The Issue Does the Petition to establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2 meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district (CDD or District) of approximately 2,080 acres, located entirely within the unincorporated area of Manatee County. The proposed District will be located generally south of the Braden River, north of the Manatee/Sarasota County line, and east of I-75, within the unincorporated area of Manatee County. The proposed District will be eligible to exercise all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. The special powers set forth in Section 190.012(2) (a-f), Florida Statutes, may be exercised with the consent of Manatee County, and pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement. Currently, the land uses in the area to be included in the proposed district are primarily agricultural (improved pasture). A former borrow pit which has been almost totally reclaimed into a lake also exists on-site. Existing land uses adjacent to the proposed District include: agricultural/shell mining/polo club to the south; vacant/agricultural to the west; a golf course community to the northwest; vacant/agricultural and residential to the north; and asphalt processing plant/agricultural to the east. All of the land to be included in the proposed District is included in either the University Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) or the Cypress Bank DRI, except for approximately fifteen to twenty acres. This additional acreage has been included in the proposed District boundaries to bring that property which will be used as right of way for a future thoroughfare within the District. The existing land uses within the proposed District are consistent with the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. The future general distribution, location and extent of land uses proposed for the District are included in the Applications for Development Approval for the Cypress Banks DRI and the University Lakes DRI, and generally include residential, recreational, community-serving commercial and business/office uses. The Development Orders for these DRIs indicate that the development within the proposed District is consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to construct or otherwise provide for a water management and control system; water supply systems; sewer; wastewater management, reclamation and reuse systems; bridges and culverts; district roads and street lighting. With Manatee County's consent, and pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement, the proposed District may also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire prevention and control; school buildings and related structures; security; mosquito control; waste collection and disposal. Once completed, some of the facilities will be owned, operated, and/or maintained by the District. Some facilities may be dedicated to other governmental entities, which will operate and maintain them. The Petitioner intends for the District to maintain roadways until dedicated to and accepted by Manatee County or some other governmental entity, at which time the County or other governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. A non-potable water system to be utilized for irrigation purposes will be owned, operated and maintained by the District. The estimated cost in 1994 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $58,599,791, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2003. The Petitioner expects that the District will issue bonds to be used exclusively to provide the capital to construct and to acquire the planned infrastructure. The bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of non-ad valorem assessments on all specifically benefited properties. Funds for District infrastructure operations and maintenance may also be generated through non-ad valorem assessments. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence Statutory Criteria for the Establishment of the District. Section 190.005 (1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the Commission to consider six factors in making its determination to grant or deny the Petition to establish the District. The evidence presented on these factors is summarized in the following paragraphs. Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its attachments, as filed with the Commission. Rex Jensen reviewed the contents of the Petition and the attached Exhibits, and approved its filing. Rex Jensen found that no changes or corrections were necessary. Michael Kennedy reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6 and Table 1 to Exhibit 7 to the Petition, and found that no changes or corrections were necessary. Betsy Benac reviewed Exhibit 8 to the Petition and determined that there were amendments to Exhibit 8. The amendments to Exhibit 8 were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, as amended, is true and correct. Henry Fishkind reviewed Exhibit 7, and found it to be true and correct. With the change set forth in the Finding of Fact 13, all statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits were shown to be true and correct. Whether the creation of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Betsy Benac reviewed the establishment of the proposed District from a planning perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. In addition, Henry Fishkind reviewed the establishment of the District from an economic perspective for consistency with the State and local comprehensive plans. Gary Moyer reviewed the establishment of the District from a management perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, Goals 10, 16, 21, and 26 of the State Comprehensive Plan, and the policies supporting these goals are particularly relevant to the establishment of the District. Goals 18 and 21 and the policies supporting those goals are relevant to the establishment of the District from an economic perspective. Goal 21 is also relevant to the establishment of the District from a management perspective. Policy 13 under Goal 10, "Natural Systems and Recreational Lands," encourages the use of public and private financial resources for the development of state and local recreational opportunities. The District may, with the consent of Manatee County, provide community recreational facilities. Goal 16, "Land Use," recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The District will have the fiscal ability and service capacity to efficiently provide an excellent quality and range of facilities and services to development in Manatee County. Goal 18, "Public Facilities," directs the State to protect the investments in public facilities that already exist, and to plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely and efficient manner. The District will provide facilities and services in a timely and efficient manner to the area within Manatee County to be served by the District, allowing the County to focus its resources outside the District and thus, provide facilities and services to County residents in a timely and efficient manner. The "Governmental Efficiency" goal, Goal 21, requires that Florida governments provide the services required by the public in an economic and efficient manner. The District will have the fiscal capability to provide quality public services to those who benefit from and pay for those services. The size and configuration of the District would allow for the delivery of these facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In addition, because it is a limited- purpose local government, the District can provide focused delivery, management, and maintenance of these services more efficiently than a general- purpose government. Goal 26, "Plan Implementation," encourages the integration of systematic planning into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. The development plan for the District contemplates the delivery of improvements in coordination with the general- purpose local governments in the area. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual Public Facilities Reports with Manatee County, which the County may use and rely on in its Comprehensive Plan. From a planning perspective, all decisions of the District are made at board meetings which are publicly noticed and open to the public, maximizing input from landowners and residents of the District. The establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable goal or policy of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the future Land Use Element, the Public facilities Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan relate specifically to the establishment of the District. From an economic perspective, the Comprehensive Plan generally requires that economic growth not burden other citizens or other units of local government. The proposed District will provide that assurance. The proposed district will provide the focused efficient and effective delivery of specific services to a defined group of county citizens. The Future Land Use Element and supporting policies provide that future land uses should be encouraged to locate in areas suited for such use, as measured by the level of public facility availability and investment. The proposed District will insure the investment necessary to provide the public facilities to handle the approved development potential of the District. The Public Facilities Element and supporting policies require that new growth pay its share of needed capital facilities, including the full cost of installation of all wastewater collection systems and water distribution systems. The proposed CDD will provide the funding for the installation of a wastewater collection system and a potable water system. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies require efficiency in service delivery through a government environment which is conducive to the efficient and effective provision of services to county citizens. The proposed district will provide the focused efficient and effective delivery of specific services to a defined group of county citizens. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any of the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy Benac, Gary Moyer, and Henry Fishkind. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 2,080 acres, located entirely within unincorporated Manatee County, and generally east of I-75 south of the Braden River, north of the Manatee/Sarasota County line. The land within the proposed District is all currently included within the approved University Lakes DRI and Cypress Banks DRI except for approximately 15 acres, which additional acreage was included in the proposed District boundaries so that property which will be used for right-of-way for a future thoroughfare is located within the District. The land within the proposed District is master planned to be a part of a functional, interrelated community with a balanced mix of uses to support the projected population. The area of land within the proposed District is bounded by major thoroughfare roads and the Braden River, and forms a compact and contiguous area creating a functionally interrelated community. From an engineering perspective, the property is sufficiently contiguous so that the proposed facilities and services can be designed, permitted, constructed, and maintained in a cost efficient, technically-sound manner. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous to allow for the efficient, cost-effective, functional and integrated use of infrastructure. From a service delivery standpoint, the proposed District is designed to have sufficient population density and size to require all of the basic facilities and services of a community. The District will provide its residents and landowners the benefits of phasing the District's services over a time frame which takes advantage of the low cost of long-term capital, as well as providing economics of scale. From engineering, planning, economics, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community. Whether the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. All five witnesses offered testimony on this criterion. It is presently intended that the District will fund the construction of water management and control systems; water supply; sewer; wastewater management reclamation and reuse systems; bridges and culverts; district roads; and street lighting. It may also, with the approval of the County, and pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, construct parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire prevention and control; school buildings and related structures; security; mosquito control; waste collection and disposal. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated to other governmental entities to own, operate, and/or maintain. The proposed District will maintain roadways until dedicated and accepted by Manatee County or some other governmental entity, at which time that governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. It is expected that the District will issue bonds to finance these services and improvements. These bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of special assessments will ensure that those benefiting from District services help pay for those services. The following five alternatives for providing the necessary facilities and services to this were identified: (1) a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU)/municipal service benefit unit (MSBU) under Chapter 125, Florida Statutes; (2) a special assessment district under Chapter 125 or 189, Florida Statutes; (3) the County; (4) the Developer; or (5) a homeowners' association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide the best focused services and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery of facilities and services; whether the alternative is a stable provider of facilities and services and can provide a long-term perspective; and whether the alternative can secure long- term financing to pay for all facilities and services at a sustained level of quality. Public Alternatives A MSTU/MSBU generally focuses on only one service or facility, which is not sufficient to serve the comprehensive development of a new community. It also requires County administration of the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Moreover, MSTU/MSBU debt is debt of the County, and MSTU/MSBU taxes count against the County's millage cap. The County would be relieved of direct administrative duties and costs related to the provision of the proposed facilities and services if the proposed District is established. In addition, District debt does not affect the County's borrowing capacity, and District taxes do not count against the County's millage cap. Although a dependent special district may provide more than one service or facility, it would still require County involvement, and dependent special district taxes would count against the County's millage cap. Debts incurred by a dependent special district are debts of the County, as are those of the MSTU/MSBU. In contrast, debts of a CDD are not debts of the County, and CDD taxes do not affect the County millage cap. The County, is not well equipped to address the special services and facility needs of individual communities. The responsibility for planning, financing, implementing and operations of the community would rest on the Board of County Commissioners. The County government is not set up to handle this kind of community-specific, long-range planning. If the County finds it difficult to deal with growth, it may divert attention and resources from existing communities to other areas where development is just starting. It is unlikely the County would be able to provide stable financing and management for facilities and services to the proposed District. Private Alternatives The District is also superior to the Developer or a Homeowners' Association in the provision of long-term financing of infrastructure. Neither the Developer nor a homeowner's association would have the power to levy and collect taxes. In contrast, the ability of the proposed District to obtain long-term, fixed rate financing is the least costly method of financing available in the current market. There would be no continuity of management functions. The developer would have responsibility for the planning, financing and implementing of the infrastructure and the homeowners association would manage and operate the infrastructure. This would limit the Developer's incentive to plan for contingencies during the operating and management phases. SMR Communities has experience in working with an existing CDD, and an officer of SMR Communities testified that the Lakewood Ranch CDD 1 has been successful in obtaining financing and constructing infrastructure for the planned residential community. SMR Communities expects that the proposed Lakewood Ranch CDD 2 will similarly benefit its landowners and residents in the years ahead, particularly as SMR Communities ceases to be the major landowner. None of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost- efficient, focused delivery and long-term maintenance and management of the proposed public facilities as would the District. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community services and facilities to the area. Whether the community development services and facilities of the District will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy Benac, Gary Moyer and Henry Fishkind. There is no planned duplication of facilities and services. There is a potable water main and a wastewater force main under construction by the County which will serve the proposed District. The District will supply the additional facilities and services necessary for development that are not provided by local general-purpose government or other governmental entities. The facilities to be constructed by the proposed District will be integrated with the existing facilities, and some of these facilities will be dedicated to Manatee County. Manatee County presently does not maintain a stormwater management system servicing the area within the proposed District. Given this area's location within a potable watershed, the long-term maintenance of the stormwater system is a critical component which will be provided by the District. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to State or County standards and must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, building codes, and land development regulations. