The Issue The issues for determination are whether, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Walter L. Moyer, violated Section 472.033(1)(g) and (h) F.S. and Rule 21 HH-2.01(3) by performing a land survey in a negligent or incompetent manner, without due care and without due regard for acceptable professional standards, and violated Section 472.033(1)(e), (g) and (h) F.S., and Rule 21HH- 2.01(3) and (5) FAC, by providing a false or deliberately inaccurate survey sketch to a client on two separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Walter L. Moyer has been licensed by the State of Florida as a registered surveyor from approximately August 1977 until present, and holds license number LS 0002828. His address for license purposes is Palm Bay, Florida, in Brevard County. His practice as a surveyor has been primarily in construction-related surveys and lot surveys, with very few parcel surveys. THE CHILCOTT SURVEY (COUNT I) In June 1984, Charles and Robin Chilcott purchased property on Grant Road, in Brevard County, consisting of approximately 1.44 acres of undeveloped land. The Chilcotts acquired the parcel with the intent to construct a home and keep their horses. Shortly after purchase, the Chilcotts retained Moyer to prepare a boundary survey of the parcel. The cost of the survey was $315.00 including $7.50 extra cost for two concrete monuments, rather than iron rods, at the front corners, as requested by the Chilcotts. The survey was performed on July 27, 1984, and Moyer was paid. He furnished the Chilcotts several sketches of survey which he had signed and sealed. In 1985, the Chilcotts hired a contractor, Casey Jones, and commenced building their house. At the request of Casey Jones, Moyer prepared both the foundation and final surveys. These two surveys were added to the boundary survey on September 26, 1985, and November 23, 1985, respectively. At the time that the field work on the foundation and final survey was done, Moyer detected no problems with the monumentation he had initially set in the boundary survey. He did not see any evidence that the monuments had been disturbed. The final survey shows the house to be 17.35 feet inside the east lot line. The Chilcotts wanted at least that distance because the area is zoned agricultural and they did not want the neighbor's livestock close to the house. They also understood that the county required a minimum 10-foot set-back. In connection with the construction of their home, and in reliance upon Moyer's survey identifying their property's boundary, the Chilcotts installed a well and a fence and had approximately 800 feet of sod planted along the east boundary. The Chilcotts have since learned that those improvements are not on their property and that their house is, in fact, only 7.25 feet from the lot line. In May, 1986, David Rothery, a Florida licensed land surveyor, performed a boundary survey of the Donald Waterbury parcel adjacent to and just east of Chilcott's land on Grant Road. Rothery checked and double-checked his field measurements and still found a ten foot discrepancy in the placement of the monuments on the eastern corners of the Chilcott parcel. Those monuments were ten feet too far to the east and were, therefore, placed ten feet within the Waterbury boundaries. He did not observe any indication that the monuments had been moved, and when he placed his corners for the proper boundaries, he found no evidence that monuments had ever been there before. As required, the monuments placed by Moyer had his identification on them. Rothery put a dotted line on his survey with the notation, "Apparent survey error on adjoining property by Walter Moyer Land Surveying". Rothery also called Moyer and told him about the discrepancy. On the morning of May 10, 1986, Moyer went back out to the Chilcott property and discovered that his monuments were ten feet too far to the east. He was in the process of moving them when he was confronted by Charles Chilcott. He told Chilcott that an error was made, that he "dropped ten feet". There was some discussion about possible remedies such as paying for the well and fence to be moved or buying the ten feet from Waterbury. Chilcott did not let Moyer finish moving the monuments. That night, Chilcott, who had never met Moyer before, but had only communicated by phone or in writing, called Moyer's house and confirmed that it was the same person he had seen moving the monuments. That was the last time Chilcott spoke with Moyer. Chilcott called Moyer's house several times over the following months, but always reached Mrs. Moyer and his phone calls were not returned. Moyer did contact Waterbury about purchasing the ten foot strip. Waterbury was concerned about how this would affect his eventual ability to build on his lot and refused to sell. Waterbury is not pressing the Chilcotts about their encroachments; he simply expects to have the matter resolved sometime in the future. By a letter dated 8/18/86, the Chilcotts requested damages of $2,500.00 from Moyer, including an estimate of costs to move the well, fence and a power pole and to replace sod. On September 13, 1986, another letter from Chilcott to Moyer listed the same plus additional damages, for a total demand of $4,025.00. In a letter to Chilcott dated August 27, 1987, Moyer offered to pay the application fee to seek a variance from the setback requirement and offered to provide a final survey and half the cost of moving the well. The letter denied that the problem was Moyer's fault and said that Moyer believes that the markers were moved between the date the survey was completed and the date of the foundation. The Chilcotts rejected that offer. No evidence in this proceeding supports Moyer's contention that the Chilcotts or someone else moved the monuments he originally set in 1984. The evidence does establish a strong circumstantial basis for finding that the monuments were not moved, but were incorrectly placed by Moyer at the time that the boundary survey was completed. Setting the monuments properly is an essential component of conducting a boundary survey. Moreover, when a subsequent final survey is done, it is the duty of the surveyor to assure that the original monuments have not been disturbed during construction and site work by a contractor. Assuming that Moyer is correct in his contention that the monuments were moved after they were set by him, but before the foundation was placed, it was his duty to discover that fact. He did not, since his final survey shows that the house is 17.35 feet from the boundary, whereas the house is, in fact, approximately seven feet from the adjoining property. Except when witness monuments are used, as when a tree or other obstruction sits on a boundary corner, it is a violation of standard surveying practice to place a monument other than where it is shown on the survey drawing. In this instance, the drawing is accurate; as described in the Chilcott deed, the northeast corner of their property is 600 feet from the section corner. There was no need for witness monuments here; yet the east boundary monuments are ten feet off and are 590 feet from the section corner. There is no overlap in the legal descriptions of the Waterbury and Chilcott properties to account for the overlap in monuments discovered by David Rothery, the Waterbury surveyor. Surveying is a system of checking measurements. Both human and equipment errors in the profession are neither rare nor entirely common. Even the most up-to-date electronic equipment is subject to discrepancies. Checking and rechecking field measurements helps alleviate errors. The minimum technical standards developed by and for the profession are intended to reduce errors, although it is not clear that slavish adherence to those principles will absolutely prevent any possibility of error. When errors do occur, the standard of the profession is to work with the client to resolve the problem. In some cases, this may mean the purchase of the client's property or adjoining property if the party is willing to sell. Moyer's limited offers do not meet the established standards of the profession. THE BURGOON-BERGER SURVEYS COUNTS II AND III On August 21, 1986, Moyer signed and sealed a survey sketch of Lot 22, Block 2245, Port Malabar, Unit 44, in Brevard County Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey of Lot 22 showed the drawing of an improvement within the boundaries of the lot with a notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 25.86." Next to the date on the survey is the abbreviation, "FND". The survey was submitted to the Palm Bay Building Department on August 26, 1986, the day before the pre-slab inspection. A pre-slab inspection is done before the slab is poured; therefore, at the time the survey was signed and sealed, the concrete slab had not yet been poured. On October 20, 1986, Moyer prepared a sketch of survey of Lot 7, Block 1054, Port Malabar Unit 20, in Brevard County, Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey sketch indicated an improvement within the boundaries of the lot, with the notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 26.87". Next to the date on the survey is the notation "FND". The survey was submitted to the City of Palm Bay on October 28, 1986. The pre-slab inspection was done by the City on October 22, 1986. Again, the survey was signed and sealed before the slab was actually poured. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", is commonly understood to mean "foundation, finished floor elevation". "FND" is commonly understood to mean "foundation". Moyer, himself, has used both notations to signify those common usages. Foundation is generally accepted in the land surveying profession to mean something permanent and constructed, like a concrete slab, not bust the ground or wooden form boards used to guide the pouring of the slab. A survey which depicts an improvement with the note, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", when the floor has not been finished misrepresents the status of the construction of that project. Reviewing personnel at the Palm Bay Building Department rejected the surveys and alerted the City's Flood Plain Administrator. That individual, Maria Parkhurst, reported the incidents to the Department of Professional Regulation. Lots 22 and 7 are both in the flood plain and slab elevation is significant, as the City must assure that federal maximum elevation requirements are met. The City requires the submission of surveys containing slab elevation data. Banks also rely on foundation surveys submitted by contractors in order to determine the state of construction before the release of a foundation draw. That is, before the contractor is entitled to partial payment for his work, the bank needs to know if the work has been done. Both Moyer and his client, Bergoon-Berger, intended the notation in these cases to mean "finished form", not "finished floor". Burgoon-Berger had Moyer perform a survey after the wooden form boards were constructed, but before the concrete slab was poured, in order to assure that the house was placed properly on the lot. The survey was somehow submitted prematurely to the city, whereas because Moyer and his client intended that the poured slab be re-surveyed before the sketch was submitted. When the survey for Lot 7 was resubmitted to the City on October 31, 1986, the slab had been poured and, while the elevation remained the same, the size of the fireplace foundation was slightly smaller. