. It is then treated by the soils. After traveling through the soils, the effluent eventually enters the groundwater table. Because the drain field provides the only treatment to the effluent after it leaves the tank, it is important that the soils in which the drain fields are placed have good soil hydraulic conductivities and that the distance from the pipes to the groundwater table be adequate. In the project area where the tanks are to be placed, the water table will be only ten inches below the bottom of the drain field system. In addition, the sands in that area are Immokalee, Myakka and Placid sands and are considered either moderately or severely limited for on-site sewage disposal systems. This is because those types of sand allow the effluent to percolate through the soil more quickly than other types of soil and thus the effluent receives very little treatment prior to entering the groundwater. Comtaminants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, toxic biodegradable and non-biodegradable organic compounds are often present in domestic wastewater and, because of the soil composition and water table elevation, could be expected to enter the groundwater from the septic tanks. Chapter 10D-6 does not provide for follow-up inspections by HRS for residential septic tank systems. An inherent problem with the use of septic tanks is that property owners fail to properly maintain their septic tank systems. As a general rule, maintenance is undertaken only when the organic loading to the system has been substantial enough to make it back up in the home. In addition, a septic tank failure can go undetected long enough for the introduction of contaminants into the groundwater. Although Narbi has agreed to modify its plans and to install 1,000 gallon septic tanks and water savers for toilets and showers to reduce the loading rate in each home to 333 gallons per day rather than the average of 450, there will still be unacceptable levels of contaminants entering the groundwater without adequate treatment. This is true even if the tanks are constructed in accordance with chapter 10D-6. Therefore, it is found that Ordinance 63-90 is inconsistent with the plan in that the adverse impacts caused by the use of individual septic tanks in the density proposed for the project will result in a violation of the objectives in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (g) of rule 28- 26.003(1). The DCA also asserts that the project itself will negatively impact the groundwater and the Floridan Aquifer. As noted earlier, the project sits on the eastern edge of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. A geologic fault found beneath the surface of the ground allows direct connection to the Floridan Aquifer. At the same time, there is no confining clay layer overlying the aquifer, and the soil in the project area is of the type that provides very little filtration to harmful contaminants which percolate through the soil and into the groundwater. Nitrates are contaminants that are generated from a variety of sources, including human beings and warm-blooded animals. A large amount of nitrates can be expected to be generated in the project area thereby causing contamination of the groundwater. Although it is possible to filter nitrates through complex and expensive technology, the applicant has not proposed this curative measure. It should be noted that soils by themselves do not adequately filter nitrates out of the runoff. There are also 26.1 acres of wetlands on Narbi's property. Because of the interaction between the surface water and groundwater, it is possible over the long-term for the contaminants and runoff to adversely impact the wetlands. A lowering of the groundwater quality will indirectly lower the quality of the wetlands water or its base flow. Once contaminants enter the groundwater, they have a very long residence time. This is because the groundwater is a protected confined medium, not subject to the sun's ultraviolet radiation nor oxidation by air, and it has a very stable PH. Although Narbi has proposed to have stormwater runoff designed to meet the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) criteria, this in itself is insufficient to assure that the groundwater will not be harmed. Given these considerations, it is found that Ordinance 63-90 violates the plan in that the project will cause a violation of the objectives in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (g) of rule 28-26.003(1). I. Conditions Under Which the Project Can be Approved The evidence supports a finding that if the proposed density of the project is downsized to one unit per five acres, and all other provisions in the plan are satisfied, as well as the site alteration criteria in rule 28- 28.008(7)(a), the rezoning application may be approved.