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Testimony on this criteria was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy Benac, Gary Moyer, and Henry Fishkind. From a planning perspective, the area to be served by the District requires basic infrastructure for development to occur. The District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to allow infrastructure to be provided and maintained in an efficient and cost effective manner. These services and infrastructure have been carefully planned to avoid duplication of existing local and regional facilities and services and to maximize efficiency of cost and effort to deliver such improvements. From an engineering perspective, having a separate unit of special- purpose government enhances the orderly provision of facilities and their long- term maintenance as well as the ability of the government to respond to the needs of the residents of the District. From a financial perspective, it is expected that the District will levy assessments and fees on the landowners and residents within the District who benefit from the improvements in order to fund the construction and maintenance of the improvements. The District will not be dependent on the County for funding, nor is the County liable for any obligations of the District. Therefore, it is more economically and functionally efficient to have a separate special-district government to manage the activities related to the improvements to the land within the District. From a management perspective, the proposed District requires basic infrastructure; is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; is sufficiently compact and contiguous and of sufficient size to allow for the provision and maintenance of infrastructure in an efficient, cost-effective manner; and is the best alternative for providing public facilities and services; therefore, it is amenable to separate, special-district government. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the establishment of the District meets all of the statutory criteria in Section 190.005(l)(e), Florida Statutes. Public Comment on the Petition. Public comment was received at the public hearing. Mr. Arun Gade asked for clarification concerning the repayment of the bonds which the proposed District intends to issue. The bonds will be repaid by special assessments placed on the underlying, benefited property, by the District. The assessments will be paid by the owners of the property. Agency Comment on the Petition. The Secretary of the Commission distributed copies of the Petition to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) and requested that these agencies review the Petition. By letter dated January 10, 1995, Secretary Linda Shelley of the DCA replied that the Department had completed its review of the Petition and had no objections to the proposed CDD. Secretary Shelley further stated that the development proposed for the area within the District had been reviewed and determined consistent with Chapters 163, Part II and 380.06, Florida Statutes The TBRPC responded to the Commission Secretary's request by letter dated January 6, 1995. The TBRPC stated that it had reviewed the Petition, and found it consistent with the approved Development Orders for the property located within the District. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose certain specific requirements set forth below regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition Section 190.005(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains such a description. This statutory section also requires that any property within the external boundaries of the District which is to be excluded from the District be specifically described. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 includes this information. There is no real property located within the external boundaries of the proposed District which is to be excluded from the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the written consent to establishment of the District of the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains the written consent of Schroeder- Manatee Ranch, Inc., the owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the proposed District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the names of the five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, who will serve on the initial Board of Supervisors. The five persons designated in the Petition, and their addresses are: Rex Jensen 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 C. John Clarke 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 Mary Fran Carroll 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 Roger Hill 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 Anthony Chiofalo 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition contain the proposed name for the District. The Petition provides that the proposed name of the District to be established is "Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2". Section 190.005(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if in existence. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains a map of the proposed District showing information concerning existing and proposed major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors, and outfalls. Section 190.005(1)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and the estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains this information in a table entitled "Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2: Proposed Infrastructure Construction Cost Estimate and Timing". Section 190.005(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. This has been designated by the Future Land Use Plan Element of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 provides this information. In addition, the future general distribution, location and extent of land uses for the proposed District were identified in the Applications for Development Approval for the Cypress Banks DRI and the University Lakes DRI. The Petition contains all information required by Section 190.005(i)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement Section 190.005(1)(a)8., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to include an economic impact statement (EIS) which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes The EIS prepared by the Petitioner is attached to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12. The Petitioner's EIS meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)1. and 120.54(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, that an EIS include an estimate of the costs and benefits of the establishment of the District to all affected agencies and persons. It concludes that the economic benefits of establishing the District exceed the economic costs to all affected agencies and persons. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption and review of reports to be submitted by the District, the State and its citizens will incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no subsidies from the State to fund District improvements. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, as well as long-term professional management and maintenance of District facilities. Costs to Manatee County and its citizens for the establishment and operation of the District will be offset by the $15,000 filing fee and other fees paid by the Petitioner or the District. The County will not be responsible for the debt service on any bonds used to fund District improvements. Citizens of the County will receive the benefits of planned development, and the County will be relieved of the fiscal and administrative burden of providing the improvements provided by the District. The Petitioner will incur substantial costs to create the District and will pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments as the largest landowner in the District in the initial stages of development. In addition, the Petitioner will provide most rights-of-way and easements. The Petitioner will benefit from the establishment of the District because of a more efficient cost of management of infrastructure, increased flexibility in meeting the demands of the marketplace, and tax exempt financing for infrastructure. Landowners within the District will pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities; however, these facilities will be required for development regardless of the existence of the District. Benefits to these landowners/consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of improvements provided by the District on a timely basis, and a share of control over decisions involving community development services and facilities. The EIS also meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)3. and 120.54(2)(c)4., Florida Statutes, because the EIS includes an estimate of the impact of the proposed rule on competition, the open market for employment, and on small business, as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. The implementation of this rule is expected to have a positive impact on competition, and is expected to have only a nominal, positive effect on the open market for employment and small business. The EIS also meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)5., Florida Statutes, because the statement includes a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of not adopting the rule. Where there are reasonable alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the rule which are not precluded by law, Sections 120.54(2)(c)6. and 120.54(2)(c)7., Florida Statutes, require that an EIS describe these alternatives and make a determination of whether any of the alternatives are less costly or less intrusive than the proposed method. Petitioner's EIS meets these requirements and concludes that none of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery, and long-term management and maintenance of the public facilities and services to be provided by the District. The District is the preferred alternative because it is a special-purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned, new communities. The EIS meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)8., Florida Statutes, because the EIS includes a detailed statement of the data and methodology used in preparing the analysis. The Petitioner's EIS meets all the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with Section 190.005(1)(b) Florida Statutes, which requires that the Petitioner submit a copy of the Petition and pay a filing fee to the local general-purpose government. Section 190.005(l)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Manatee County for four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the Bradenton Herald for four consecutive Thursdays, beginning on January 26, 1995. Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code , requires the Commission to cause to be published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice was published on January 20, 1995. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code , requires the Petitioner to furnish proof of publication of the Notice of Local Hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The Affidavit of Publication was transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission as required on February 21, 1995. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires the Petitioner to mail a copy of the Notice of Local Hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notices were mailed as required by the rule.
Conclusions A local public hearing in this proceeding was held before William R. Cave, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 23, 1995, at the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 500 15th Street West, Bradenton, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of SMR Communities (Petitioner) to establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2 (District). This Report of Findings and Conclusions (report) is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Administrative Code, establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2 as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Exhibit 6. Respectfully submitted this 15th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Bradley, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Rhea F. Law, Esquire Erin R. McCormick, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Rex Jensen Vice President - Real Estate Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. 7550 Lorraine Road Bradenton, Florida 34202 Gregory Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Dan Stengle, Esquire Al Bragg, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Manatee County Attorney's Office P. O. Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 99-82 (the "Interim Amendments") are "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioners each own property and operate businesses in Collier County. Each Petitioner has members who reside in Collier County. Each Petitioner submitted oral comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the period between transmittal and adoption. The Petitioners timely filed their Petition in this proceeding. The Petitioners are "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes, and have standing to bring this proceeding. The County is the local government whose land use amendment is at issue in this proceeding. The Department is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. James A. Brown, as Trustee of the East Naples Land Company, owns property in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Barron Collier Partnership owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Collier Enterprises, Ltd. owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Pacific Tomato Growers owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Alico, Inc. owns property and operates a business in the County and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Jack Price owns property, resides and operates a business in the County, and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Russell Priddy owns property, resides and operates a business in the County, and submitted comments to the County regarding the Interim Amendments during the adoption process. Background On April 6, 1996, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for its Plan. Each local government is required to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes. The County adopted its EAR-based amendments on November 14, 1997. The Department reviewed these EAR-based amendments, found that they did not comply with state law, and on December 24, 1997, published a Notice of Intent to find the amendments not "in compliance." The Department then instituted administrative proceedings against the County pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society intervened in support of the Department's original not "in compliance" determination. A formal administrative hearing was held over a five- day period in May 1998. On March 19, 1999, a recommended order was entered recommending that all of the challenged EAR-based amendments be determined not "in compliance." The recommended order was forwarded to the Administration Commission for final agency action pursuant to Section 163.3184(10)(b) and (11), Florida Statutes. The Administration Commission entered its Final Order on June 22, 1999. The 1999 Final Order directed the County to take specific remedial actions that would bring the comprehensive plan into compliance, including: rescinding the EAR-based amendments that were not in compliance; adopting certain specifically described remedial amendments; undertaking a comprehensive assessment of all lands in the County designated in the comprehensive plan as Agricultural/Rural, the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, conservation lands outside the urban boundary, and South Golden Gate Estates (hereinafter referred to as the “Assessment”); and establishing interim development provisions during the Assessment period, including a moratorium on certain types of development, and the designation and mapping of certain specified NRPAs. On November 23, 1999, the County adopted the Interim Amendments, intended to establish the interim development restrictions and provide for the Assessment ordered by the 1999 Final Order. As set forth in detail in the June 29, 2000, order granting the County's Motion in Limine, to the extent that the County merely enacted measures specifically ordered by the Administration Commission, those measures are not within the purview of this proceeding. Only those Interim Amendments that incorporate some measure of County discretion are subject to full "in compliance" analysis. The Interim Amendments Policies 4.9 and 4.10 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan, enacted as part of the Interim Amendments, provide: Policy 4.9: Prepare a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment, or any phase thereof, and adopt plan amendments necessary to implement the findings and results of the Assessment, or any phase thereof, pursuant to the Final Order (AC-99-002) issued by the Administration Commission on June 22, 1999. The geographic scope of the assessment area, public participation procedures, interim development provisions, and the designation of Natural Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map are described in detail in the Agricultural/Rural Designation Description Section. Policy 4.10: Public participation and input shall be a primary feature and goal of the planning assessment effort. Representatives of state and regional agencies shall be invited to participate and assist in the Assessment. The County shall ensure community input through each phase of the Assessment which may include workshops, public meetings, appointed committees, technical working groups, and established advisory boards including the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission in each phase of the Assessment. The Interim Amendments also added the following language to the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, under the "Rural & Agricultural Area Assessment" section of Section II, entitled "Agricultural/Rural Designation:" The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission, on June 22, 1999, issued the Final Order (AC-99-002) pursuant to Section 163.3184(10)(b), Florida Statutes, in Division of Administrative Hearing Case No. 98-0324GM. Pursuant to the Order, Collier County is required to prepare a Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment). This Assessment may be phased. The Geographic Scope of the Assessment Area shall be as follows: Includes: All land designated Agricultural/Rural Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Conservation lands outside the Urban Boundary South Golden Gates Estates Excludes: All Urban designated areas Northern Golden Gate Estates The Settlement District The Assessment, or any phase thereof, shall be a collaborative, community-based effort with full and broad-based public participation and assistance from applicable State and Regional agencies. At a minimum, the Assessment must identify the means to accomplish the following: Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment, or any phase thereof, shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. At the time of the hearing, the County had already commenced the process of conducting the Assessment. Two citizen advisory committees have been organized, each with responsibility for developing recommended land management policies for a specific geographical area within the scope of the Assessment. The Rural Fringe Committee is focusing its attention on that portion of the Assessment area closest to the west coast urban boundaries. The Rural Lands Committee is focusing on the largely agricultural lands in eastern Collier County. Unless the Administration Commission modifies the schedule set forth in the 1999 Final Order, the