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV" remained the same, with nothing on the face of the survey sketch to indicate that this later version was the finished floor, rather than the finished form. Moyer no longer uses these abbreviations. A survey is not valid until it is signed and sealed, but once it is signed and sealed, it signifies to the client and to the public at large that the information provided therein is true and accurate. The standard of professional land survey practice dictates that abbreviations which are not commonly accepted should be explained on the face of the drawing. The professional standards also dictate that even if a client asks for certain information on a survey, in anticipation that other third parties might rely on the survey the professional should either refuse to indicate improvements that do not exist yet or indicate unambiguously that the improvements are intended, but still under construction. Notwithstanding Bergoon-Berger's and Moyer's intentions with regard to the two surveys at issue, Moyer failed to meet professional standards when he signed and sealed those surveys and released them to his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing him on probation for a period of two years, under such conditions as the Board may deem appropriate, including, but not limited to the participation in continuing professional education courses and the pursuit of a reasonable resolution to the Chilcott's boundary problems arising from the Respondent's negligence in performing their survey. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner (Count I) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 3-4. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Incorporated in Part in Paragraph 1., as to the limitation of experience, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in part in Paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 4. 14-18. Adopted in Paragraph 3 and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 11. 23-28. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 8, however the accurate date is May 10, 1986, and the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Moyer spoke to either of the Chilcotts before coming back. This fact is not material. 32-33. Adopted in Paragraph 8. 34. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 42-43. Rejected as cumulative. 44. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. 45-47. Rejected as cumulative. 48-49. Adopted in Paragraph 12. 50-51. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative. 54-55. Adopted in Paragraph 14. (Counts II and III) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Adopted in Paragraph 16. 4-6. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Adopted in Paragraph 20. Adopted in Paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Respondent Adopted in Paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in Background. Adopted in Paragraph 2. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 8-11. Rejected as immaterial. 12-13. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 7. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the fact that the Chilcott house is 7 feet from the boundary. That fact is adopted in Paragraph 6. 19-20. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Rejected, except as adopted in Paragraph 10. 24-25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 13. Rejected as immaterial. While the boundary depiction is accurate, the placement of the house is in error on the final and foundation surveys and, of course, the markers are erroneously set. 30-33. Addressed in Background. 34. Adopted in Paragraphs 15 and 17. 35-36. Adopted in part in Paragraph 22, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 37-38. Rejected as immaterial. 39. Adopted in Paragraphs 19 and 22. 40-44. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: DAVID R. TERRY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JAMES P. BEADLE, ESQUIRE 5205 BABCOCK STREET N. E. PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32905 ALLEN R. SMITH, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 TOM GALLAGHER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Board of Professional Land Surveyors, was the agency charged with regulating the practice of land surveying in Florida and the Respondent was a licensed land surveyor under license no. LS0002909. Respondent has been a surveyor since 1975 in Venice, Florida. In 1986, at the time in question here, Respondent was in partnership with another surveyor, Mr. Bolton, the owner of a surveying company in Dade County, Florida. The joint venture between Mr. Lemonde and Mr. Bolton was called Lemonde- Biscayne, Inc. and was operating in Martin County, Florida, near the St. Lucie County line. Respondent was President of the corporation and a working shareholder. Mr. Bolton, the Vice President, was located in Miami, Florida. Respondent also operated Lemonde Surveying, Inc., of which he was the President and sole working share holder, in Venice. Mr. Bolton, is a registered land surveyor and was an overseer of the day to day operations of the surveying company working out of the Martin County office. At that time, Mr. Ellis was office manager of the corporation in the Martin County office serving along with a secretary and a draftsman. Field surveys were accomplished by surveying crews, none of whom were licensed surveyors. At the time in question, Respondent lived in Venice and traveled to the Stuart office for two or three days of each week. Mr. Bolton also came up from Miami to the Stuart office for one to two days each week. Lemonde-Biscayne, Inc. had been doing business in Martin County for approximately two years. The office was closed there the end of 1986. When Mr. Ellis left employment with Lemonde-Biscayne Inc., sometime prior to the soil samples in question, his position was filled by Mr. Repass, an individual with approximately 1-5 years experience in surveying, who was soon to to take the Florida Surveyors exam. Mr. Repass was hired by Mr. Ellis. When the soil surveys were done, Mr. Repass had been in place for about a year. The soil sampling in question was required by the County Health Department, Division of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to determine the appropriateness of soil in the area for the installation of septic tanks. Lemonde- Biscayne, Inc. was contacted to conduct these surveys and because business was quite heavy at that time, Mr. Bolton sent up a two man crew from his Miami operation to do the work in question. Respondent knew nothing about this crew, but accepted the representation from Mr. Bolton that they were qualified surveyors. In fact, the crew worked for the company for approximately two to three weeks prior to any notification of the Health Department's questions about the soil samples. The problem concerning the samples was communicated to Mr. Repass by telephone from Mr. Anderson, the health department official who followed up his conclusions with a letter in September, 1986. When Mr. Repass received the information from Mr. Anderson, he caused new soil samples to be taken at the sites utilized the Bolton crew and determined that their samples, though reported to be done correctly, were in fact not done at all. Respondent did not however, examine the sample site himself nor did he discuss the samples with the crew subsequent to its reported taking of the soil samples and before he affixed his signature to the forms. When Respondent learned of the problem he was in Venice. He immediately went to Stewart and discharged the Bolton crew, returning them to Miami without either seeing or talking to them. It was at this time that Respondent was first advised of Mr. Repass's dissatisfaction with the crew's work in general. Respondent was familiar with the form he signed. In St. Lucie County, every survey of property which did not call for a central sewage system audit had to have a soil sample survey signed by a registered surveyor or engineer. He had signed many of these forms as a land surveyor and this is the only time he can recall having had a problem. When Mr. Lemonde attempted to talk with Mr. Bolton about his crew after the problem came to light, Bolton was not willing to discuss the matter. Respondent does not know what action Bolton took with regard to the crew when it got back to Miami. Before the crew went out to take the samples in question, Mr. Repass instructed them as to where to go and what to do to take the appropriate samples. He told them to make sure that they dug the hole to the proper depth and record the soil makeup. The crew told him that they had done soil samples before, but were not familiar with this specific form. They assured Repass that they could handle the job, however, and when they came back, the write up in their field book, though sloppy, appeared to show that they had done the work in question. Mr. Repass's duties included quality checking their performance when the field notes were returned to the office before any survey report was prepared and released. Since a mathematical calculation is involved, errors generally can be identified without too much difficulty. On soil samples however, there is little that can be done to verify the information brought in by a crew short of going out and redoing the borings Neither Mr. Repass nor the Respondent checked the accuracy of the borings reported by Bolton's crew. Since the crew came highly recommended by Mr. Bolton, himself a long standing, well thought of professional registered land surveyor, Respondent felt confident in accepting this