Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 24, 1986, Petitioner applied for conditional use approval for on-premises consumption and package sales of alcoholic beverages (4-COP) at 2160 U.S. Highway 19-North, Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned CH (highway commercial). The property in question is the site of a shopping center known as Hillcrest Center. Melon's Restaurant is located at Hillcrest Center, and Russell Latimer testified that this application would allow a package liquor store to be opened next to Melon's Restaurant to accommodate customers of the restaurant who have expressed a desire to be able to purchase alcoholic beverages to take home with them. However, the package liquor store would also be open to the general public, and would attract customers who had not necessarily eaten at the restaurant. Melon's Restaurant has been operating for approximately three years with a 4-COPSRX license serving alcoholic beverages on-premises and maintaining at least 60 percent food sales. The subject property is located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the Hillcrest Villas Apartments, which is in an area zoned RM-16 (multifamily residential). Four public witnesses who testified against this application reside in Hillcrest Villas Apartments. The front door of the residence of James F. Pannell, one of the public witnesses, is fifty feet from the back of Melon's Restaurant, and three hundred feet from the front of the restaurant. The five public witnesses, including the four residents at Hillcrest Villas Apartments and the District Manager of Florida Power Corporation which owns property to the east and north of the shopping center, oppose this application due to incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. They speculated that approval of this conditional use application would result in excessive glare from auto headlights due to increased traffic, trespass to the residential areas from customers entering and exiting the shopping center, property damage, and an increase in litter and debris. The property for which conditional use approval is requested in this case is within a five-hundred foot radius of a residential area, Hillcrest Villas Apartments. No adverse reports or comments were received from the City's traffic or police departments. Petitioner's application, if approved, would not change the parking or traffic patterns in the existing shopping center, Hillcrest Center, nor would it in any way change the set-backs, open spaces or hours of operation in the shopping center. It would, however, increase traffic to the shopping center and thereby could reasonably be expected to result in an increase in debris and litter, headlight glare, and noise associated with deliveries to the store as well as customers arriving at, and leaving, the premises. On December 16, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioner's application, and a timely appeal was taken.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation which has as its purpose the preservation of air quality in Pinellas County and in the State of Florida. Petitioner has approximately twenty members. The Department of Environmental Regulation has published notice that it is proposing to repeal its Rule 17-2.05(8), Florida Administrative Code. This rule is known as the "Complex Source Rule". It requires that permits be obtained from the Department before a facility which can reasonably be expected to cause an increase in concentrations of air pollutants is constructed. Petitioner is a party in a proceeding in which another party has submitted an application for a complex source permit. Administrative appeals of final agency action adverse to the Petitioner are being pursued. If the "Complex Source Rule" is repealed, the proceeding would be subject to dismissal. The primary focus of the "Complex Source Rule" is to regulate concentrations of pollutants that are generated by automobiles that would use a facility for which a permit is sought. There are other methods for controlling this sort of pollution. These include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which is designed to decrease the pollutants in automobile emissions; non-attainment plans designed to bring an area where pollutants exist at levels in excess of Respondent's rules into compliance; various federal monitoring programs; and mechanical alteration of motor vehicles, including installation of catalytic converters and greater fuel efficiency. Arguably, the "Complex Source Rule" would augment the desirable impacts of these other means of dealing with automobile related pollution. Petitioner has failed to establish, however, that these other methods and programs are not adequate to deal with the problems.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 23, 1986 Garth DuQuesnay, lessee, filed an application for conditional use approval with Respondent for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4-COP) at 735 South Bayway Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida. (Bayside Shores, Block C, Lots 1-10). The property in question is zoned beach commercial, "CB", and this application was numbered CU-86-83. Donna and William Kebort are owners of the real property in question, and at the time of this application DuQuesnay was their lessee, as well as the owner and operator of a business known as Dock of the Bay located on the subject real property. DuQesnay sought the conditional use approval which is the subject of this appeal because he had not been able to maintain at least 51 percent food sales at Dock of the Bay. He was operating at the time with a 4-COP-SRX approval which requires at least 51 percent food sales. The 4-COP approval sought herein does not require at least 51 percent food sales. The property in question is separated from residential property on two sides by streets. This residential area includes condominiums and residential motels. On the two remaining sides, the subject property is separated by streets from hotels, a Pick-Kwick Store, and a small shopping area. Some of the hotels have lounges and bars. The subject property lies generally between these hotels and the residential area such that the subject property is closer to the residential area than the hotels which have lounges and bars. The subject property is within two hundred feet of the residential area. The Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioners' application for conditional use approval on October 14, 1986 on the grounds of incompatibility with residential areas. The evidence establishes that at the time this application was considered by the Board, noise, unruly customer behavior, hours of operation and the proximity of Dock of the Bay to the residential area made this business incompatible with these residential uses. Shortly after the October 14, 1986 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board when Petitioner's application for 4-COP approval was denied, DuQuesnay sold his interest in Dock of the Bay Restaurant to Adriano Battaglini, and DuQuesnay has no present interest in the subject property, fixtures, equipment or inventory thereon, except as a secured creditor. On October 26, 1986 Battaglini applied for conditional use approval to maintain a family restaurant on the subject property, with at least 51 percent food sales (4-COP-SRX), and the application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18, 1986. Battaglini's application and conditional use approval was numbered CU-86-94. Donna Kebort was shown as property owner on Battaglini's application.