comprehensive plan amendments resulting from the Assessment must take effect on or before June 22, 2002. In addition to providing for the Assessment, the Interim Amendments impose additional restrictions on the use of land within the Assessment area while the Assessment is underway. These "Interim Development Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area" provide: Amendments based on the Assessment shall be completed by June 22, 2002. Residential and other uses in the Area for which completed applications for development approval, rezoning, conditional use, subdivision approval, site plan approval, or plats were filed with or approved by Collier County prior to June 22, 1999, shall be processed and considered under the Comprehensive Plan as it existed on June 22, 1999. If the County elects to address a specific geographic portion of the Area as a phase of the Assessment, the interim land use controls shall be lifted from the specific geographic area upon completion of the applicable phase of the Assessment and the implementing Comprehensive Plan amendments for that phase becoming effective. Until the Assessment is complete and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the Assessment, or any phase thereof, are in effect, the only land uses and development allowable in the area shall be those set forth in the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District and the Land Development Code (Section 2.2.2) in effect on June 22, 1999 for the Agricultural/Rural District, except the following uses are prohibited and shall not be allowed: New golf courses or driving ranges; Extension or new provision of central water and sewer service into the Area; New package wastewater treatment plants; Residential development except farmworker housing or housing directly related to support farming operations, or staff housing (12 du/ac) and other uses directly related to the management of publicly-owned land, or one single-family dwelling unit per lot or parcel created prior to June 22, 1999; Commercial or industrial development except gas and telephone facilities, electric transmission and distribution facilities, emergency power structures, fire and police stations, emergency medical stations; Transient residential such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities; Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses; Public and private schools; Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery; Landfills; Social and fraternal organizations; Group care facilities; Sports instructional schools and camps; Asphalt and concrete batch making plants; and Recreational vehicle parks. These interim development standards shall not affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall also include those uses for which all required permits have been issued, or uses for which completed applications have been received by the County prior to June 22, 1999. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing use and do not require a rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment. These interim development standards mirror those ordered by the Administration Commission in the 1999 Final Order. The Interim Amendments also designated certain areas as Interim NRPAs and added additional limitations on the development allowed within those areas. The Interim NRPAs and accompanying restrictions are as follows: The following areas shall be generally mapped and identified as Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs): Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates. Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) are designated on the Future Land Use Map: Within these areas, only agriculture and directly-related uses and one single-family dwelling unit per parcel or lot created prior to June 22, 1999, shall be allowed; These interim development standards shall not affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall also include those uses for which all required permits have been issued, or uses for which completed applications have been received by the County prior to June 22, 1999. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing use and do not require a rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment; The general location shall be identified on a map as the interim NRPAs and shall be refined as actual data and analysis is made available during the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Objective 1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Interim Amendments further explains the County's purpose in establishing the Interim NRPAs and how they would be treated during the Assessment: Pursuant to Administration Commission Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 23, 1999, complete the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the NRPA Program as part of the required Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment. The purpose of the NRPAs will be to assist State and Federal agencies’ efforts to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in current “Official List of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora Florida”, published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the predecessor agency of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) and their habitats. Pursuant to the Administration Commission Final Order, the County has mapped and identified the Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates as NRPAs, with the express understanding that during the Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment) required by the Final Order, the goal of assisting in the protection of endangered species and their habitat will be further addressed and that appropriate protection measures will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan amendments to be adopted at the conclusion of the Assessment. In the interim, and during the Assessment, a development moratorium as set forth in the Final Order and in Ordinance 99-77 will be in place until comprehensive plan amendments are adopted. The County has determined that the development moratorium, the NRPA boundaries approved November 23, 1999, and the additional restrictions that apply within the existing Area of Critical State Concern provide sufficient protection for these resources on an interim basis until adoption of the final comprehensive program to protect these resources. In selecting the final comprehensive program the County, as part of the Assessment, will evaluate the NRPA program and its criteria and implementation as well as other programs which may better provide adequate protection to the resources. In addition to the Interim NRPAs, the County determined that certain other areas within the Assessment area should be specifically addressed and evaluated as part of the Assessment, thus creating "special study areas" ("SSAs") pursuant to Policy as follows: The Program will, subject to completion of the Assessment and adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments, include the following: Identification of the NRPAs in map form as an overlay to Future Land Use Map. Pursuant to the Final Order, the general areas of Camp Keais Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates have been mapped and identified as NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map. The areas shall be further refined as the Assessment is implemented as a collaborative and community-based effort. All available data shall be further considered and refined during the Assessment to determine the final boundaries of these NRPAs. As part of the Assessment, the County shall evaluate the merits of including additional areas into these boundaries including, but not limited to, the area of Northern Belle Meade, the area known as the “Stovepipe” to the north, northwest and northeast of the Okaloacoochee Slough and the area southwest of the Okaloacoochee Slough to the southeastern portion of the Camp Keais Strand which is south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). These additional study areas are shown on the Future Land Use Map. Within these study areas, the following shall be the primary focus of additional study: North Belle Meade Study Area: examine the extent to which existing agricultural operations, improvements and facilities have impacted water flow and quality, wetlands and habitat for the Florida panther and other listed species; examine the impacts of abutting urban and Estates development; examine access into the area and connectivity to other habitat as it relates to the Florida panther; examine opportunities for restoration of flow-ways, buffering from abutting development and improvements for listed species habitat through actions to include consideration of the addition of underpasses to Interstate 75; examine the impacts of potential earth mining activities on the above resources; and examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate in this area and, if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use; examine the possibility of public acquisition of these properties. Stovepipe Study Area examine the level of existing and permitted agricultural improvements and impacts on listed species and their habitats; examine whether the existing Area of Critical State Concern program affords sufficient protection to listed species and their habitat; examine the possibility of acquisition of these properties by State or Federal programs, including partial acquisition programs, an example of which would be conservation easements; examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate in this area and if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use; examine and analyze the Florida panther’s use of agricultural lands and whether such agricultural lands constitute critical habitat for the species; and examine and analyze whether any lands should be restored. Oil Well Road (CR 858) Study Area examine the extent to which existing agricultural and mining operations, improvements and facilities have impacted listed species and their habitat; examine documented movement of the Florida panther in the area; examine and analyze the Florida panther’s utilization of agricultural lands and whether such agricultural lands constitute critical habitat for the species; examine whether use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate for this area and, if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use: and determine whether the east/west wildlife corridor provided by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Big Cypress National Preserve provides sufficient connectivity to protect the species. In addition to the moratorium referenced above, the County shall give notice to the Florida Department of Community Affairs if all applications to develop or otherwise impact the above special study areas. * * * The County recognizes that the NRPA program is not the only mechanism to protect significant environmental resources and that the NRPAs being established at this time are of an interim nature in conjunction with the development moratorium required by the Final Order. As a consequence, the designation of an area as a NRPA or as part of a special study area is not intended to affect property valuation on specific parcels. It is anticipated that the Assessment will address all of the issues identified above and that the resulting comprehensive plan amendments will provide resource protection measures best suited to meet the goals and objectives of this comprehensive plan. Establishment of Interim NRPA Boundaries The 1999 Final Order directed the County to adopt five areas as Interim NRPAs: the Camp Keais Strand; the CREW Lands; the Okaloacoochee Slough; Belle Meade; and South Golden Gate Estates. The 1999 Final Order does not provide a map or legal description of these five areas. Even aside from the 1999 Final Order, there are no maps or legal descriptions to describe precisely the boundaries of these areas. The evidence established that there is a general understanding of the location of these areas, but that the County necessarily exercised discretion in defining the boundaries of these Interim NRPAs. The term "Natural Resource Protection Area" is not defined in federal or state laws or regulations. The term is a creation of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and was first included in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element ("CCME") of the 1989 Plan. The 1989 Plan contained the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies governing land use and development in the County. The 1989 Plan also included data and analysis that was not adopted as a binding part of the Plan. The unadopted data and analysis in the 1989 Plan included a support document for the CCME. This support document set forth the standards for NRPAs. It designated NRPAs as "eco- systems having extremely important ecological functions," and ranked four subcategories according to "the degree of restrictiveness of protection afforded": Estuaries and Coastal Barrier Areas Water Protection and Conservation Areas Critical Ecological Corridors Rare, Unique and Endangered Habitats. William Lorenz, the County's natural resources director, testified that the County looked at these categories to provide general guidelines for the functions of NRPAs. The County employed an iterative method in developing the Interim NRPA boundaries, with County staff developing, reviewing, and modifying draft maps. Mr. Lorenz testified that there was a good deal of debate among staff members as to the location of the Interim NRPA boundaries. The County also sought the assistance of outside agencies, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. James Beever, a biological scientist, was the Conservation Commission's principal liaison with the County for purposes of the Interim NRPA determination. Mr. Beever testified that he did not use the 1989 Plan in making his recommendations because the County asked him to use the best available scientific information, which was not necessarily included in the 1989 Plan. Mr. Beever also testified that he was unfamiliar with the County's development moratorium for rural Collier County at the time he developed his recommendations. The Conservation Commission, through Mr. Beever, recommended a procedure for the delineation of NRPAs: Start with the existing proposed land acquisition boundaries or Florida Panther Recovery Plan boundaries for the designated areas. For the Southern Golden Gate Estates, this will be all that is needed to define that NRPA. For all other areas, such as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), expand the NRPA beyond the acquisition boundary when there is existing connected native habitats. Roadways alone do not sever connection, since wildlife underpasses can be incorporated in NRPA criteria. This would "pick up" habitat continua that were not in the original boundaries that may have been drawn strictly on straight section lines. Some examples would be to include: undeveloped areas of Northern Belle Meade, above Interstate 75, that were included in the original study performed by Kim Dryden and myself, connecting the proposed Winding Cypress DRI to the Southern Belle Meade, and including the entire Bird Rookery Swamp system attached to CREW. County staff considered these recommendations and other materials, and arrived at seven "General Guidelines for Delineating NRPA Boundaries": Identify major wetlands systems and regional flow-ways. Incorporate areas having upland native habitat contiguous to the identified major wetland systems and regional flow-ways. Provide for areas containing listed species habitats that are contiguous to the identified wetland systems and regional flow- ways. Include areas that are identified on the 1999 CARL Acquisition List, unless the area is severely impacted. Provide connections to other existing conservation areas. Include areas with minimal fragmentation from existing residential developments and transportation systems. Provide sufficient land area to buffer native habitats from intensive land uses. Applying these criteria, the County transmitted to the Department proposed Interim NRPAs that included 140,564 acres. Almost 125,500 acres of this land is wetlands, accounting for 13% of all wetlands in Collier County. One of the Petitioners' chief contentions was that the boundaries of the Interim NRPAs adopted by the County were significantly smaller than the boundaries proposed by County staff. The Petitioners did not object to any of the lands actually included in the Interim NRPAs; rather, they believed that more lands should be added to them. As to the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough NRPAs, the biggest point of debate in the County was the amount of agricultural lands that should be contained in the Interim NRPAs. This was debated before the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, as well as the Environmental Advisory Council. County staff’s initial proposal included more agricultural fields in the Interim NRPAs than the County finally adopted. The County ultimately excluded intensive agricultural lands and mining pits from the Interim NRPA delineations. As to the Camp Keais Strand NRPA, the County ultimately excluded extensive farm and row crop fields, as well as active storm water management systems located on these agricultural lands. Mr. Lorenz testified regarding County staff’s initial recommended NRPAs. County staff initially relied heavily on the Closing the Gaps report and its derivative materials, discussed below. Staff also initially relied upon the South Florida Water Management District’s "Florida Land Use Coverage Classification System" ("FLUCCS"), which is a display of land coverage information from the 1994-1995 database. Staff also coordinated with Mr. Beever, as noted above. County staff initially drew their proposed Interim NRPA boundaries along section and quarter section lines. Mr. Lorenz acknowledged that natural features typically do not follow section and half section lines, and that the boundaries finally selected more closely reflect natural features rather than legal descriptions. ECPO provided County staff with aerial photographs of the land in the eastern Collier County, and Mr. Lorenz had discussions with people who actually farmed that land. The information provided by ECPO was used in determining the interim NRPA boundaries that the County finally adopted. One area eliciting a great deal of evidence at hearing was North Belle Meade, which the FLUCCS map indicates is 90% wetlands. North Belle Meade was excluded from the interim NRPAs for several reasons. First, it is surrounded on three sides by areas of accelerating urban development and is bordered by I-75 on the fourth side. Mr. Beever conceded that the development of North Golden Gate Estates, to the east and north, will greatly reduce the habitat value of North Belle Meade. Mr. Beever also conceded that I-75 is a barrier in the landscape continuum between North Belle Meade and the Belle Meade interim NRPA. Based on his general experience, Mr. Beever did not believe that the interstate prevents panthers from crossing from one area to the other, but he admitted that he had no specific information regarding panthers crossing I-75 between