crew's work and signed the forms based on the crew's representation. In his training as a land surveyor, Respondent was not given any training in soils profile or identification. Neither subject is examined during the licensure examination for a surveyor. Most counties in the State of Florida consider soil tests as independent of surveying work and the soil samples are taken by an independent engineer or soils expert. In St. Lucie County, however, the health department requires only that the person doing the soil sample be either an engineer or a registered surveyor. The health department has set no standards for training the people who collect soil data nor are there any standards set for determining color or texture of the samples taken. In Repass's opinion, the others registered surveyors for whom he has worked in the past, did nothing different than that which the Respondent did in this case. Repass himself has done between 500 and 600 soil samples. There is nothing unusual or complicated about the process and he was satisfied before he sent them out that the crew supplied by Mr. Bolton was physically and mentally capable of accomplishing the job. There is no question that the samples prepared by the Bolton crew were false. When Mr. Anderson of the health department saw the six applications in question, in a spot check, he had inspectors from his own office go out and do new borings on the site. Of the six forms in question, five showed differences when the county borings were compared with those of the Bolton crew. St. Lucie County does not publish any guidelines for description of color or texture to be used on the forms involving soil borings. Neither does it require that the person conducting the sample have any special training, regardless of the requirements of Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. This provision calls for soil tests to be performed by either an engineer with soils training who is registered by the State of Florida, or by other qualified persons with soils training. St. Lucie County requires only that the application be filed either by an engineer or a land surveyor who can appropriately describe the plot containing the site of the borings. Petitioner's expert, Mr. John Quillen, a registered land surveyor of many years experience, was unwilling to characterize Respondent's performance here as either fraudulent, incompetent, or negligent. He did, however, indicate, as has been found previously, that there was a substantial inconsistency between the borings done by the Bolton crew and signed off on by the Respondent, and those done by the health department crew as a spot check later on. Mr. Quillen further alleges, and Respondent admits that as a registered land surveyor his signature on the report establishes his responsibility for the report and its correctness. Respondent has taken the position that the practice of surveying does not include soils classification and examination. Surveying training does not include these functions nor does the general practice of land surveying encompass them. Mr. Quillen, on the other hand, indicates that as a land surveyor he can be reasonably expected to do soil samples and has done many in the St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties area. He is unfamiliar, however, with other counties in the state. It is found, therefore, that while soil sampling and classification is not normally a function of a land surveyor, in St. Lucie County, land surveyors take soil samples and when Respondent, as a registered land surveyor, accepted a commission to perform these samplings as a land surveyor, he incorporated this function into the surveying umbrella which enclosed his professional activities. Mr. Briggam, a registered land surveyor practicing in Sarasota County and the Venice area in particular, has not done any work in St. Lucie County while a registered surveyor. Therefore, he is not familiar with the local requirements. He is, however, aware that surveyors do soil surveys in that location. He would not sign off on work done by others in areas in which he had no expertise, nor would he sign documents prepared on the basis of the work of others which he has not had the opportunity to check. However, given the fact that in the instant case, the provider of the crew in question was Respondent's business partner, who had been in business for an extended period of time, and that the act required was a simple boring and report of observation; and, in light of the fact that in St. Lucie County surveyors do this type of work, he might have signed the applications in issue here. Mr. Briggam agrees that when a surveyor sends out a crew to do a job, and it comes back with results, if the surveyor is reasonably sure the crew could do the work, he has to accept that work unless there is some way to check it in the office. Here, as has already been established, no such opportunity presented itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Daniel E. Lemonde be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee-, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5111 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted in that the information as to water tables and soil samples on the forms was grossly inaccurate and that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of the inaccuracies at the time he signed. Remainder rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 5 - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein except for finding that Respondent failed to verify the accuracy of information on the forms through knowledge of the crew. By the Respondent 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7 - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11 - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Unsupported by evidence of record. 14 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill O'Neil, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles J. Cheves, Esquire 341 Venice Avenue, West Venice, Florida 34285 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has violated Sections 472.033(1)(a), and (h), and 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21HH-2.001(3) and 21HH-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by failure to comply with a valid Final Order of the Board of Professional Land Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Board of Professional Land Surveyors, with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 472, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent Bertin C. Tash was licensed as a professional land surveyor in the State of Florida, holding license number LS 0002292. By Final Order entered December 31, 1985, the Board of Professional Land Surveyors issued a Final Order in case number 0049353 (previously DOAH Case No. 85-0285), a prior disciplinary action against Respondent. Among other terms of that Final Order, Respondent was placed on probation for twenty-seven months and further was required during the course of that twenty-seven month probation to: ... submit 25 surveys representative of his land surveying practice which shall be accompanied by field notes and record plats to the board for its review. Additional information regarding the surveys may be requested. Five surveys shall be submitted within three months from the filing of this final order; thereafter, five surveys shall be submitted at six month intervals during the period of probation. Respondent shall attend the first available continuing education seminar in his area on the minimum technical standards within 12 months from the filing of this order or as soon after as possible. Evidence of Respondent's attendance and successful completion of the course shall be furnished to the board through the proctor or instructor of the continuing education course... (Emphasis supplied.) It is noted that although the "certificate of service" for the copy of the Final Order admitted in evidence as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is unsigned, Respondent admitted receipt thereof, that no appeal was taken therefrom, and that he understood the terms of the Final Order. Twenty-seven months from December 31, 1985 would fall on April 1, 1987. Twelve months from December 31, 1985 would fall on January 2, 1986. Respondent initially complied with the Final Order by submitting two sets of five surveys, the second in December, 1986. However, some type of dispute arose between Respondent and the Board's monitor of Respondent's probation about whether the monitor could require corrections to be done by Respondent to those surveys already submitted and about whether or not Respondent could be required to submit his field notes for the surveys. Respondent seems to have resisted the clear language of the Final Order (see emphasized language in Finding of Fact No. 4, supra) upon a personal belief that these requirements were unconstitutional, invaded his privacy, or exposed him to ethical charges by his clients. There is nothing in the record, to support this ideation of Respondent, and eventually, Respondent altered his position. Respondent did not submit any further surveys until November, 1988 after the instant case was already in progress, at which time he had modified some of his views with regard to field notes. He then attempted to comply with the Final Order by submitting corrected surveys. However, in error, he sent these surveys not to the Board, but to the attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation where they were retained. This submittal was considerably beyond the April 1, 1987 probationary period and whether considered corrections of the second five surveys or an additional five surveys would not constitute the twenty-five surveys required by the prior Final Order. The Respondent failed to complete a seminar on minimum technical standards between the entry of the Final Order on December 31, 1985 and the date of formal hearing on December 14, 1988. Petitioner submitted proof that such courses were available in West Palm Beach, Respondent's hometown, on May 20, 1987, and in adjoining Broward County on May 21, 1988. Clearly, neither of these courses was available to Respondent during the probationary time frames set out in the Final Order and Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 5 supra. Petitioner submitted no proof of the availability of other such courses during the appropriate time frames, but it appears undisputed that these were the only qualifying courses "in his area" and that the Board would have accepted Respondent's late completion of either course as his compliance with the continuing education requirement in the Final Order. The Board even went so far as to reserve space for Respondent at the May 21, 1988 course in Broward County. Respondent's testimony that he was too ill to attend the May 30, 1987 course is unrefuted. Respondent's testimony that he had, no private means of transportation to the May 21, 1988 course is also unrefuted but he did not show unavailability of public transportation. Moreover, Respondent testified that until the date of formal hearing, he had resisted, upon grounds of his personal ethical ideation, the concept of learning from, or submitting himself to critiques by, any local professionals who conducted continuing education seminars in land surveying.