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulation adopted by Respondent, Town of Medley (Town), by Ordinance No. C-306 on September 6, 2005, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, the following undisputed findings of fact are determined: The Town appears on a map to be located in the northern part of Dade County, south of U.S. Highway 27 and east of the Florida Turnpike, and just south of the City of Hialeah Gardens and southwest of the City of Hialeah. Besides a Plan originally adopted in December 1988, and amended from time to time, the Town also has a Code containing its land development regulations. Waste Management owns and operates a landfill in the Town known as the Medley Landfill & Recycling Center located at 9350 Northwest 89th Avenue.4 Because the landfill has been in operation since 1952, or long before the Plan was adopted, the landfill is considered a nonconforming use under Section 62-61 of the Town's Code. On September 6, 2005, the Town adopted Ordinance C- 306 which amended Section 62-61 of the Code to create a new procedure for allowing the expansion of qualifying facilities operating as nonconforming uses. (Except for Section 62-61, which is found in the Town's land development regulations, there are no provisions in the Plan itself relating to nonconforming uses.) Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, Subsection 62-61(b) provided the following limitation on the expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. Ordinance C-306 amended Subsection 62-61(b) as follows to allow for an exception to the rule against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter, may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased except as provided in subsection (d) hereof, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. To implement the exception against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses, the Ordinance further amended Section 62-61 by adding a new Subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility may be enlarged up to fifteen percent of the current building and/or land area of such use after formal approval by the Town Council via resolution according to the Municipal Code of Medley, Florida. Before approving such enlargement or increase the Town Council shall conduct at least two public hearings. The basis for calculation of such enlargement or increase shall exclude buildings and/or land areas not currently operating as a Public facility, though contiguous thereto. The new provision allows any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility to be enlarged or increased up to fifteen percent of its current building or land areas after formal approval by the Town Council by resolution. Because the Code did not define the term "Public Facilities," Ordinance C-306 amended Section 62-1 (the definitions portion of the Code) by adding a new Subsection (a), which reads as follows: "Public facilities" means major capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational, and health systems and facilities. As is evident from a reading of the definition, the term "public facilities" is not limited to solid waste facilities, but it also includes seven other types of public facilities. Gateway is the owner of real property commonly known as Medley Commerce Center, which is located in the Town immediately adjacent to and north of Waste Management's landfill. On October 6, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Town alleging that the Ordinance was not consistent with the Plan in various respects. The Town did not respond to Gateway's Petition within thirty days after receipt of the Petition. Because no response was made by the Town, on November 7, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Department requesting that the Department declare the Ordinance inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). See § 163.3213(3), Fla. Stat. The Petition referred to a Complaint filed in a circuit court case, Town of Medley v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, Case No. 03-25832 CA 13, as stating the reasons for inconsistency. Although a copy of the Complaint was not attached to its Petition, Gateway later supplied the Department with a copy. After conducting an informal hearing on December 7, 2005, on February 21, 2006, the Department issued its Determination. In general terms, the Determination concluded that the concerns in Gateway's Petition should more appropriately be raised in a circuit court action under a different provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, through a challenge to any development order or approval that authorizes the expansion of a nonconforming public facility. See Determination, paragraph 17. On March 15, 2006, Gateway filed its Request with DOAH contending generally that the Ordinance was inconsistent with the Plan and that the Department had used the wrong legal standard in determining that the Ordinance was consistent with the Plan. The City, which appears on a map to lie directly south of the Town, shares a border with the Town in the area of Waste Management's landfill property. On February 9, 2006, the City filed a Petition with the Town seeking to have the Town declare that the Ordinance was inconsistent with its Plan. The Petition raised the same issues as did Gateway. On March 2, 2006, the Town provided a response to the Petition by asserting that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel due to the Department's Determination issued on February 21, 2006. The City then waived its right to have the Department conduct informal proceedings under Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, and filed a Motion to Intervene and Incorporated Petition with DOAH on April 27, 2006. Although the City sought to intervene in Case No. 06-0918GM, the filing was treated as a new filing under Section 163.3213(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was assigned Case No. 06- 1548GM, and was consolidated with Gateway's case. Except for one additional consistency claim, discussed below, the filing raises the same issues as did Gateway. The purpose of Ordinance C-306, as expressed in Section 2 thereof, is as follows: PURPOSE: The limited increase or enlargement of nonconforming uses allowed by this ordinance is intended to further the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan found in the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element as well as the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The Plan's Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element (Element) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) identifies as its primary (and only) goal the "[p]rovision of needed public facilities in a manner that protects public and private investments in existing facilities and promotes compact urban growth." (Vol. IV, Record, page 603). Objective 1 of the same Element provides that an aim of the Plan is the "[p]rovision of sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facilities and services to meet existing and projected demands identified in this Plan." Id. Policy 1.2 also indicates that the Town is to "[i]mplement procedures to ensure that adequate facility capacity is available or will be available at the time a new development permit is issued." Id.