North Belle Meade and Belle Meade. North Belle Meade has not been identified as a habitat conservation area for the Florida panther by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Another reason for the exclusion of North Belle Meade was the large number of individual landowners and small parcels platted within the area prior to June 22, 1999. The 1999 Final Order provided that developments approved prior to June 22, 1999, would not be subject to the use restrictions otherwise imposed by NRPA designation. This provision led the County to exclude from the Interim NRPAs those areas with approved developments. In North Belle Meade, landowners could permissibly build a single family residence on each parcel platted before that date, even if the area were designated as an interim NRPA, thus minimizing the utility of the designation. Finally, hydrologic changes have already had significant impact on the native vegetation of North Belle Meade, distinguishing its character from that of those areas adopted as interim NRPAs by the County. The areas designated as Interim NRPAs are large, connected systems. The criteria emphasized connecting areas with native habitat cover, which led to the exclusion from the NRPAs of active agricultural areas located on the outer edges of areas being considered for inclusion. Both Gary Beardsley and Mr. Beever testified that certain wildlife, such as the Florida panther and wading birds, use agricultural areas as habitat, particularly where there is a mosaic of agriculture mixed with native vegetation. They also testified that there is no hard data as to the extent to which such species rely on agricultural areas, or as to the type of agricultural uses that enhance, rather than degrade, the habitat value of lands. Mr. Beever disagreed with the Interim NRPA boundaries established by the County, but he also testified that he would not recommend including within those boundaries areas that have been converted from native to non-native vegetation, particularly active agriculture with heavy hydrological maintenance. The Department reviewed the transmitted NRPA boundaries and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments ("ORC") Report. The ORC Report objected to the exclusion of three areas that appeared to meet the requirements for Interim NRPA designation: North Belle Meade; the "Stovepipe" area to the north, northwest, and northeast of the Okaloacoochee Slough; and the area southwest of the Okaloacoochee Slough that links the Slough to the southeastern portion of the Camp Keais Strand. The County responded by establishing the three SSAs described in Finding of Fact 26 above, covering North Belle Meade, the Stovepipe, and Oil Well Road. The SSAs correspond to the exclusions noted in the ORC Report's objections. Within these areas, the County recognizes the potential for significant natural resource issues, but also recognizes the impact of agricultural and mining activities on those resources. The Petition The Petitioners allege that the Interim NRPA delineations are not "in compliance" for the following reasons: They are not supported by data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8), and (10)(e), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code; They are not supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of authorized land development; They fail to ensure adequate protection of natural resources; They are internally inconsistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, particularly CCME Objectives 1.1 and 1.3, and Policy 1.3.1; and They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, particularly Section 187.201(10)(a),(10)(b)(1),(10)(b)(3), (10)(b)(5), and (10)(b)(7), Florida Statutes. Data and Analysis The five interim NRPAs specified by the 1999 Final Order all lie outside the urban boundary of the County. The privately owned land in rural Collier County is predominantly in active agricultural use. Tom Jones, director of government affairs and environmental resources for Barron Collier Partnership, described rural Collier County as one of the most intensely farmed areas in southwest Florida. Mr. Jones testified that citrus operations have been in place around the Corkscrew Marsh and Lake Trafford since the 1960s, with expansions occurring in the 1980s and again in the 1990s. Tomato and potato cultivation have been in place for decades south of Lake Trafford along the Camp Keais Strand. Citrus, pasture, and row crops have occupied large expanses of rural Collier County since the end of World War II. These operations are conducted on a large scale. Mr. Jones pointed to one phase of citrus planting by Barron Collier Partnership that covers 4,500 acres. He also indicated that a single stormwater detention area for a tomato farm covers 13 square miles. Publicly owned land is also prevalent in rural Collier County. The area contains Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Collier Seminole State Park, and the Cape Romano- - Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve. Approximately 73% of the land in Collier County is either in public ownership or on an active acquisition list. No evidence was presented at the hearing indicating substantial residential development pressure in rural Collier County. Robert Mulhere, the County's planning director, testified that the established use of the land for agriculture has been under pressure for conversion to "upscale master plan residential golf course communities." The 1999 Final Order recognized this pressure, requiring that the Interim Amendments prohibit golf course development during the assessment period. The Petitioners contend that one of the most important sources of data and analysis relating to the wildlife and wildlife habitat of rural Collier County is Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, a 1994 publication by individuals working for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Closing the Gaps was an effort to map the land cover of the entire state, based on computer analysis of Landsat satellite imagery collected from 1985 to 1989. About 2.72 million acres, or 8% of the land area of Florida, was field inspected using a helicopter equipped with a Loran-C unit. The authors stated that, based on field reports, they estimated the overall accuracy of the land cover map at 80 to 90%, though they also acknowledged that accuracy varies according to the type of land cover being mapped. Ross McWilliams, an environmental consultant testifying on behalf of ECPO, stated that Closing the Gaps is a "good general document" and contains the best available data to someone looking at Florida from a large scale perspective in terms of land forms and types of species. Closing the Gaps states that the portion of Collier County northwest of the Big Cypress National Preserve, consisting of a "mixture of cypress swamp, hardwood swamp, dry prairie, and pineland represents one of the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida." Closing the Gaps, p. 174. Closing the Gaps finds that nearly all of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern that is not publicly owned is good habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, and the American swallow-tailed kite. Id. Closing the Gaps reports that the privately owned lands west of State Road 29 and north of I-75 support a stable Florida black bear population, and rates much of the privately owned portion of the Big Cypress area as outstanding potential bear habitat, in terms of proximity to conservation areas, extent of roadless areas, diversity of cover types, and the presence of specific cover types. Closing the Gaps, p. 52, 174. Closing the Gaps states that "quick and aggressive action" is required to save the Florida panther from extinction, and cites the conversion of large areas of rangeland and native land cover to agriculture as one the greatest threats to the continued existence of panther habitat. The report singles out citrus development as a threat to subdivide existing, contiguous panther habitat. Closing the Gaps, p. 68. Among its suggestions for protecting natural resources, Closing the Gaps cites acquisition of privately held lands as the most effective and least controversial method, along with the purchase of lesser rights such as conservation easements. Closing the Gaps also urges local governments to protect valuable habitat through their comprehensive plans. Closing the Gaps, p. 191. ECPO agreed that Closing the Gaps is a useful tool for examining Florida's natural resources in terms of habitat and species at a statewide level in order to determine where there may be gaps in the state's conservation programs. However, ECPO convincingly demonstrated that an effort to base local planning decisions on the large scale satellite imagery utilized by Closing the Gaps is a misuse of that document. The text of Closing the Gaps itself contains disclaimers as to the utility of its satellite maps: The maps appearing in this report are intended to provide guidance to decision makers involved in public land acquisition, land use planning, development regulation, and other land conservation efforts. The maps represent our best estimate of those Florida lands that require some form of conservation to ensure that biodiversity is maintained for future generations. However, these maps represent only a snapshot of Florida’s conservation needs at one time. For example, the vegetation map used to create species distribution maps was based on satellite imagery dated 1985-1989; the species occurrence information is current through 1991-1993, depending on the species; and the database of public land boundaries extends only through 1992. As a consequence, some areas identified for protection may already be in public ownership or may no longer support the habitat features or species predicted to occur there, and the maps should not be incorporated into law or rule as inviolate zones in which no development may occur. Rather, the maps should be used as a layer of information when decisions are made concerning land acquisition, land-use planning, and development regulation. Closing the Gaps, p. 1 (Emphasis added). Another portion of Closing the Gaps restates its limitations as a definitive document for local planning purposes: The reader should be aware that the maps represent only a snapshot of Florida’s conservation needs at one point in time. The data on which the maps are based are already out-dated, and they will become increasingly out of date as time goes by. For example, the satellite imagery used for vegetation mapping and habitat modeling was collected between 1985 and 1989. Undoubtedly, some natural areas we identified as needing protection have been destroyed during the time it has taken to collect and analyze the data and publish the results. The temporal nature of the maps has two effects. First, because some areas identified as needing protection may no longer support the habitat features or species expected to occur there, these maps should not be incorporated into law or rule as inviolate zones in which no development may occur. Rather, the maps should be used as a layer of information in the making of decisions concerning land acquisition, land- use planning, and development regulation. Second, as time goes by, new parcels of land come into public ownership, new data become available on the locations of rare species, and the character of the Florida landscape changes. As a result, project maps are continually being updated with new information, and the latest version of the maps actually resides in the computer at the Office of Environmental Services. Therefore, before using the maps in this report for detailed management decisions, users should contact the Office of Environmental Services at the address below for the latest information on lands currently recommended for protection. Closing the Gaps, p. 9 (Emphasis added). Mr. Beever testified that he used Closing the Gaps in making his recommendations on behalf of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, but conceded that aerial photographs provided by ECPO's consultants were more up to date and accurate. The evidence presented by ECPO demonstrated not only that some of the information in the Closing the Gaps maps is out of date, but that it was inaccurate even at the time the satellite images were made as applied to the relatively small scale of the areas at issue. Parts of the North Camp Keais area that were labeled "other vegetation" in Closing the Gaps were actually in agricultural use. Tim Durham of Wilson Miller, ECPO's consultant, testified that the inaccuracies were a function of attempting to apply habitat models based on the large scale satellite maps in Closing the Gaps to what is actually on the ground in a relatively small area. Mr. Durham stated that "it's almost like static on a T.V. screen. You’re starting to see a bunch of things that aren't really there. The habitat models were assuming habitats that weren't really out there." Mr. Durham found that the satellite imagery in Closing the Gaps provided inaccurate data that some of the agricultural lands contained four or five different habitat types in a tight mosaic. This data would cause a computer model erroneously to classify these agricultural lands as good native habitat. Mr. Beever noted that the Closing the Gaps data is being updated. However, the update continues to assume the correctness of the earlier data, leading the unwary reader to assume that large areas of natural habitat have been converted to agriculture between the years 1986 and 1996, though in fact the lands at issue have been in agricultural use throughout this period. Ross McWilliams, ECPO's environmental consultant, conducted an analysis of Closing the Gaps in comparison to what is actually on the lands in eastern Collier County and concluded that the vegetative land cover set forth in Closing the Gaps contained extensive errors. Mr. McWilliams found that Closing the Gaps mapped thousands of acres of agricultural lands as "scrub and brush." Mr. McWilliams visited 14 specific sites in eastern Collier County rural areas, and found that the "signature" (i.e., the identification of the predominant type of land cover) set forth in Closing the Gaps was incorrect for all 14 sites. The Petitioners also presented evidence that the Interim Amendments do not afford adequate protection to listed species. The exhibits presented by the Petitioners to establish the location and extent of Collier County habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker, wading bird rookeries, bald eagle, black bear, and Florida scrub jay were all based on Closing the Gaps data and thus not entirely reliable. As noted above, Closing the Gaps is not a reliable tool for establishing land cover on the small scale required for local planning purposes. Its findings as to habitat and potential habitat were based on its land cover findings, and therefore also suspect. The Petitioners also presented panther telemetry data to indicate the movement of the Florida panther in Collier County. The telemetry data persuasively demonstrated the presence of panthers in the area, but were inconclusive to establish the number of panthers moving through the area or their precise activity patterns. One of the purposes of the Assessment is to examine the telemetry data in order to better understand the panthers' movement and plan for their protection in the final plan amendments. This points to the overall conceptual problem with the Petitioners' case: it is premature. The Petitioners challenge the Interim NRPAs as not based on a thorough assessment of the County's natural resources, when the 1999 Final Order contemplates that the Interim NRPAs are a necessary prelude to that very assessment. The 1999 Final Order directed that the Assessment will cover virtually all of rural Collier County, and will have a three-part purpose: identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas and prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses; direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity, maintain the natural water regime, and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats; and assess the growth potential of the Assessment area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, recognizing the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development that may protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The concerns raised by the Petitioners at this hearing are the same concerns voiced by the 1999 Final Order, which sets forth the procedures the County is to follow. The Petitioners are in effect asking the County to reach its conclusions as to natural resources issues before it undertakes the Assessment mandated by the Final Order. This request is impracticable. The testimony at the hearing established a broad scope for the Assessment and the amendments that may arise therefrom. The Assessment may result in the expansion of the Interim NRPA boundaries. It may result in the creation of new NRPAs. The County may arrive at a solution for protecting its natural resources that does not involve the designation of NRPAs. Based upon the data available to the County, and keeping in mind their transitional nature, the boundaries defined for the Interim NRPAs are at least fairly debatable. The concerns raised by the Petitioners will be addressed during the Assessment period. Once the Assessment is completed, the Petitioners will have the opportunity to contest the County's finished work product.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Interim Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108 Ernest A. Cox, Esquire Patrick W. Maraist, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6161E Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marjorie M. Student, Esquire Collier County Attorney's Office Administration Building, 8th Floor 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4902 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Conclusions This cause is before the Department of Community Affairs on an Order Closing File, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A, and on adoption of an ordinance repealing and rescinding Ordinance 2008-34, appended hereto as Exhibit B. On August 26, 2008, Respondent Clay County adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 2008-34 (Amendment). The Department reviewed the Amendment, determined that Ordinance No. 2008-34 did not meet the criteria for compliance set forth in Section 163.3184(1) (b), Florida Statutes, and caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment not “in compliance.” The Department then instituted FINAL ORDER No. DCA09-GM-242 this administrative proceeding against the County pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. On June 9, 2009, by adopting Ordinance No. 2009-23, the County repealed and rescinded the not “in compliance” Ordinance No. 2008-34. By virtue of this rescission, the instant controversy has been rendered moot and this proceeding must be dismissed. See Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Heredia, 520 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (dismissing case on appeal as moot where suspension of driver’s license was rescinded by the Department) .