Recommendation That the Board of Professional Land Surveyors enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of two counts of violating Section 472.003(1)(h) Florida Statutes, and imposing a three-month suspension of Respondent's license, subject to an extension of such suspension to a maximum of one year or until Respondent completes the continuing education course required by the prior Final Order, whichever comes first, and imposing thereafter three years' probation to follow immediately upon the lifting of the suspension, during which three years' probation Respondent shall be required to submit an appropriate number of surveys to be determined by the Board for review by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3108 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF: 1-5 are all accepted. Respondent's PFOF: PFOF 1 discusses the nature of several exhibits and objections ruled upon in the course of formal hearing, does not constitute a relevant or material proposed fact and is not dispositive of any issue at bar. The same subjects are addressed within the RO at FOF 3-4 and 8 to the degree they impinge on this proceeding. PFOF 2 is rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 8 to the degree it comports with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 3 is accepted in part in FOF 6. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, and not comporting with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 4,5,7 and 8 are rejected as mere argument of position or legal argument. PFOF 6 is accepted in part in FOF 7. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as immaterial or mere argument of position or legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bertin C. Tash 5100 Spruce Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-2846 Allen Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondents failed to abide by various minimal technical standards applicable to the practice of surveying and mapping, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J- and 5J-17.052, or were guilty of negligence in the practice of surveying and mapping, all in violation of section 472.0351, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of land surveying and mapping, pursuant to chapter 472, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Mr. Haas was licensed as a professional surveyor and mapper in the state of Florida, with license number LS3708. Mr. Haas was employed by Exacta, which holds license number LB7337. A complaint was filed with the Department on January 27, 2014, by Mr. Charles B. Hatcher of Associated Surveyors, Inc., alleging numerous minimum technical standards errors on a survey prepared by Mr. Haas on September 25, 2012. Petitioner has failed to prosecute Mr. Haas or Exacta for the violations alleged in the complaint made by Mr. Hatcher, on January 27, 2014. Administrative complaints alleging identical counts were filed against Mr. Haas and Exacta. Count I alleges that some of the field data was not dated. Count I also alleges that the coordinates are not on the same datum as the survey, and thus, the survey map cannot be substantiated. Page 12 of Exhibit P-1, a page of computation notes, does not contain the date the information was observed and collected. Further, it is clear that page 12 is not simply a continuation of pages 10 and 11 (which are two halves of the same document) but is instead a separate document that is undated. Data shown in the raw data file and coordinates list differed from that reflected on the survey map. It appeared, however, that the data had been rotated and translated. Rotation and translation is an accepted survey technique which allows modern instrumentation to record data based upon an assumed initial point and bearing, and then calculate all further points and bearings relative to that initial measurement. This information recorded by the instrument must then be rotated and translated back to match the actual points and bearings on a parcel. The Department failed to show that the survey map could not be substantiated. As Mr. Gloer testified during cross examination: Q. My question is, wasn't it clear to you that the assumed bearing that Mr. Blackmon made, our party chief, on page 4 in his instrument-–in his data collector between Points 1 and 2 of a bearing of north zero degrees, or an azimuth of north zero degrees--isn't it clear to you that then in order for it to make sense on this drawing and all the other lines too, that you would have to rotate that to get on the same bearing basis? Doesn't that jump out to you as an expert, having done over 2,000 surveys? A. At the time two years-–well, it's been a year. A year ago when I did this original review, I based it on the data that was supplied to me. Now that you have explained it to me and I see that there is a note here that said they rotated it, yes, it's clear to me now, yes. Count II alleges that the field notes that are dated show a date of 9/24/12, while the survey drawing shows a field work date of 9/25/12. The parties stipulated as to the different dates shown on these documents.2/ The dated field notes show that field work was performed on September 24, 2012. The clear and convincing evidence is that the date of data acquisition was September 24, 2012, while the date on the survey drawing is September 25, 2012. Count III notes that the survey shows a found 3/4" iron rod at the point of beginning, notes that this appears to be the same corner shown on the coordinate list as point number 8, and states that the field notes do not show the setting or locating of the corner. The complaint concludes that this corner is not supported by accurate survey measurements. The notation "P.O.B." is found at the lowest corner of the property on the survey map, and underneath the corner is found the note "3/4 FIR NO ID." According to the Surveyor's Legend found on page 2, this indicates that the point of beginning is marked by a 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification, as Mr. Gloer testified. While page 12 shows a point marked as "set #8 @ DEED Dist/Dist frm 5 & 152" on the lot corner, it indicates this monument was set, and does not indicate a found iron rod. Point "6" has no notation at all on page 12 and does not appear to be aligned on the southeast property line, but point 6 is reflected in the raw data file and the coordinates list. The measurements to point 6, and description of it, are consistent with and support the property corner marked as the P.O.B. on the survey map. Count IV alleges that bearings shown on the survey as measured are not substantiated by the survey measurements in the raw data or coordinate list. Mr. Gloer testified that he inversed the data from the coordinates and that the bearings were different. However, as he admitted, he did not consider that the recorded survey measurements might reflect an assumed initial location and bearing and that they would therefore need to be rotated and translated to substantiate the bearings shown on the survey map. The Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the bearings shown on the survey were not substantiated by measurements. Count V alleges that the three points used to locate the improvements, monumentation, and control for the survey are not part of a closed traverse and are not based on redundant measurements. As Mr. Gloer testified, the distance between points 1 and 2 was verified by redundant measurements: once measuring the distance from point 1 to point 2, and once measuring the distance from point 2 back to point 1. However, the angle created between points 2, 1, and 150 was not similarly measured on more than one occasion or from the opposite direction. Respondents argue that use of an instrument such as the robotic total station used here, which takes numerous measurements very quickly and then averages them, is, by definition, taking redundant measurements. However, Mr. Gloer testified that in his expert opinion, "redundant" measurement has a more specific meaning. It requires that an "independent check" be made. He noted that if a rodman had the rod on his toe, all of the measurements almost instantaneously taken and averaged by an instrument would reflect the same incorrect information and so these multiple readings would not serve the purpose of revealing the mistake and preventing the error. Only an independent measure, like shooting the distance backwards, would likely reveal the error and thus meet the purpose of a "redundant" measurement. The angle created between points 2, 1, and 150 was not verified by redundant measurements. Count VI alleges that the survey is based on found monumentation on the parcel being surveyed. No attempt was shown to find the point of commencement or boundary monumentation along the boundary of Beauclerc Gardens Replat, both of which are called for in the description. The legal description provides in part, "commence at an iron pipe located in the northeasterly line of Section 40, Township and Range aforementioned, at a point where said line is intersected by the line dividing Sections 31 and 32." Mr. Gloer testified that to ensure that the position of the boundary of real property was determined in complete accord with this real property description, an attempt to find the point of commencement and the boundary of Beauclerc Gardens Replat was required, and that there was no evidence that this was done. However, no evidence was presented to indicate that the survey as conducted was not in complete accord with the property description as attached to the survey map. Count VII alleges that the survey does not tie to an established identifiable real property corner. As Mr. Gloer testified, the parcel being surveyed was described by metes and bounds. Nothing on the survey tied