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 rescinding approval of Ordinance 63-90; that the order state that Narbi International Investments Company, Inc. may develop the project if it reduces the density to one unit per five acres and otherwise shows compliance with all provisions in the plan and rule 28-28.008(7)(a); and that Lake County be directed to properly administer and enforce its land development regulations in accordance with chapter 380. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6599DRI Petitioner: 1. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 2. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 3. Accepted in finding of fact 5. 4-5. Accepted in finding of fact 8. 6. Accepted in finding of fact 11. 7. Accepted in finding of fact 8. 8-9. Accepted in findings of fact 14 and 15. 10. Accepted in finding of fact 11. 11-12. Accepted in finding of fact 7. Accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 15. Accepted in finding of fact 30. 16. Accepted in finding of fact 19. 17. Accepted in finding of fact 20. 18. Accepted in finding of fact 17. 19-20. Accepted in finding of fact 20. 21. Accepted in finding of fact 24. 22-24. Accepted in finding of fact 25. 25. Rejected as being unnecessary. 26-27. Accepted in finding of fact 21. 28. Accepted in finding of fact 23. 29-30. Accepted in finding of fact 26. 31. Rejected as being unnecessary. 32. Accepted in finding of fact 31. 33-36. Accepted in finding of fact 12. 37-40. Accepted in finding of fact 13. 41-42. Accepted in finding of fact 42. 43. Accepted in finding of fact 41. 44. Accepted in finding of fact 44. 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. 46. Accepted in finding of fact 43. 47-51. Accepted in finding of fact 44. 52-54. Accepted in finding of fact 37. 55. Accepted in finding of fact 38. 56-57. Accepted in finding of fact 35. 58-60. Accepted in finding of fact 39. 61. Rejected as being unnecessary. 62-63. Accepted in finding of fact 40. Respondent County: Accepted in finding of fact 5. Accepted in finding of fact 4. Accepted in finding of fact 3. Accepted in finding of fact 11. Accepted in finding of fact 14. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7-8. Accepted in finding of fact 2. Accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. The remainder is rejected. See finding of fact 43. Accepted in finding of fact 44. 12-13. Accepted in finding of fact 10. 14-15. Accepted in finding of fact 9. 16-20. Accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Accepted in finding of fact 30. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Accepted in finding of fact 11. Accepted in finding of fact 13. Accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Accepted in finding of fact 35. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 31-32. Rejected as being unnecessary. 33. Rejected as being irrelevant. 34-35. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant. Accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. The remainder has been rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 43-52. Rejected since the testimony of witness Dehan has been accepted on this issue. Respondent Narbi: Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. 4-7. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 8-9. Rejected as being irrelevant for the reasons cited in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. The last sentence is rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 11-12. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. The last sentence is rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Accepted in finding of fact 31. 17-18. Rejected as being irrelevant. The first sentence is rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. The second sentence is accepted in finding of fact 44. Rejected as being unnecessary. Accepted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Accepted in finding of fact 40. 26-29. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 30. Rejected as being irrelevant. 31-32. These matters were considered in evaluating the testimony of the witnesses. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Timothy P. Hoban, Esquire 315 West Main Street Tavares, FL 32778 Max Sabeti 4063 Goldenrod Road Suite 208 Winter Park, FL 32792
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Madeira Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
Findings Of Fact In 1987 the City of St. Petersburg sought permission to file an application for an Areawide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Intown Area. On July 23, 1987, notice was sent to each property owner within the proposed Areawide DRI. The notice indicates that a public hearing would be held on August 27, 1987, from which the St. Petersburg City Council would decide whether to authorize the City of St. Petersburg to proceed to apply for the DRI. Petitioner, John Warren, received said notice and owns property within the area encompassing the Areawide DRI. Further notices were provided to property owners within the area, including a notice of the petition filed by the City which was published in the St. Petersburg Times on July 27, 1987; a notice to property owners dated September 1, 1987, advising that the City was authorized to proceed with the Intown Areawide DRI; and three other notices regarding public hearings and consideration of the DRI. After all required notice, the St. Petersburg City Council considered the proposed Areawide DRI on December 15, 1988, and formally adopted the DRI by Ordinance No. 1072-F. The ordinance was signed on December 15, 1988. A Notice of Adoption of a Development Order was executed and recorded in the public records on December 20, 1988. The development order enacted on December 15, 1988, was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council on December 19, 1988, and to the City Clerk on December 20, 1988. A certified copy of the DRI Ordinance 1072-F as enacted on December 15, 1988, is a part of the record as Exhibit K and it is incorporated by reference. Thereafter the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council appealed the DRI pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The City and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council reached an agreement for settling the appeal and said settlement was finalized in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the St. Petersburg City Council, at its February 2, 1989, meeting, adopted the terms of the Settlement Agreement, modified Ordinance 1072-F to incorporate the settlement terms, and adopted Ordinance 1072-F as modified. Based upon the settlement and modification of the DRI by the St. Petersburg City Council, on February 7, 1989, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission entered a Final Order of Dismissal on February 20, 1989. Warren filed his Petition on Appeal on March 20, 1989. The Petition is filed pursuant to Sections 380.06(25)(h) and 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-2.002, Florida Administrative Code.
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 granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petition on Appeal filed by John Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont Patty Woodworth, Secretary Attorney at Law Planning and Budgeting 511 31st Avenue North Executive Office of the Governor St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Michael S. Davis Mirelle Murphy James Honorable Bob Martinez Mark A. Winn Governor, State of Florida Attorneys at Law The Capitol Post Office Box 2842 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Roger S. Tucker Attorney General Attorney at Law State of Florida Tampa Bay Regional Planning The Capitol Council Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Suite 209 9455 Koger Boulevard Honorable Doyle Conner St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder The Capitol Attorney at Law Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Honorable Betty Castor Suite 138 Commissioner of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 State of Florida The Capitol James C. Vaughn, Jr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Governmental Analyst Florida Land and Water Honorable Jim Smith Adjudicatory Commission Secretary of State The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Honorable Gerald Lewis Commissioner Comptroller, State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