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1)®) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER No. DCA09-GM-242 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by U.S. il to each of the persons listed below on this day of , 2009. Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 J. A. Spejenkowski, Esquire Phillip Quaschnick, Esquire Office of the Attorney General PL 01- The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mark H. Scruby, Esquire Clay County Attorney Post Office Box 1366 Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043-1366 Col. Elizabeth Masters, Esquire Department of Military Affairs Florida National Guard PO Box 1008 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-1008 By Hand Delivery: Lynette Norr, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 FINAL ORDER No. DCA09-GM-242 Ordinance No. 2009- 23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPEALING AND RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 2008-34 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 26, 2008, WHICH ORDINANCE NO. 2008-34 HAD AMENDED THE CLAY COUNTY 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (THE ‘PLAN’) INIFIALLY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.3184, FLORIDA STATUTES, UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 92-03, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, BY ADDRESSING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH CAMP BLANDING (FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL 2 AND ITS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES); PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 23, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County, Florida (the “Board”), adopted Ordinance No. 92-03 which adopted the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, which as subsequently amended is now referred to as the Clay County 2015 Comprehensive Plan (the “Plan”); and, WHEREAS, Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes, provides for the amendment of an adopted comprehensive plan; and, WHEREAS, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, outlines the procedure for the adoption of comprehensive plans or amendments thereto; and, WHEREAS, Clay County Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the Plan on August 26, 2008, in Ordinance No. 2008-34 (the “Amendment”); and, : WHEREAS, ihe Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) issued a Statement of Intent (the “SOI”’) and a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment adopted under Ordinance No. 2008-34 Not in Compliance on October 16, 2008; and, WHEREAS, DCA filed a Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 08-5493GM on November 4, 2008 (the “Petition”), seeking a determination, consistent with the SOL, that the Amendment adopted under Ordinance No. 2008-34 is Not in Compliance within the meaning of Chapter 163, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code; and, WHEREAS, as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance, the Petition remains pending; and, WHEREAS, by virtue of the pendency of the Petition, the Amendment has not taken effect; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires hereby to provide for the repeal of Ordinance No. 2008-34 before the Amendment adopted thereunder becomes effective. Be It Ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County: Section 1, | Ordinance No. 2008-34 addressing Future Land Use Element Goal 2 and its Objectives and Policies is hereby repealed and rescinded. Section 2. _‘iIf any provision or portion of this ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be void, unconstitutional or unenforceable, then all remaining provisions and portions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3, | The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is authorized and directed within 10 days of the date of adoption of this ordinance to send certified, complete and accurate copies of this ordinance by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399- 2100 and the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, 9143 Phillips Highway, Suite 350, Jacksonville, Florida 32256, as specified in Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes. DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County, Florida, this 9! day of June, 2009. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA Wendell D. Davis Its Chairman ATTEST: Thereby certify that this document consisting of page(s] and further identified | as (Midiaaaes, 09.230 8 County\Manager and Clerk of the Sei oF County Co issioners a me and correct copy of the original maintained mm im the custody of Fritz Behring as County Manager and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissio 8s of Clay County, Floridy this_/S_ day of ene 2009” By: : , Deputy Clerk [Not Valid without the scal of the Board]
The Issue Whether the Ochlocknee Management Corporation has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Initial Purchase. In January, 1986, Ochlocknee Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Ochlocknee"), began negotiations for the purchase and development of land located on Buck Lake Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Buck Lake Property"). On January 25, 1986, a document indicating an intent to sell 100 acres of the Buck Lake Property to Ochlocknee was executed. On October 31, 1986, a Contract for Sale was entered into between Ochlocknee and the owners of the Buck Lake Property. Pursuant to the Contract for Sale, Ochlocknee agreed to purchase 100 acres of the Buck Lake Property (hereinafter referred to as the "100 Acres"). The 100 Acres were to be developed in three phases by Ochlocknee. The development was named Avondale. In February of 1987, the 100 Acres were rezoned and platted. The Development of Units I, II and III. Development of Avondale Unit I began in March, 1987. In August, 1987, the Unit I plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit I were complete. In April, 1988, development of Avondale Unit II began. The development of Unit II began approximately 8 months after the Unit I plat was recorded. In October, 1988, the Unit II plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit II were complete. In May, 1989, development of Avondale Unit III began. The development of Unit III began approximately 7 months after the Unit II plat was recorded. In November, 1989, the Unit III plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit III were complete. During the construction of Unit III Ochlocknee intended to purchase an additional parcel of the Buck Lake Property. This property was to be developed as additional phases or units of the Avondale development, including Avondale Unit IV, the development which is the subject of this proceeding. When constructed, the main road running through Units I, II and III was intended to continue through, and serve, Avondale Unit IV. The road is the only road providing access between Unit IV and Buck Lake Road. Utilities for Unit III were designed and stubbed to serve Unit IV. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any action which Leon County took in approving the development of Units I, II, or III could have been reasonably relied upon by Ochlocknee in its development of Unit IV. Most of Leon County's actions in approving the development of Avondale were taken before the Unit IV property was even purchased. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that Leon County specifically reviewed any plans concerning Ochlocknee's plans to develop Unit IV until after the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed for approval. The Second Purchase. In November, 1988, Ochlocknee began negotiations for the purchase of the additional parcel of the Buck Lake Property to be developed as Unit IV. The property consisted of 40.5 acres and was to be developed as Unit IV, the development at issue in this proceeding, and Unit V. In March, 1989, the owners of the 40.5 acres applied for rezoning of the 40.5 acre parcel from A-2 (agricultural use) to R-1 (residential use). In March, 1989, Ochlocknee entered into a Contract for Sale and Option, pursuant to which Ochlocknee was to purchase the 40.5 acres. Unit IV was to consist of 10 acres of the parcel. The 10 acres abut Unit III. The remaining 30.5 acres of the parcel were to be developed as Unit V. In May, 1989, the 40.5 acre parcel was rezoned as R-1, limited use. The zoning limited septic tanks on the property to 2.2 units per acre. On June 27, 1989, Ochlocknee purchased the 10 acres to be developed as Unit IV. The Regional Stormwater Facility. In April, 1988, Poole & Associates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Poole"), prepared plans and designs for a regional stormwater facility for 126 acres of the Buck Lake Property. Poole provided the engineers for Avondale. The plan developed by Poole was intended to handle stormwater for all of Units II and III, all of what was to be Unit IV, part of what was to be Unit V and part of the Buck Lake Property which was not to be developed by Ochlocknee. This regional stormwater facility will hereinafter be referred to as the "Stormwater Facility". The plans and designs for the Stormwater Facility were completed before Unit IV was purchased by Ochlocknee and before Unit IV was rezoned from A-2 to R-1. In July, 1989, Ochlocknee began construction of the Stormwater Facility. Ponds used in the Stormwater Facility are located on Unit III. In November, 1989, when the Unit III plat was recorded, the Stormwater Facility was substantially completed. The Stormwater Facility was generally approved upon the recording of the Unit III plat. Recording of the Unit III plat and the approval of the Stormwater Facility only applied to the use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit III. The use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV was not approved or even reviewed by Leon County in November, 1989. Ochlocknee was required to maintain the Stormwater Facility for an additional year after it was approved for Unit III. After approval of the Stormwater Facility for Unit III, problems arose with the Stormwater Facility. These problems began as early as August, 1989 based upon an August 31, 1989, letter from Broward Davis & Assoc., Inc., to Ochlocknee. In a letter dated November 22, 1989, from the Respondent's engineering inspectors, Poole was provided with a "punch list" of problems associated with Units I, II and III, including problems associated with the Stormwater Facility. The punch list was developed during a meeting held on November 21, 1989. Ochlocknee informed Leon County that the problems raised in the letter referred to in finding of fact 29 would be resolved in 30 days. The problems continued, however, into 1990. Efforts continued during the remainder of 1989 and early 1990 to resolve the problems. On January 17, 1990, a new Environmental Management Act became effective in Leon County. Ochlocknee was required to insure that its proposed use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV complied with the Act. In a letter dated February 22, 1990, Leon County notified Poole that preliminary plans for the development of Unit IV which had been submitted to Leon County had been reviewed. Poole was informed that additional information concerning the preliminary site plans was needed before Unit IV could be approved for development. Among other things, Leon County informed Poole that additional information concerning the use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV would have to be submitted. Unit IV Development. In October, 1988, Poole prepared a preliminary site plan for the development of Unit IV. These plans were prepared before the property which constitutes Unit IV was purchased or rezoned from A-2 to R-1. On June 27, 1989, Ochlocknee purchased the 10 acres of Unit IV for $104,956.50. In November, 1989, Ochlocknee entered into an agreement with Poole to design roadways, utilities and obtain construction approvals for Unit IV. On December 1, 1989, preliminary plat approval for Unit IV was applied for. The preliminary plat was approved by the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department on January 10, 1990. On January 17, 1990, the City of Tallahassee approved the water distribution plans for Unit IV. On January 12, 1990, the City of Tallahassee agreed to provide water and electrical service for Unit IV. On February 2, 1990, a commitment for a construction loan for Unit IV was received by Ochlocknee. The Leon County comprehensive plan was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs on February 1, 1990. Ochlocknee should have been aware of the drafting of the comprehensive plan and the fact that it had been provided to the Department of Community Affairs for approval. 41 In March, 1990, Poole completed final construction drawings for the Unit IV roadways. In April, 1990, Ochlocknee received contracts for the construction of roadways and utilities for Unit IV. In May, 1990, Poole held an onsite pre-construction conference with Leon County officials, utility providers and construction personnel. Poole placed stakes for clearing limits on Unit IV during May, 1990. On June 29, 1990, Leon County approved roadway construction plans for Unit IV. At the time that the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed by Ochlocknee for approval, Ochlocknee knew that the Stormwater Facility needed to be modified before development of Unit IV would be approved. Despite this knowledge, Ochlocknee chose to continue to propose that the Stormwater Facility be used for Unit IV. These problems continued throughout the time after the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed. In May, 1990, Leon County informed Ochlocknee that a permit for clearing and grading, the last permit needed to begin construction, would not be issued until the Stormwater Facility proposed for Unit IV was modified and the problems previously identified by Leon County with the Stormwater Facility in 1989, were corrected. Construction on Unit IV has not commenced. Costs Associated with Unit IV. The cost of rezoning the 10 acres of Unit IV was $2,911.25 plus a $300.00 fee. The $300.00 fee was incurred in March, 1989, before the Unit IV property was purchased or the rezoning had taken place. Therefore, the fee was not incurred in reliance upon any representation from Leon County. The $2,911.25 cost was incurred between October, 1988 and May, 1989. This amount was incurred before the purchase of the Unit IV property or the approval of the rezoning. Therefore, this cost was not incurred in reliance upon any representation from Leon County. The cost of purchasing the 10 acres which are to be developed as Unit IV was $104,956.50. This cost was incurred in June of 1989. The only action taken by Leon County concerning any possible development of Unit IV prior to the time this cost was incurred was to approve rezoning Unit IV from A-2 to R-1. The cost of purchasing the 10 acres of Unit IV was not, therefore, incurred in reliance upon any action of Leon County other than approval of the rezoning of Unit IV. The cost of constructing the Stormwater Facility attributable to Unit IV was approximately $8,000.00. This cost was incurred between July, 1989, and November, 1989. Therefore, the cost was incurred after the Unit IV property was rezoned but before the preliminary plat and the development plans for Unit IV were approved by Leon County. Therefore, the cost of the Stormwater Facility attributable to the Unit IV property was not incurred in reliance upon any action of Leon County other than approval of the rezoning of Unit IV. Ochlocknee failed to present sufficient evidence to conclude what expenses were incurred by it in stubbing the road and utilities that run through Units I, II, and III are attributable to Unit IV. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove when any such expenses were incurred. These expenses were incurred sometime after the development of Unit I began (before the Unit IV property was acquired or rezoned) and sometime before Unit III was completed (before the preliminary plat for Unit IV was approved). Therefore, any expenses attributable to Unit IV for the road and utilities were incurred before Leon County took any action with regard to the development of Unit IV or were incurred only in reliance upon the rezoning of the Unit IV property. Engineering, surveying and permitting costs associated with Unit IV totalled $13,384.49. These costs were incurred between January, 1990 and May, 1990. Prior to the expenditure of these funds Leon County had approved the rezoning of Unit IV, the preliminary plat and some of the other plans for the development of Unit IV. All of these costs were incurred after Ochlocknee had been informed that there was a problem with the Stormwater Facility. All of the engineering costs were incurred before Leon County had indicated that it would approve the development of Unit IV. On April 25, 1990, Ochlocknee refinanced the note for the 10 acres of Unit IV. The new note was for $219,750.00. This amount was borrowed to refinance the cost of purchasing the 10 acres and to pay construction costs for the development of Unit IV. The funds intended for construction costs for Unit IV have not, however, been expended. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what costs Ochlocknee incurred in obtaining the $219,750.00 note. All of the costs incurred by Ochlocknee relating to the development of Unit IV were incurred in an effort to obtain approval from Leon County for the development of Unit IV. The costs were incurred before any representation from Leon County that development of Unit IV would be allowed to proceed. Some of the costs were incurred before the Unit IV property was rezoned from an agricultural use to R-1. Leon County had taken no action before approval of the rezoning. Some of the costs were incurred only in reliance upon the rezoning of the Unit IV property. Finally, all of the costs were incurred in an effort to obtain approval to develop Unit IV and before Leon County indicated through any action that development of the property would be allowed to proceed. These costs were incurred at a time when Ochlocknee should have known that the development of Unit IV would probably have to be consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Procedure. On or about August 1, 1990, Ochlocknee filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with Leon County. The following information concerning the development of Unit IV was contained on the Application: "Ochlocknee Management" is listed as the "Owner/Agent." Question 3 of the Application requests the name of the project, including the name and address of each owner of, and interested party in, the project or property. "AVONDALE UNIT IV" was included as the response to question 3. The project is described as "22 Residential Lots on 10 acres, Proposed with Public Road, Water, and Recorded Plat." The project location is described as "AVONDALE WAY, SOUTH OF AVONDALE III." Total project costs are estimated at "$226,205.95" and it is estimated that "$126,952,24 " have been expended to date. "Progress . . . Towards Completion" is described as: (1) all utility site, drainage plans completed as of May 4, 1990; (2) preliminary plat approval 1/10/90, water plans approved 2/1/90 and environmental permit 6/27/90; and (3) the drainage facility located in Unit III is complete. "Preliminary Plat, Water Plan Approval, Environm. Permits" are included as forms of "government approval." The response to question 10 of the Application, which requests information concerning government action relied upon prior to committing funds towards completing the project, was "[s]ubdivision Ordinance for Preliminary Plat, The Letter of Agreement, Policy & Procedures Manual for Utilities and the Environmental Management Act for the Stormwater Permits." In a letter dated August 7, 1990, Ochlocknee was informed that its Application was being referred to a Staff Committee comprised of Jim English, Mark Gumula, Howard Pardue, Buddie Holshouser and Herb Thiele. By letter dated August 24, 1990, Ochlocknee provided additional information for the Staff Committee to consider. On August 27, 1990, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee. Barry Poole, of Poole, and Jody Elliott, of Ochlocknee, testified. By letter dated August 27, 1990, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department informed Ochlocknee that the Application had been denied. By letter dated September 5, 1990, to Mr. Gumula, counsel for Ochlocknee appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated October 5, 1990, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on October 25, 1990. During the hearing before the undersigned Ochlocknee stipulated that it had sought approval of its Application based upon "common law vesting" and not "statutory vesting" as those terms are defined in Leon County Ordinance 90- 31.