into any identified corner of Beauclerc Gardens. The survey did not tie into a real property corner of either lot 1 or 2 of Beauclerc Gardens, which were the closest lots. Instead, the survey was tied to a monument on the line south of Beauclerc Terrace on that right-of-way, identified on page 12 as point "151." That point was not an established identifiable real property corner of Beauclerc Gardens. As Mr. Gloer testified, the survey did not tie to an established identifiable real property corner. Count VIII alleges that the field notes and raw data do not show either the fence corner or the water meter that supposedly made the two nearby corners inaccessible. The computation notes at page 12 and the survey map on page 1 do not show a monument set at the most easterly corner of the lot, but they do show an offset point and reasonably indicate that a water meter is at the corner. Similarly, neither the computation notes nor survey map show a monument set at the most westerly corner of the lot, but the survey map shows an offset monument and has an indication that there is a fence post at the corner. Mr. Gloer noted that neither the water meter nor the fence post, if they existed, had been positively located on the field notes or raw data as being at the corners.3/ Mr. Gloer noted that the coordinates list indicated that the location of the water meter was calculated. Count IX alleges that there is a monument shown in the field notes, point number 6, but not shown on the survey. As discussed earlier in connection with Count III, the field computation notes appear to show two monuments in fairly close proximity to the southernmost corner of the property. The survey map at page 1 shows only one monument at this corner, labeled "P.O.B." and described as "3/4 FIR NO ID" which, as noted above, refers to a 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification. This descriptive information appears to correlate with the side shot of point 6 found on page 6 of the raw data file and page 9 of the coordinates list. While the field notes are confusing, the Department did not show by clear and convincing evidence that point number 6 was not shown on the survey. Count X alleges that all the monuments were tied by side shots without a redundancy of the measurements. The raw data at page 4 indicate that the 1/2 inch found iron pipe and cap marked with "R. Miller," which is shown as the easternmost monument on the survey, was located by a side shot, a single measurement, and that Mr. Blackmon only turned one angle and one distance to that point. Similarly, the data at page 5 show that the 1/2 inch found iron pipe with no identification which is shown as the northernmost monument on the survey was located by a single side shot. Again, the data on page 6 show that the 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification which is shown as the southernmost monument and point of beginning on the survey was located by a side shot. The data sheets show no other ties to these points taken from another position, or otherwise demonstrate that redundant measurements were taken. Count XI alleges that the survey dated September 25, 2012, was negligently prepared. On this point, the Transcript records: Q. And then one final question, Mr. Gloer. In your professional opinion, expert opinion, do you believe that these ten MTS violations that you have discovered, taken as a whole constitutes-–of the minimum technical standards, taken as a whole, constitutes negligence in the practice of surveying and mapping in the State of Florida? A. I do. This question and answer, predicated on considering ten other violations as a whole, offers no insight as to whether a fewer number of violations might constitute negligence, or whether some of the violations are so serious, or are of such a nature, that they might do so even standing alone. No evidence was introduced at hearing to indicate that Mr. Haas' professional license has been previously disciplined. Exacta was the subject of five earlier administrative complaints alleging violations of Minimal Technical Standards, which were the subject of a Settlement Stipulation. Given the terms of the stipulation, there is no competent evidence showing that Exacta committed prior offenses. However, the Corrected Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation constitutes prior disciplinary action against Exacta.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers: Finding Wesley Brian Haas and Exacta Land Surveyors, Inc., in violation of section 742.0351(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for failing to conduct surveying and mapping in accordance with the minimum technical standards prescribed by Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.051(2)(b)3., 5J-17.051(3)(b)3., 5J-17.051(3)(b)15.b.(II), 5J-17.052(2)(a)8., and 5J- 17.052(2)(b)7.; imposing an administrative fine of $1500.00 on Wesley Brian Haas; and imposing an administrative fine of $4000.00 on Exacta Land Surveyors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 14th day of April, 2015.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1988, petitioner, William Byron Groover (Groover), filed an application with respondent, Board of Professional Land Surveyors (Board), for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor. By letter of March 28, 1989, the Board denied Groover's application predicated on his disclosure in his application of a conviction for possession of marijuana in 1981, and its conclusion that such conviction demonstrated a lack of good moral character and an adjudication of guilt of a crime directly related to the practice or ability to practice land surveying. Groover filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Board's decision. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that on September 16, 1981, Groover was convicted of possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis (marijuana), a third degree felony proscribed by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and on October 16, 1981, he was sentenced to a term of two years confinement and fined $2,000.00 for his offense. Regarding the circumstances surrounding his conviction for possession of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in May 1981, Groover was assisting an acquaintance, James Billeter, move furniture from Florida to Arizona when Billeter's van was stopped by a Florida Department of Agriculture inspector after he failed to stop at an inspection station on I-10 in Suwannee County. Upon inspection of the van, boxes containing approximately 210 pounds of marijuana were discovered among the furniture in the van, as well as a "baggie" marijuana in the cab. Groover, whose testimony is credited, denied any knowledge that the van contained any controlled substances, other than the baggie of marijuana in the cab. As to the baggie, which contained about 21 grams of marijuana, Groover acknowledged its presence, and conceded that he and Billeter had smoked some of that marijuana on their trip. On July 5, 1982, Groover was admitted to Lawtey Correctional Institute to serve his sentence, and on July 5, 1983, he was released for having completed his sentence. During the course of his incarceration, Groover conducted himself in a responsible manner. Following his release from prison in 1983, Groover was employed by Berry and Calvin Land Surveying and Engineering, and remained so employed until May 1988 when he began his current employment with Stephen H. Gibbs Land Surveyor. By those who know of his work, Groover is considered learned in land surveying, dependable, and trustworthy. While Groover was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1981, he has since avoided any controlled substance, and has demonstrated his rehabilitation through dependable and laudable labor in the field of land surveying. Under the circumstances, his conviction in 1981 does not detract from the finding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character to practice land surveying in the state of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the application of William Bryon Groover for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2695 The Board's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate. To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Not relevant since there was no showing Groover suffered any substance abuse or alcoholic problem necessitating treatment. Not relevant since not a basis for the denial of his application, and not an issue thereafter timely raised by the Board prior to hearing. Even if properly raised, such facts do not detract from the finding that Groover currently possesses the requisite good moral character to practice land surveying. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as subordinate or as comment on the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Bryon Groover 892 Southwest 14th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Ann Cocheu Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Rex Smith, Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times respondent Amons D. Courtney, Jr., has been registered as a professional land surveyor holding license No. LS 002819 issued by petitioner. By order entered October 3, 1985, in case No. 0052302, the Board of Professional Land Surveyors placed respondent on probation for the second time. As a condition of probation, he was required to submit 25 surveys representative of his land surveying practice which shall be accompanied by field notes and record plats to the Board for its review. . . . Five surveys shall be submitted within three months from the filing of the final order; thereafter, five surveys shall be submitted at six month intervals during the period of probation. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. As far as the evidence disclosed, Mr. Amons submitted the requisite number of surveys for review, within the times specified by the Board's order, but pertinent record plats did not always accompany these submissions. Among the surveys submitted to the Board in accordance with the probation condition was a survey done for James Harvey by Mr. Courtney, doing business as "Courtney-Tisdale Ent., Inc." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. "Courtney & Tisdale Ent., Inc." has never been licensed in Florida, nor did petitioner ever issue a certificate of authorization to any such entity. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. Among the surveys Mr. Courtney furnished to the Board in accordance with his probation condition, was one he did for Cynthia Cotton. On this survey, respondent failed to report or resolve a discrepancy between a distance he had measured, as reported in field notes, and the calculated distance he set out without qualification, on the survey. He also reported the length of one side of the lot as precisely 125 feet, despite the absence of any field notes to support this conclusion. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Courtney performed a survey of a rectangular lot for Kim Shepherd, and subsequently furnished a copy of it to the Board. The accuracy of this survey is open to serious question. Petitioner's survey reported lengths for the lot's sides that correspond precisely to what appears on the record plat. This is also the case with the angles the sides form when they meet, even though "it's almost impossible to repeat [such measurements] to the nearest second of ar[c]." T.123. The field notes reflect no measurements that would support these findings. Mr. Amons reset a back monument nevertheless. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. On the Larry Holly survey, also chosen by respondent for Board review, Mr. Courtney failed to disclose a discrepancy between the measured distance, as reported in field notes, and a distance set out on a record plat. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On the Robert and Connie Baxley survey, Mr. Courtney indicated a discrepancy between the south boundary line and a fence along the line but did not show whether the fence encroached on the Baxley property or on the neighbor's. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The field notes reflect "a startling lack of precise measurements." On the Randy Enslow survey, too, the field "notes are insufficient to support the precision of the measurements that are shown . . ." T.13l. The survey is not tied to the closest street corner or to any other outside reference point for control. In short, even though the Board's final order in case No. 0052302 left it to respondent to select "representative" surveys for review, the surveys he submitted, twenty in all, were riddled with errors, including errors and omissions that constituted negligence in the practice of surveying. The uncontroverted evidence established that "Mr. Courtney is either unable or unwilling to comply with the Minimum Standards based on the surveys that were submitted by him under probation." T.134. As to penalty only, petitioner proved that respondent was a subject of disciplinary action in case No. 33882, before either the present proceedings or the proceedings that eventuated in the probation order were instituted.
Recommendation Under Rule 22 HH-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, permissible penalties for these offenses range from reprimand to revocation "depending upon severity of offense and injury to the client or public". No injury was proven here, but expert testimony established the seriousness of the negligence. Also pertinent under Rule 22 HH-9.003, Florida Administrative Code, are previous offenses, respondent's disciplinary history, and "status of the . . . licensee at the time the offense was committed", Rule 22 HH-9.003(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, all of which weigh against respondent, and financial hardship for the licensee, as to which there is no evidence. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's license to practice land surveying. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 88-2743, 89-3399 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6 and 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 7 through 13 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 through 17 relate to subordinate matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 R. Glenn Arnold Warfield, Santurri & Arnold 25 West Cedar Street Post Office Box 13410 Pensacola, Florida 32591 Amons D. Courtney, Jr. Route 4, Box 892 Milton, Florida 32570
The Issue The general issue for determination in this case is whether Amendment 00-D1 to Sumter County’s comprehensive plan (the “Plan Amendment”) is "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Sections 163.3161 through 163.3217, Florida Statutes. (All statutory references are to the 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) The initial Petition to Request Administrative Hearing (Petition) alleged numerous reasons why the Plan Amendment should be found not "in compliance." But from the time of the initial Petition--through the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, opening statement at final hearing, and Proposed Recommended Order (PRO)--Petitioners reduced the number of reasons why they contend that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" to the following: simultaneous conversion of Future Land Use (FLU) from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with parts of the County's Plan's; alleged lack of demonstrated need for land use allocations contrary to Section 163.3177 and Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 (all rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code); conversion of FLU from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with the Plan's Policy 4.6.1.1 (the so-called "90% rule"); and alleged failure to discourage urban sprawl contrary to Rule 9J-5.0006(6). These are the only compliance issues that still have to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, Intervenor contends that Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID) does not have standing.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor, the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc., owns land in the northeast part of Sumter County on which Intervenor plans to construct a mixed-use development of regional impact (DRI) known as the Villages of Sumter. The proposed DRI will encompass approximately 4,679 acres and is anticipated to contain: 11,097 residential dwelling units; 1,250,000 square feet of commercial area; 250,000 square feet of office area; 157,000 square feet of institutional area; 120,000 square feet of hotel (300 rooms); 100,000 square feet convention center; 23,500 square feet of movie theater (8 screens); 512 acres of golf courses (126 holes); 8 marina slips; 602 acres of wildlife management and Kestrel foraging areas; 162 acres of lakes, 162 acres of roads, 31 acres of parks and buffers; and 227 acres of stormwater and open space. The proposed DRI will feature neighborhood and town centers and will extensively utilize clustering, open spaces, and buffering as part of its design. It is anticipated that the Villages of Sumter DRI will have an internal vehicle capture rate of over 60%--i.e., over 60% of vehicle trips starting in the DRI will not go outside the DRI. The DRI will provide water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. Eighty percent of the residents in the Villages of Sumter DRI will have to be occupied by persons 55 of age or older, and no one under 19 will be permitted to reside within this DRI. When Intervenor filed its Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the Villages of Sumter DRI, Intervenor also requested the subject Plan Amendment to accommodate the DRI, including a change in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and FLUM from Agricultural use to UEA and PUD. The ADA itself served as a major part of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. (Another major part of the data and analysis was the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) prepared by the County in 1995.) The western part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel (i.e., the Villages of Sumter DRI) will be the western part of the southern boundary of a related DRI developed by Intervenor known as the Tri-County Villages. From there, the Tri-County Villages DRI extends north to the southern border of Marion County and east to the western border of Lake County. (Towards the east, the northern boundary of the DRI drops just a little south of the southern border of Marion County.) Tri- County Villages is a large mixed-use DRI. It includes residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. Prior to the Tri-County Villages DRI, Intervenor or its predecessor also developed other related mixed-use DRIs to the east in Lake County. SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 to oppose the Tri- County Villages DRI and 1994 comprehensive plan amendments adopted to accommodate the Tri-County Villages DRI. SCAID, T. Daniel Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd filed a petition initiating Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, T. D. Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd vs. Department of Community Affairs and Sumter County, DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM, to oppose DCA's determination that the County's 1994 amendments were "in compliance." SCAID, Farnsworth, and Weir are collaterally estopped to deny facts established in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM (SCAID I). (Latham and Roop are not estopped.) See Conclusions of Law 63-64, infra. In any event, all Petitioners agreed to official recognition of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM. Among the facts established by adoption of the Recommended Order by the Final Order in SCAID I was the history of the earlier DRIs, the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the comprehensive plan amendments required by the Tri-County Villages DRI: [¶4] [I]ntervenor [Villages] is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. [¶5] In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. [¶6] In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. [¶7] In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. [¶8] On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. [¶9] The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. [¶10] The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. [¶11] Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. SCAID I, 17 F.A.L.R. 4527, 4531-32 (Dept. Community Affairs Aug. 1995). (The Recommended Order may also be found on WESTLAW at 1995 WL 1052949.) At its inception, the Tri-County Villages DRI was projected to build-out in approximately 2015. When the Tri- County Villages DRI first began construction in late 1992, the developer pulled 24 building permits. In 1993, the County issued 406 residential building permits, 365 of which were pulled for the Tri-County Villages DRI. In 1997, the developer pulled 1,052 building permits for the Tri-County Villages