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Celina Hills Property Owner’s Association (the Association) violated the Fair Housing Act, in its enforcement of the Association’s deed restrictions. The Association refused to allow a homeowner within the Association’s community to put a fence around the front of the homeowner's property to accommodate the disability of the homeowner's son. A secondary issue, if the Association violated the Fair Housing Act, is whether the Association's action is sufficient to permit the award of damages to the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) for frustration of agency purposes in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Sheila and Fred Swasey purchased a home in the Celina Hills Community in 2001, where they currently reside. When they purchased their home, the Swaseys had full knowledge that the home was part of a homeowner’s association which had certain deed restrictions and covenants. The Swaseys furthermore understood that they were subject to the deed restrictions, and at the time of purchase, had no concerns regarding such restrictions. One such restriction was that they could not have a fence in the front yard of their property. The Swaseys have a 22-year-old, mentally retarded son, named Brad. The Swasey’s son has the mental capacity of a two- year-old, certain gait difficulties, and by stipulation of the parties, qualifies under the applicable Fair Housing Act as a handicapped individual in that he has physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation organized in the mid 70's for the sole purpose of operating and maintaining the Celina Hills Community. Every home owner in Celina Hills is a member of the Association, and is subject to the deed restrictions, and covenants that attach to each of the properties within the Association. The Association is operated by a board of directors, which consists of volunteer homeowners, and is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the covenants, restrictions and other governing documents of the Association. The Association, through its officers, was fully aware of Brad's disability. As established by testimony of two of Brad’s doctors, Brad has the mental capacity of a young child approximately two to three years old. Although in the short term his mental capacity has stabilized and will probably not improve, his long- term capacity will be accelerated in regard to dementia, making him much harder to control or exhibit control. The supervisor of Brad’s sheltered workshop testified that, based on her observations, she believes he has the mental capacity of less than a two or three year old. Brad has recently, within the last 3 years, grown dramatically (from 5’3”/160 pounds to 6’2”/240 pounds) and, although he walks with a wide gait and has trouble walking on uneven surfaces, has become significantly harder to control and catch. His parents are in their fifties, and increasingly, subject to the health deficits imposed by the process of aging. Brad’s doctors have advised the Swaseys to have Brad spend time outside, breathe fresh air and get exercise. Brad’s parents’ testimony and observation of Brad at the final hearing establishes that he has the capacity of a two-year-old, but with no fear and no understanding of dangers that confront him in life. Further, he has only recently exhibited a predilection to run towards the street and trucks and cars that attract his attention. Brad is attracted to trucks and cars, especially yellow school buses and blue mail trucks, and attempts to run towards them when possible. With regard to motorists going up the hill on the street in front of the Swaseys and Brad’s home, visibility from the road to the yard (and yard to the road) is poor and cars on the street drive fast. The Swaseys’ home is located in the middle of the block and not at an intersection. The decision of the Swaseys to fence their front yard results in the provision of the best setting for Brad to fully enjoy the premises and gain needed fresh air and exercise. This choice by the Swaseys also provides better observation for them over Brad and more shade and opportunities for him to observe surrounding life and activities. Such a fence would protect Brad from running into the street and provide his parents an opportunity to allow Brad some “independence” while still being under their direct supervision when they work in the front yard. The fence would also keep him from running away from them into the street before they can catch him. Such a front yard fence requires an accommodation from the Association in order to build higher than the Association's allowable three feet and also along the required county set-back line for fences. The Swaseys' backyard has severe slopes, contains the screened-in pool and is generally unusable as an outside area for Brad because of his walking disability. Nevertheless, his parents also plan to fence the side and back- yards as well, which requires only the standard approval as to style, material and installation and no accommodation. Should they fence just the back and side yard, however, a problem would result in the form of entry problems, since the only direct entry to the backyard is through the pool area. Such an entry would redirect Brad’s attention to areas of the home and yard where the pool is located. Unfortunately, the backyard alone would not allow Brad full enjoyment because of the nature of the property (uneven with major slopes) and his walking disability. Further, direct observation of Brad would be difficult in some areas, if not impossible. On April 8, 2003, Brad's mother submitted a written request to the Association for a fence on the front, side and backyards. She also indicated that they would have the fence removed if they ever sold the house. On May 1, 2003, the Association's Board of Directors had a meeting at which Brad's father presented the request of he and his wife. Simply put, their request was to erect a front fence in a wooden picket style and an electric wood-faced gate for the front of the property (more in keeping with the covenants and restrictions placed on the property). As affirmed by Brad's father at the final hearing, he has no desire to denigrate property values in the community due to his own home investment. This summarizes the request of Brad's parents for need of an accommodation from the Association. The relevant restriction for which an accommodation was requested is found on page 6 of the Celina Hill’s Property Owners Handbook (January 2002 edition) which provides: No fence or wall shall be erected or maintained in the front beyond the front building setback line. No wire, chain link, or cyclone is permitted on any lot. No fence or hedge over three (3) feet in height shall be permitted along the front. No fence or hedge shall be erected or maintained which shall: i) unreasonably restrict or obstruct sight lines at corners and at intersections or driveways with streets; ii) detract from the overall appearance of the property (the use of rough hewn woods or natural plantings as fencing and screening materials is encouraged); or iii) stand greater than four (4) feet in height. The Swaseys met all conditions, except for the deed restriction, in their request for a front yard fence. As established by witnesses for the Swaseys, inclusive of the school bus driver who frequently drives a school bus by the Swaseys' property, there are no safety concerns about the proposed front yard fence obscuring motorists' view since it is not going to be at an intersection. On May 24, 2003, the Association denied the Swaseys' request stating that, “We cannot authorize your request for a fence of any style in your front yard, the Celina Hills Homeowners manual makes clear that no fence can be installed beyond the front setback line and that setback line is the front of your house.” In the same letter, the Association indicated it had no problem with the Swaseys' pursuing fencing the side and backyards since there was no deed restriction and only a style, materials and installation review. On June 18, 2003, FCHR issued a determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association was engaging in a discriminatory housing practice in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes. FCHR’s efforts to conciliate the case failed as stated in its Notice of Failure of Conciliation on July 30, 2003. FCHR also placed into evidence its calculation of damages, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs to be determined upon completion of the case, for “frustration of agency purpose.” These damages were calculated at $1,035.40 consisting of $358.70 for 20.6 investigative hours; $600.00 for legal review and advisor hours; $66.70 in direct travel costs; and $10.00 in photographic development costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order finding Respondent guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against the Complainant and her son in violation of Section 760.23 (7) and (9), Florida Statutes; prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondent; and allowing the building of an esthetically acceptable fence in the front yard as necessary to provide containment and safety for Brad Swasey to use and enjoy his dwelling, with the proviso that such fence be removed when Brad is no longer a regular resident in the Swasey home. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Pacific National Bank Building 1390 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Sheila Swasey 2125 East Celina Street Inverness, Florida 34453 William J. Tait, Jr., Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4830 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Gilchrist County comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial amendments are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES Intervenors Craig Hennis, Jim Moore, and Jean Wonser own property in Gilchrist County, Florida, which is located in or near the area known as the Waccasassa Flats. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser submitted oral and written comments during the review and adoption proceedings. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Gilchrist County Gilchrist County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes The County is situated in North Central Florida. The County is bordered on the east by Alachua County; on the south by Levy County; on the west by Dixie and Lafayette Counties; and on the north by Suwannee and Columbia Counties. The County seat is the incorporated City of Trenton. The County contains many areas of natural resources including the Santa Fe River in the north, the Suwannee River in the west, numerous fresh water springs, and the Waccasassa Flats. Department The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing local government comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Waccasassa Flats The Intervenors' challenge concerns the level of protection afforded the Waccasassa Flats (Flats). The Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in size in Gilchrist County and act as the source of the Waccasassa River, whose headwaters are located in Levy County. The Flats extend from northern Gilchrist County through Levy County to the Gulf of Mexico. The Flats are situated on a high limestone formation between two sand ridges. The Flats are a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and sandhills composed primarily of commercial pine plantations, hardwood swamps, isolated strands of cypress domes, and shrubs and brush. Approximately 31,000 acres are forested uplands and forested flatwoods; 24,000 acres, forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands; and 1,000 acres, non- forested uplands. The water table in the Flats is generally near or above the surface, and is linked to a surficial aquifer, not the Floridan Aquifer, which is much deeper. The Flats act as a low to moderate water recharge area by collecting water, then slowly releasing it to surrounding areas. The Flats are not unlike many parts of North Central Florida, including northern Columbia County, eastern Alachua County, parts of Baker and Levy Counties, Nassau County, Lafayette County, eastern Hamilton County, western Madison County, Taylor County, and Dixie County. Within Gilchrist County, the Flats are privately owned and historically have been logged in large part by commercial silviculture companies. This activity continues today. A network of logging roads and fire lines have been cut through the Flats. Silviculture activities such as the clearcutting of large tracts of timber, replanting with non-native species of pine, and creating a monoculture pine forest, have degraded the ecosystem, fragmented wildlife habitat, and negatively impacted some species of wildlife and native vegetative communities in the Flats. For example, throughout most of the Flats native longleaf pine communities no longer exist. Many of the native hardwood hammocks have been cut to increase the land available for pine planting and harvesting. In addition, native cypress trees have been cut. While the Flats still function as a natural system, they are not a pristine system because of these past and current silviculture activities. The Division of Forestry in the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recommended that 56,050 acres of the Flats be acquired by the State of Florida through the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. The Flats have been on the CARL acquisition list since 1988: they were ranked ninth on the list in 1988 and thirty-third in 1993. WACCASASSA FLATS/DENSITY Intervenors assert that the Plan fails to adequately preserve and restore the natural resources associated with the Flats. Specifically, Intervenors claim that a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the area designated Silviculture/Agriculture (S/A) on the County's FLUM does not preserve wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality, nor restore wetlands in the Flats. Policy I.2.2 of the Plan establishes the densities in the S/A land use category at no more than one dwelling unit per 160 acres and no more than one development unit per 80 acres. The policy defines development units as: [] structures commonly associated with row crops, pasture, hunting or silviculture activities such as barns, outbuildings and sheds, vehicle storage, small mill operations, and small office structures. . . The density established under Policy I.2.2 is a low density. By requiring at least 160 acres before one residence can be built, development in the S/A category is discouraged and directed to other areas of the County where higher densities are permitted. The following uses and activities are established by Policy I.2.2 for lands classified as S/A: Lands classified in Silviculture/Agriculture shall be lands which are predominantly used for silviculture activities conducted in accordance with Policy V.2.16, limited agricultural uses as described below, dwelling units, development units, archery ranges, rifle, shotgun and pistol ranges, and hunting and fishing camps and uses customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to such uses. Policy I.2.2 describes the limited agricultural activities permitted in the S/A land use classification: Within the Silviculture/Agriculture land use classification, intensive agriculture uses shall be prohibited. Grazing of livestock on pasture lands shall be allowed and row crops planted on a rotational basis between the harvesting of timber and planting of trees as part of silviculture activities shall also be allowed. Row crop activity shall be limited to areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) and shall maintain a 50-foot natural buffer around all wetlands. The Plan conserves and protects wetlands. In addition to restricting row crops to drier soils and requiring buffers between row crops and all wetlands (as described above), Policy I.2.2 provides: [] ditching or any other activity which would modify the natural hydrology and environmental character of Silviculture/Agriculture areas shall be prohibited, provided however, that trench irrigation shall be allowed in areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) for row crops within Silviculture/Agriculture areas so long as such trench irrigation practices do not result in the conversion of wetlands to uplands. To further protect wetlands, Policy V.2.4 requires a 35-foot natural buffer around all wetlands, within which agricultural and residential uses are prohibited. Additionally, Policy V.2.8 prohibits development which alters the natural functions of wetlands where all structures can be clustered on the non- wetland portion of the site. Where that option does not exist, Policy V.2.8 permits only minimal residential development activity and establishes other limitations on development, including the requirement that walking paths and driveways to residences use permeable fill and allow the uninterrupted flow of water. Wetlands are also protected by Policy V.2.16, which requires silviculture activities to follow the best management practices established in the 1993 Florida Department of Agriculture's "Silviculture Best Management Practices." These identified policies in the Plan conserve and protect wetlands in the Flats. Intervenors assert that development at the rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will "fragment" wildlife habitat in the Flats and thereby negatively affect wildlife associated with the Flats. The Flats is not a particularly significant habitat for threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, or rare species. The best available existing data shows that the habitat in the Flats is not used by many, if any, of these types of species. Development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use classification will not adversely impact either the habitat or the wildlife which might use that habitat. Some species may be positively impacted by the limited development activities allowed in the Flats under the Plan. While wading birds at times forage for food in the Flats, development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use category, with the various wetlands protection policies in the Plan, will not adversely affect utilization of the Flats by these bird populations. An individual animal may be negatively impacted by limited development of one dwelling unit per 160 acres, but the wildlife population as a whole will suffer no adverse impacts. Moreover, development at this density could cause less severe fragmentation and fewer negative impacts than are caused by current silviculture practices which have been utilized in the Flats for decades. Policy V.2.8, relating to residential development in wetlands, limits clearing or removal of native vegetation and provides some protection to the Flats. Such clearing or removal may not exceed more than one-half acre per five acres. Requirements of Policy V.3.4 that the County cooperate with other governmental entities, research and interest groups to conserve and protect unique vegetative communities within the County, affords protection to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and native vegetative communities. Also, Policies V.3.4, V.4.1, and V.4.2 require the County to cooperate with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in monitoring and inventorying wildlife and wildlife habitats, including cooperating in the application, and compliance with, all federal and state regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species. Policy V.4.3 also requires consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission prior to the issuance of a development order where there is an indication that such issuance would result in an adverse impact to any endangered or rare species. The low density permitted in the Flats, in conjunction with wetlands protection and other identified policies in the Plan, will conserve and protect wildlife, wildlife habitat, and existing native vegetative communities, and maintain the overall integrity of the natural resources in the Flats. Intervenors assert that placement of septic tanks within the Flats have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater. Contamination from a septic tank from a residential development at a rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will have no significant impact on groundwater quality. Scientific studies show that any adverse impact of effluent from a septic tank system, or even a malfunctioning septic tank, is dissipated within 50 feet. As a result, the placement of septic tanks in the Flats at the designated density required by the Plan will not adversely impact the groundwater quality. In addition to the Plan's protection of groundwater quality as a result of the maximum density in the S/A land use classification of one dwelling unit per 160 acres and one development unit per 80 acres, protection also results from the previously-identified policies relating to wetlands protection. A comprehensive approach to conserving and protecting the natural resources associated with the Flats has been established by the County through all the above-referenced policies. The Plan relies on the low density established for the S/A land use classification, as well as various planning controls. These controls limit the type and extent of uses allowed in the S/A land use classification and protect wetlands, and require cooperation with other governmental entities to ensure the conservation and protection of wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality in the Flats. BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS FOR SILVICULTURE/AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE-5 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the S/A and Agriculture-5 (Ag-5) land use classifications are inappropriate and do not follow the boundaries of the Flats. Although the Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in Gilchrist County, there is no definitive boundary for the Flats. Prior to the 1991 adoption of the County's comprehensive plan, the Flats were zoned Preservation-1 (P-1). The lands zoned P-1 prior to 1991 now are classified by the Plan as S/A. The size of the S/A category is slightly larger than the P-1 zone. The subject of boundaries of the Flats was addressed in Gilchrist Timber Company v. Gilchrist County, Florida, Case No. 88-156-CA (Eighth Judicial Circuit, August 21, 1989). In that case, the circuit court determined that the County did a "commendable and legally defensible task in following section lines, quarter section lines and existing uses in setting the boundaries [of the P-1 zoning category]. These lines must be somewhere and those made in this case are quite reasonable." Much of the land surrounding the Flats was zoned General Flood Plain-1 (GFP-1) or General Flood Plain-2 (GFP-2) prior to the 1991 Plan adoption; the vast majority of that land now is classified by the Plan as Ag-5. In determining the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications for the FLUM in the adopted Plan, the County reviewed its zoning map, conducted site visits, and utilized updated maps and information prepared by state, federal, and regional agencies. These maps included the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (1988); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Reconnaissance Survey (1981); the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's Soil Associations map (1991); and the Florida Sinkhole Research Institute's Potential for Groundwater Pollution of the Floridan Aquifer (1988). This information was the best available data and analysis which existed at the time the Plan and remedial amendments were adopted. These maps depict the boundary of the resources within the Flats, but cannot be used to definitely establish the boundaries of the Flats. Policy I.2.2 establishes the density for the Ag-5 land use classification as one dwelling unit per 40 acres. This is a low density which discourages development in the Ag-5 category, and directs development to other areas of the County which have higher densities. The density in this land use classification thereby serves to limit negative impacts from development to surrounding areas, including the Flats. As a buffer between the Flats and surrounding agriculture lands, the Ag-5 areas protect natural resources in the Flats from the potential adverse impacts of agricultural activities and higher densities and intensities of development permitted outside the Flats. Buffering in this way is a professionally-accepted planning tool for protecting natural resources. The natural resources associated with the Flats will receive adequate protection through the Plan policies referenced earlier, regardless of whether they fall within the S/A or Ag-5 land use classification. The data and analysis used by the County to delineate the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications was the best available existing data, was relevant and appropriate. The Plan's classification of certain lands as S/A and Ag-5 was reasonable and based on sound planning principles. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Intervenors allege that the future population projections in the Plan do not demonstrate a need for additional density in the Flats in order to meet the future residential needs of Gilchrist County. Pursuant to Plan Policy I.2.2, a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the S/A land use category would allow a maximum of 232 dwelling units to be built in the Flats. Under Plan Policy I.2.2, the current density allowed in Ag-5 is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. A comparison of the adopted FLUM with the prior zoning map reveals that over 5,000 acres are designated Ag-5 which were formerly zoned GFP-2 prior to the Plan's adoption. Under the old GFP-2 zoning category, a maximum of 5,000 dwelling units could have been built. Under the current Ag-5 land use classification, no more than 160 dwelling units could be built. Through the Plan's adoption, the densities established for the combined S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications result in an overall reduction in density allowed in the Flats and surrounding areas. Moreover, the densities permitted in these areas do not result in adverse impacts to natural resources in the Flats. The County's designation of densities in the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications is reasonable and appropriate and based on data and analysis in the Plan.
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 finding the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan as subsequently amended to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 23rd day of May, 1995.
The Issue Whether Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension is a "major development" as defined by Section 6-222, Monroe County Code, and (in connection with Intervenor's amended plat proposal and dredge and fill application) should undergo major development review pursuant to Chapter 6, Article VII, Monroe County Code.
Findings Of Fact Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension is a subdivision located in Section 2, Township 67 South, Range 27 East, Sugarloaf Key, Monroe County, Florida. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 1). The plat of Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension, shows 76 residential building lots and five deadend canals (connecting to Upper Sugarloaf Sound or Cross Key Channel) and a canal of approximately 900 feet paralleling the mean high water line of Upper Sugarloaf Sound; it was approved by Monroe County on July 5, 1972, and is recorded in Monroe County Plat Book 6, page 93. The subdivision contains 38.9 plus acres. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 2; Joint Exhibit No. 1). Lloyd A. Good, Jr., purchased Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension on October 8, 1973, and is the current owner and developer of the subdivision. (Prehearing Stipulation Para. (e), No. 3). At the time of his purchase, the land had been cleared. An east-west canal of approximately 600' in length and 50' in width had been excavated but unopened to Upper Sugarloaf Sound. A north-south canal or borrow pit of approximately 200' in length and 50' in width had also been excavated. Fill obtained from these excavations had been placed on the property. He subsequently placed approximately 800 yards of additional fill on the Southeast corner of the property. (Testimony of Good) The platted subdivision is landward of the mean high water line and contains a mixture of upland and wetland vegetation. A berm rises along the front of the property between Allamanda Drive and the existing (plugged) canal. The northern part of the property contains white, black, and red mangroves, red grape, a hardwood hammock, and a salt water marsh characterized by key grass, salicornia, and white and black mangroves. The western part of the property contains fresh water wetlands characterized by spike rush. The area south of the existing canal contains more mangroves and is permeated by transitional wetland or fresh water wetland plant species, with the higher elevations containing Lower Keys hardwood hammock species such as poison wood, black tooth and Jamaican dogwood. The salt marsh and black mangroves are subject to inundation from tidal exchange; the fresh water wetlands are subject to rain water flooding. (Testimony of Dennis) In 1973, Lloyd Good was familiar with regulatory restrictions on the use of wetland areas. As a Philadelphia attorney, he had "practiced in wetland areas in New Jersey . . . and . . . knew that the concept of deadend canals at that time was not feasible." (TR.65) He had decided to amend the original plat (and change the development plan) even before he purchased Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension because he believed that under existing environmental laws the platted deadend canals would not be permitted. (TR.65) So he hired engineers to design a development plan acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other governmental agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities in wetland areas. Because of other business interests, he temporarily halted work on the project between late 1973 and 1975. From 1975 to 1980, he worked with permitting officials from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies in an effort to devise a development plan for Section C Extension which would meet regulatory standards. In 1980, he hired a consultant to obtain the necessary federal, state, and local permits needed to carry out his revised development plan. Monroe County permitting officials told him not to apply for any local dredge and fill, or land clearing permits until he first obtained the required federal and state permits. (Testimony of Good) In 1980, Lloyd Good applied for a joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation permit to perform the dredging and filling necessary to carry out his revised development plan. In 1983, after extensive negotiation, both agencies issued him the required dredge and fill permits. The Department of Environmental Regulation permit was conditioned on Mr. Good obtaining Monroe County approval of an amended plat of Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension conforming to the federal and state permits. (Joint Exhibit No. 21, Testimony of Good) During his initial discussions with Monroe County officials in 1981, Lloyd Good proposed rezoning the property to permit multiple-family residences; if rezoned, he expected that the project would be required to undergo "major development" review as defined by the Monroe County Code. But after meeting with members of the Sugarloaf Property Owners Association and discovering that they were violently opposed to multi-family development," (TR.73) he decided to retain the single-family nature of the original development and not seek a zoning change. Monroe County officials told him that by retaining the original zoning his development activities would not be subject to the "major development" review process. (Testimony of Good) On May 10, 1983, Lloyd Good submitted an application to Monroe County for authorization to dredge 42,400 plus/minus cubic yards of submerged lands, wetlands and uplands for roads and fill needed to develop residential lots within the Sugarloaf Shores Subdivision in accordance with his newly revised development plan. His application conformed to the federal and state permits already issued. (Prehearing Stipulation Para. (e) No. 4; Joint Exhibits No. 2 and 6) Mark Robinson, the county biologist assigned to review the dredge and fill application and prepare a biological report, asked Lloyd Good to have the state and federal permits amended to address several of his concerns. Mr. Good obtained the requested permit amendments, then asked that the biological report be completed. (Testimony of Good) On August 25, 1983, Dr. Jeffrey M. Doyle, Director of the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Department, issued an administrative ruling declaring Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension to be a "major development" under the Monroe County Code. As grounds, he cited Section 6-222(1), which defines a "major development" project as a subdivision containing five acres or more of land or water, and Section 6-222(7)(b), which grants discretionary authority to zoning officials and the County Commission to designate an activity or use as a "major development" project if it "reflects sufficient scope, scale and size to justify its being designated . . . in order to ensure its reasonable implementation, if approved, and its proper review prior to such approval." Under his administrative ruling, the dredge and fill application would be subject to the comprehensive review procedures which apply to "major developments." (Joint Exhibit Nos. 32, 5) On September 21, 1983, Lloyd Good appealed Dr. Doyle's administrative ruling to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment. The issue before the Board of Adjustment (and subsequently before the County Commission) was whether Mr. Good's proposed dredge and fill activity (for the purpose of constructing the revised subdivision) was a "major development" as defined by the Monroe County Code, and whether compliance with "major development" review procedures was required before county dredge and fill permits could be issued. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 6; Joint Exhibit No. 8). On November 2, 1983, the Monroe County Board of Adjustment upheld Dr. Doyle's decision and determined that the Section C Extension subdivision (to be created by the dredging and filling) was a "major development" under Chapter 6- 222(7)(b), Monroe County Code. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 7; Joint Exhibits No. 11 and 12). On November 23, 1983, Lloyd Good appealed the Board of Adjustment's decision to the County Commission. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e) No. 8; Joint Exhibit No. 13). On January 27, 1984, the County Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeals, adopted Resolution No. 042-1984, reversing the Board of Adjustment's decision of November 2, 1983. The resolution (giving no specific reasons for the reversal) remanded the matter to the County Planning and Building Department for normal processing of the related dredge and fill permits. It did not grant or deny any development or dredge and fill permit; it simply ordered that Lloyd Good's dredge and fill application would be reviewed under normal permitting procedures, not the more comprehensive procedures applicable to "major development" projects. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 9; Joint Exhibit No. 14) The DCA did not appeal this resolution to a circuit court (within 30 days of its adoption) or to the FLAWAC (within 45 days of its transmission). The DCA did not challenge or question the County Commission's decision (that the proposed dredge and fill activities would not undergo "major development review") until it appealed the Commission's subsequent resolution granting the dredge and fill permit. (Testimony of Good, Dennis) On June 4, 1984, Lloyd Good submitted to the Monroe County Building Department 13 copies of a proposed amended plat for the Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension. The amended plat incorporated his new development plan and reflected the dredging and filling approved by state and federal permits. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 10; Joint Exhibit Nos. 18 and 21). On July 13, 1984, the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 195- 1984 approving Lloyd Good's application to dredge and fill. The resolution was transmitted to the DCA on July 27, 1984, which appealed it to the FLAWAC by notice filed September 10, 1984. 