DRI. To date, approximately 13,000 homes have been built in the Tri- County Villages DRI. Based upon present projections, the Tri- County Villages DRI is anticipated to be substantially built-out in 2003-04, 12 years ahead of its initially projected build-out date of 2015. Presently, there are numerous cultural and recreational activities, shopping options, medical and governmental services available to residents within the Tri-County Villages DRI. While still designated as a UEA and PUD on the County's FLUM, the Tri-County Villages DRI in fact is a self-contained urban area, especially in the context of Sumter County. Sumter County is mostly rural. According to the 1995 EAR, the County's permanent (non-seasonal) population was projected to be: 38,961 for 1998; 56,000 for 2005; and 64,200 for 2010. The unincorporated portion of the County contains 334,903 acres, approximately 99,436 acres of which are state- owned conservation lands, and approximately 202,000 acres of which are agricultural lands. There are five municipalities in the County--Wildwood, Bushnell (also the County seat), Center Hill, Coleman and Webster. None are as urbanized as the Tri- County Villages DRI. Simultaneous Conversion Objective 7.1.2 of the County's comprehensive plan provides in pertinent part: Upon adoption of this plan, Sumter County shall . . . provide for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area boundary and insures retention of agricultural activities, preserves natural resources and discourages urban sprawl. In pertinent part, the County Plan's Policy 7.1.1.2(e) provides that the County's land development regulations governing PUDs should be based on and consistent with the following standards for densities and intensities: Within the Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 8 residential units per gross acre in residential areas and 6 units per gross acre in commercial areas are allowed. . . . . Outside of an Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 4 residential units per gross acre in residential, commercial and agricultural areas are allowed. Policy 7.1.5.1 allows PUDs "in the following land use districts and at the following densities/intensities of use": 8 dwellings per gross acre in "Residential Areas Inside UEA"; 6 dwellings per gross acre in "Commercial Areas Inside UEA"; and 4 dwellings per gross acre in "Res./Comm. Uses Outside UEA." Petitioners contend that the foregoing objective and policies somehow combine to preclude the simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD; they appear to contend that these policies necessitated an intermediate conversion to UEA. (Protection of agricultural lands was raised in a more general sense, but this precise issue was not raised prior to final hearing.) But Petitioners argument not only is not persuasive, it is not even easily understood. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even without prior notice of this precise issue, one of the County's expert witnesses in land planning persuasively testified that the cited objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even Petitioners' expert land planner ultimately agreed that there is nothing in the Florida Statutes or Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 to prevent conversion of agricultural uses to more urban uses. Demonstrated Need As reflected in previous Findings of Fact, the subject Plan Amendment is for a highly mixed-use PUD. Of the many mixed uses involved, Petitioners focus on the allocation of land for residential use in their challenge to the demonstration of need for the Plan Amendment. In this context, demonstrated need refers to the existence of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the need for additional allocation of residential dwelling units on the FLUM. Petitioners assert that the methodology utilized by the County to project need is flawed. Determination of the need for a certain allocation of residential densities starts with a projection of population on the planning horizon (2020). In doing so, all available data and analysis must be considered. (Petitioners also assert that Policy 7.1.2.5(b)1. of the County's comprehensive plan requires such an analysis "utilizing professionally accepted methods," but that policy speaks to additional densities and allocations of land use for developments proposed in agricultural areas, while the Plan Amendment in this case converts the agricultural land to UEA and PUD.) For the purpose of analyzing whether there is a demonstrated need for this Plan Amendment, the County's planner, Roberta Rogers, relied upon need projections made in conjunction with the preparation of the County's EAR. The EAR, prepared in 1999, included a projection of the County's population for the 2020 planning horizon. The EAR projected that the permanent population of unincorporated Sumter County, by the year 2020, will be 79,475. (The total County permanent population is projected to be 94,205.) One of the purposes of an EAR is to provide data and analysis for comprehensive plan amendments. In preparing the population projections reflected in the EAR, Rogers began her analysis by referring to the projections for Sumter County formulated by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR"), as reported in 1996. The 1996 BEBR Report actually reflected projections made in 1995. BEBR publishes yearly reports that state both the estimated current and the projected future populations for each Florida county. The population projections reflected in BEBR Reports are based upon historical trends of 10-15 years' duration. Because the development in the Tri-County Villages DRI is a relatively recent phenomenon, Rogers believed that reliance upon the BEBR projections alone would have resulted in a significant under-projection of the County's future population. As a consequence, Rogers added an annual rate of growth of 1000 building permits per year through 2005 and 500 permits per year through the remaining portion of the planning period for the Tri-County Villages and the Villages of Sumter. Her approach was a conservative approach, since the actual number of building permits issued for the Tri-County Villages DRI in the past two years has significantly exceeded 1000 per year. Rogers conferred with BEBR, prior to completing her analysis, and was assured that her approach was appropriate. Such an adjustment for the Villages is particularly appropriate since the Villages cater to a very specific segment of the population, i.e., persons 55 and above. Over the twenty- year planning horizon relevant to the Plan Amendment, the population of persons in Florida aged 55 and above will increase dramatically as the "baby boomer" population ages. The demand for residential housing for these senior citizens will show a similar dramatic increase. Henry Iler, the Petitioners' land planning expert, took the contrary position, opining that no additional growth factor should be added to the 1996 BEBR projections. However, Dr. Henry Fishkind, an expert in demography who was involved in the original development of the BEBR population projection methodologies, directly contradicted Iler's opinion, concluding instead that Ms. Rogers' methodology was appropriate. As Dr. Fishkind stated that [Sumter] county has experienced a dramatic structural change to its population growth and development because of the Villages, and that has altered the characteristics of its population growth. In light of that, the use of past trends, which is what the bureau [BEBR] does, is simply extrapolate past trends, would not be appropriate, for it would not have taken into account that major structural change. Ms. Rogers identified the structural change, she measured its amount, and then she added on to the bureau's projections, which were extrapolations of the past trends. That's a very appropriate adjustment, and it's the kind of adjustment that econometricians and economists make on a regular basis. DCA's analysis concurred that the high absorption rates in the Tri-County Villages DRI had to be taken into account. To have ignored the explosion of growth in the Tri- County Villages DRI, particularly in view of the generally accepted expectation that the population to be served by the Tri-County Villages and by the Villages of Sumter will experience tremendous growth, would have resulted in an inaccurate population forecast. Even Iler had to concede that he was aware of building permit data being used to project population figures. It is simply not his preferred methodology to use such information. Thus, Rogers' projection of the County's total population for the year 2020 appropriately incorporated all available and relevant data and was formulated using an accepted methodology. While not part of their PRO, Petitioners previously attacked the County's population projections by questioning the continued success of the Villages to attract out-of-state retirees. Primarily through Weir's testimony, they attempted to raise the specter of a reduction of sales and Intervenor's subsequent financial ruin. But there was no credible evidence to support Petitioners' prophecy of doom. On the evidence presented in this case, it would be more rational from a planning standpoint to expect the Villages to continue to be a marketing and financial success. Having reasonably projected future population, it was then incumbent upon the County to determine how many dwelling units would be needed to accommodate anticipated housing needs. This determination was made by Gail Easley, an independent planner retained by the County to assist Rogers in preparation of the EAR. Easley performed this calculation for the County. Easley used 2.46 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the County, a figure taken from the BEBR reports (not from 1990 census information, as Iler incorrectly surmised.) There was no evidence that a number other than 2.46 was appropriate. It would not be appropriate for the number of dwelling units needed in the future to be calculated simply by the division of the anticipated population by the average household size. Rather, it is appropriate to apply a "market factor" (or multiplier) in order to ensure that there is a choice of types of housing and to accommodate lands that are not actually useable for residential construction. Even Petitioner's expert, Henry Iler, agreed that the use of a market factor was appropriate in order to ensure sufficient housing supply and to avoid an increase in housing prices. Easley furnished Rogers with the market factor for the EAR. The