1/ The appealed resolution directs that the applied-for permit be issued subject to Lloyd Good's subsequent filing of an amendment to the Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension plat. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), Joint Exhibit No. 19) Thereafter, on September 7, 1984, the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 224-1984, approving an "Amended Plat for Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension." The DCA also appealed this resolution to FLAWAC by separate notice filed October 31, 1984. (Prehearing Stipulation, Para. (e), No. 12; Joint Exhibit Nos. 21, 22) The amended plat approved by Resolution No. 224-1984, replaces the original plat with a fundamentally new and different development plan. It alters the location of roads; eliminates the proposed deadend canals (except for the existing "plugged" canal); provides for wetland preservation areas in Tracts A, B, C, D, and F, and for the construction of a six-acre boat basin fronting the property on Upper Sugarloaf Sound; and reduces the number of single family residential lots from 76 to 55. RU-1 zoning is retained. The new development plan is preferable to the original plan in terms of environmental impact. The amended plat was processed in the same manner as all new plats in Monroe County. (Joint Exhibits No. 1, 21; Testimony of Dennis) The record is devoid of any documented expenditures made by Lloyd Good in reliance on County Commission approval of the original or amended plat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Section 380.07(4), Florida Statutes (1983), the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter an order: Reversing Resolution Nos. 195-1984 and 224-1984, because these resolutions approved development activities prior to their undergoing the "major development" review required by Section 6-222(1) and (6), Monroe County Code, as incorporated by Rules 27F-9.06 and 27F-9.17, Florida Administrative Code; Declaring the proposed Sugarloaf Shores Section C Extension a "major development" within the meaning of Section 6-222(1) and (6), Monroe County Code, and requiring the two development activities which would create it to undergo "major development" review prior to any approval; and Declaring that after undergoing the required "major development" review, these development activities would be eligible for approval, but that the disposition of the appeals in the instant cases does not reach the substantive issue of whether the proposed development should ultimately be approved, or disapproved. See, Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes (1983). DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1986.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan (Manatee Plan) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County via Ordinance No. 13-10 on December 5, 2013, are “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Katie Pierola is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mrs. Pierola made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Greg Geraldson is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mr. Geraldson made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted the Manatee Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Robinson Farms is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County and owning real property in the County. It owns the property affected by the 2013 Amendments. The 2013 Amendments The 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map of the Manatee Plan to change the future land use classification of approximately 20 acres of land owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The land is described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 13-10. It is located on the north side of 9th Avenue Northwest, about 600 feet east of 99th Street. The RES-1 classification allows one dwelling unit per acre (du/a). The RES-3 classification allows up to three du/a. The General Introduction chapter of the Manatee Plan, Section D – Special Plan Interpretation Provisions, would be amended to add the following new text: D.5.16 Ordinance 13-10 (ROBINSON FARMS PLAN AMENDMENT) The 20± acre property identified as the Robinson Farms Plan Amendment and designated RES-3 on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 shall be limited to a maximum of thirty eight (38) residential units. Coastal Evacuation Area and Coastal High Hazard Area All 20 acres of the Robinson Farms property is within the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA). The CEA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The evacuation Level A for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional evacuation study applicable to Manatee County, as updated on a periodic basis. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.2.4.2, which addresses the purposes of the CEA, states in part: To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation area requiring evacuation during storm events. To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents. To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage. All but 4.68 acres is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The geographic area below the Category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, pursuant to applicable law, as updated on a periodic basis. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.2, which addresses the purposes of the CHHA, repeats the same purposes that are set forth above for the CEA. Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goal 4.3 of the Coastal Element of the Manatee Plan is: Protection of the Residents and Property Within the Coastal Planning Area from the Physical and Economic Effects of Natural Disasters Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 states: Limit development type, density and intensity within the Coastal Planning Area and direct population and development to areas outside the Coastal High Hazard Area to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural hazards in the area. Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 states: Direct population concentrations away from the Coastal Evacuation Area FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CEA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal Evacuation Area. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) states, in part: The area designated under the CEA Overlay District on the Future Land Use Map shall also be subject to all goals, objectives and policies for any land use category overlaid by the CHHA District, except where policies associated with the CEA Overlay conflict with such goals, objectives and policies. In this event, policies associated with the CHHA Overlay District shall override other goals, objectives and policies. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CHHA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay District. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a) states that, in the event of a conflict between CHHA policies and other policies in the Manatee Plan, the CHHA policies shall override. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments are not based on best available data and analysis as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). However, that rule was repealed in 2011. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis.” This section explains: To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Petitioners contend that the proposed reclassification of the Robinson Farms property from RES-1 to RES-3 does not react appropriately to the data which show the Robinson Farms property lies within the CEA and CHHA. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is not the mapping of the CEA and CHHA that creates a conflict with the 2013 Amendments. The conflict is created by the policies which address future land uses in the CEA and CHHA. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments make the Manatee Plan internally inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 which require “population concentrations” to be directed away from the Coastal Evacuation Area. No evidence was presented by Petitioners or by Manatee County on the County’s interpretation of the term “population concentrations.” However, FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. Therefore, assuming as we must that the Manatee Plan is internally consistent, it follows that “population concentrations” in Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 means any increase in residential density. Because the 2013 Amendments increase residential density in the CEA, they are inconsistent with this objective and policy. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CEA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CEA. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CHHA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CHHA. Competing Policies Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that there are other policies in the Manatee Plan, such as those that discourage urban sprawl and encourage infill in the Urban Core Area, which the County must weigh along with the policies discussed above. The County contends that it weighed these conflicting policies and reached a fairly debatable determination that the 2013 Amendments are consistent with the Manatee Plan. Contradicting this argument are FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) and FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a), which state that the CEA and CHHA policies shall override any conflicting goals, objectives, and policies in the Manatee Plan. Urban sprawl, infill, and other policies of the Manatee Plan cannot be invoked to avoid the specific prohibitions in FLUE Policies 2.2.2.4.5(a) and 2.2.2.5.5(a) against any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the CEA and CHHA. Density Offsets Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that the County’s reduction in dwelling units in other parts of the CHHA over the past several years is a valid consideration in determining whether an increase in residential density on the Robinson Farms property is permissible despite the prohibition in FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a). In support of their argument, they cite Department of Community Affairs v. Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 WL 2497934 (Nov. 16, 2006). However, the Leeward Yacht Club case involved the comprehensive plan of Lee County, which did not prohibit increases in residential density in the CHHA. In contrast, the Manatee Plan quite plainly prohibits “any amendment” to the Future Land Use Map that would increase residential density in the CHHA. Previous Proceedings These same parties were involved in a dispute regarding an earlier proposed amendment to the Manatee Plan to reclassify property owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The 2010 Amendment was different in that it affected 28 acres (which encompasses the 20 acres in the 2013 Amendments). The 2010 Amendment would have increased the residential density on the 28 acres from 28 dwelling units to 105 dwelling units, all in the CEA. It would have added 56 dwelling units to the CHHA. Petitioners challenged the amendment and an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge D.R. Alexander (DOAH Case No. 11-0009GM). On April 13, 2011, Judge Alexander entered a Recommended Order which recommended that the 2010 Amendment be determined not in compliance because: The amendment was not based on relevant and appropriate data because the most current SLOSH model results were not used; The amendment was inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) which prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. The amendment was inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 which require that population and development be directed to areas outside the CHHA. The Recommended Order went to the Administration Commission, which ultimately dismissed the case when Manatee County rescinded Ordinance No. 10-02 and the 2010 Amendment. In Manatee County Ordinance No. 11-035, which was the ordinance used to rescind the 2010 Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the 2010 Amendment was internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 because the amendment increased residential density in the CEA and CHHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the 2013 Amendments adopted by Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Minix, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Edward Vogler, II, Esquire Vogler Ashton, PLLC 2411-A Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-4948 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Peter Antonacci, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
Findings Of Fact The land encompassed within the mobile home park known as Mohawk Village was purchased by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, a corporation owned and controlled by the Tanner family. The majority of the stock in Respondent is owned by the oldest son; another son is president of Respondent; and the father, L. William Tanner, served as "consultant" to the corporation. This tract was initially divided into some 700-odd lots which were being sold to the public in 1980 as mobile home sites. The land was purchased from North Orlando Sewer and Water Company, which agreed to provide sewer and water services to the subdivision and to have these facilities in place by January 1, 1981. Respondent never registered with the Petitioner in accordance with Chapter 498, Florida Statutes. North Orlando Sewer and Water Company failed to provide sewer service to this development and none of the home sites were available for occupancy January 1, 1981, as promised to buyers by Respondent. Without sewer service it became necessary to go to septic tanks and this required larger lots per mobile home site. The tract was replatted to provide 300-odd lots despite the previous sale of smaller lots to buyers. These buyers were advised their lots would have to be swapped and when some objected and demanded their money back, without success, Petitioner was made aware of the development and investigated. The investigation led to the entering of a Cease and Desist and Consent Order (Exhibit 1). Therein Petitioner essentially agreed to forego action against Respondent for prior violations of Chapter 498, which Respondent contended it was subject to; and Respondent agreed to cease all leasing until the site was ready for occupancy, to provide Petitioner with copies of all leases in effect, as well as copies of all future leases executed, to deposit funds received from buyers in escrow until after receipt of a certificate of occupancy, and to take necessary steps to ensure all future leases fall within the statutory exemptions set forth in Section 498.025(1)(g), Florida Statutes. L. William Tanner was paid a consulting fee by Respondent "in the ballpark of $100,000." In addition, he was to own the companies that provided utilities to the park (after default by North Orlando Sewer and Water Company), and furnished porches, decks, built walkways, roads, etc. Following the Consent Order funds were received payable to Tanner-controlled companies that were not deposited in the escrow account. These funds were not lease payments but came from the lessees for sewer and water hookups, porches, decks, etc. Mohawk Village received its first certificate of occupancy on 14 January 1982. Between 17 April 1981, when the Consent Order was entered, and 14 January 1982, lot leases were sold to Gould on 30 November 1981; to Herring on 12 September 1981; and to Roberts on 14 January 1982 (Exhibit 6). The sales to Gould and Herring were clearly during the period Respondent had consented not to sell leases. Exhibit 1 authorized Respondent to renegotiate and relocate current lessees to new mobile home sites under a plan to use alternate utility services from those initially to be provided by North Orlando Sewer and Water Company "if such plan is implemented at no additional cost to the individual lessees." Those who had bought leases under the original scheme agreed to pay $29 per month to lessor. Leases sold after the decision to use septic tanks where the number of lots was reduced from 700-odd to 300-odd, provided the lessees would pay the lessor $59 per month. Respondent advised the earlier lessees that they would have to pay $59 per month in lieu of $29. When they objected and demanded refunds of what they had paid, some of them were promised refunds but to date very few have received any refunds. Changing their rental fee from $29 to $59 violated the Consent Order. The only change in the lease before and after the execution of the Consent Order was the change of this monthly rental payment. Since the original lease did not qualify for exemption under Section 498.025(1)(g), Florida Statutes, the amended lease, which merely changed the monthly rental fee, did not qualify for exemption. Leases on these lots were sold at prices ranging from $1,000 to $7,000. At no time relevant hereto did Respondent hold a dealer's license to deal in or sell mobile homes (Exhibit 3) There was no valid reservation program established by Respondent pursuant to Section 498.024, Florida Statutes, nor did Respondent apply for or receive approval of a public offering statement for Mohawk Village (Exhibit 2). All leases sold provided, in addition to a habitable lot, that the seller would provide recreational facilities. Those leases sold in 1980 promised a lot on which the buyer could move his mobile-home by January 1, 1981. Not only was the deadline missed but also Respondent has provided no recreational facilities. One witness who sold her home and bought a mobile home could not move it to the site in accordance with the contract because of lack of utilities and was forced to acquire another residence. Although proper demand was made she has been refunded none of her purchase money. According to his testimony, L. William Tanner has developed about one hundred subdivisions throughout the United States since 1946. Some 20 such subdivisions have been developed by him in Florida. He is aware of the Florida statutes regulating the subdivision and sale of lands, and contends that the Mohawk Village subdivision is exempt because Petitioner does not have jurisdiction over 99-year leases. He further contends that the monthly rental payments of $29 or $59 for 99 years brings the price paid for the lots to more than $50,000, thereby exempting them from the provisions of Chapter 498. Prior to the commencement of this hearing, Mohawk Village was transferred to Gould, who had been involved in supplying mobile homes to lot purchasers in the park. According to Tanner's testimony "it was not much of a sale" with him insisting Gould and Mohician Valley (apparently the new name for the mobile home subdivision) acknowledging existing mortgage, the Consent Agreement with Petitioner, and the obligation to refund the monies. No documentary evidence was presented to show that Tanner or his immediate family does not continue to own controlling interest in this mobile home park.