market factor chosen by Easley was 1.5, a factor she viewed as conservative and as appropriate for a jurisdiction that is beginning to urbanize. In more rural counties, a higher market factor, such as 2.0, should be used. While Iler implied that a lower marker factor would be more suitable, the record clearly established that the market factor used by Easley fell within the range of reasonable choices. (In SCAID I, the ALJ expressly found, in paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order, that the 1.87 market factor used by the County on that occasion was reasonable and actually low compared to factors used for other comprehensive plans that had been found to be "in compliance." As reflected by this Finding of Fact, facts and circumstances bearing on the choice of a market factor for Sumter County have not changed significantly to date. Cf. Conclusion of Law 64, infra.) Applying the 1.5 market factor to the projected population and average household size, the County determined that 62,274 dwelling units will have to be accommodated during the twenty-year planning horizon. (This includes 48,461 units in permanent housing, 9,113 in seasonal housing, and 4,700 in transient housing.) The County then allocated those dwelling units in various land use categories. Much of Petitioners' PRO on this point was devoted to criticizing parts of the evidence in support of the demonstration of need. They state the obvious that Easley did not perform a demonstration of needs analysis for the Plan Amendment in the EAR, but that was not the purpose of the EAR; nonetheless, the EAR contained valuable data and analysis for use in the demonstration of need analysis for the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also questioned DCA's reliance on the DRI ADA in conducting its demonstration of need analysis, based on the timing of the ADA and Plan Amendment submissions and decisions; but it is not clear what it was about the timing that supposedly detracted from DCA's demonstration of need analysis, and nothing about the timing made it inappropriate for DCA to rely on the data and analysis in the ADA. Petitioners criticized Rogers' reference to up-to-date building permit information that was not offered in evidence; but this information only further supported Rogers' demonstration of need analysis. Petitioners asserted that one of Intervenor's witnesses may have overstated residential sales in the Tri- County Villages DRI (1,750 sales a year versus evidence of 1,431 building permits for 1999); but the witness's statement was not used in any of the demonstration of need analyses. Finally, Petitioners attacked one of Intervenor's witnesses for an alleged "conflict of interest, a lack of professional integrity and an indication of bias"; but the basis for this allegation supposedly was evidence that the witness worked for the County while also working for Intervenor or its predecessor for a few years in the late 1980's, not enough to seriously undermine the credibility of the witness's testimony in this case (which in any event had little or nothing to do with the demonstration of need analyses.) It is at least fairly debatable that the County's demonstration of need was based on relevant and appropriate data, and professionally acceptable methodologies and analyses. Likewise, it at least fairly debatable that the County's projections regarding housing needs, the growth in the retirement population, and the absorption rates achieved in the existing Tri-County Villages DRI adequately support the allocation of 11,000 dwelling units permitted by the Plan Amendment. So-called "90% Rule" The County's Plan Policy 4.6.1.1 provides: The County shall maintain approximately 90% of its land area in land uses such as agricultural (including timberland, mining and vacant), conservation, and open (recreation, open space etc.) land uses for this planning period. (Emphasis added.) This policy is found in the Utilities Element of the County's comprehensive plan under a goal to protect and maintain the functions of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas in the County and under an objective to protect the quantity of aquifer recharge. Although couched as an approximation, the policy has been referred to as the "90% rule." Based on the evidence presented in this case, it is at least fairly debatable that the subject Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.6.1.1. The primary debate had to do with the proper treatment of certain "open space" provided in the Tri-County Villages DRI and the Villages of Sumter DRI-- 1,032 acres in the former and 2,135 acres in the latter. This "open space" consists of golf courses, preserves, wetlands, parks/buffers, and some stormwater/open spaces. Petitioners' expert refused to count any of this acreage for purposes of the so-called "90% rule" because, while the FLUE and FLUM have Agricultural, Conservation, and Recreation land use categories, there is no category designated "Open Space." (Meanwhile, there is an entire element of the plan entitled "Recreation and Open Space.") The witnesses for the County and DCA counted those 3,167 acres. They reasoned persuasively that the policy's express mention of "open space" (as opposed to a specific land use category designated "Open Space") supports their position. They also argued persuasively for the logic of including "open space," which serves the objective of the policy to "protect quantity aquifer recharge quantity," even if there is no specific land use category designated "Open Space." Counting the 3,167 acres of "open space" in the two DRIs, the percentage calculated under Policy 4.6.1.1 exceeds 90% for existing land uses. Omitting that land, as well as another 500 acres that should have been counted, Petitioners' expert calculated 88.96%. Petitioners' expert also calculated a lower percentage (85.34%) by using land uses he projected for the end of the planning period. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that it was not clear that Policy 4.6.1.1 should be interpreted in that manner. If so interpreted, it would be possible for all plan amendments reducing agricultural, conservation, and open FLUs to be prohibited even if existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" for another 20 years. It is at least fairly debatable whether such a result is logical, or whether it is more logical to wait until existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" before prohibiting further FLUE and FLUM amendments. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. They attempted to prove seven urban sprawl indicators. But their evidence was far from sufficient to establish any beyond fair debate. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity, low density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. To the contrary, while gross residential density may be relatively low (2.4-2.6 units per gross acre), the Plan Amendment PUD provides for highly mixed-use development, not single-use development, and densities in residential areas within the PUD are significantly higher (up to 5.6 units per acre), especially for Sumter County. Petitioners also did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development, or that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. To the contrary, the evidence was that part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel coincides with the western part of the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the Villages of Sumter PUD will be an extension of the Tri-County Villages DRI, which already has all the characteristics of an existing urban area. The reason why the eastern part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel does not coincide with the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI is the existence of land in between which is already in use and not available to become part of the Plan Amendment PUD. Development will not be in a radial or ribbon pattern like (usually) commercial development along main roadways; nor will development be isolated. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Obviously, conversion of agricultural land eliminates such land from agricultural use. But the Plan Amendment protects adjacent agricultural land by phasing development starting from existing urban areas in the Tri-County Villages DRI by mixing in open and recreational uses throughout the Villages of Sumter PUD and by providing some additional buffer between the periphery of the PUD and adjacent agricultural lands. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. Indeed, Petitioners' land use planning expert admitted at the hearing that he "didn’t have the time or expertise, really, to try to evaluate this particular question." To the contrary, the evidence was that the Plan Amendment PUD will include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. In addition, impact to schools will be minimal or non-existent due to the character of the PUD as a retirement community. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. To the contrary, the evidence was that clustering, open spaces and buffering in the Villages of Sumter PUD will provide a clear enough separation between rural and urban uses. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment discourages or inhibits in-fill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Specifically, Petitioners argued that in-fill in the City of Wildwood will be discouraged. But the evidence was to the contrary. Not only would development of the kind envisioned in the Plan Amendment PUD be unlikely to occur in Wildwood, sufficient land is not available for such a development there. Actually, the Plan Amendment might encourage in-fill in Wildwood, where service providers for the Villages of Sumter might be expected to reside. SCAID SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 by a small group of Sumter County citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of Sumter County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. SCAID has about 80 members, who are not required to pay dues. The majority of SCAID's members live in Sumter County, including all of the individual Petitioners in this case. SCAID is not incorporated but has by-laws drafted in 1995 or 1996. The by-laws provide for election of officers for one-year terms, but SCAID has not had an election of officers since 1994. Petitioner, T. Daniel Farnsworth, is and always has been SCAID's president. The evidence was that, when former SCAID member James Boyd resigned, Petitioner Linda Latham was appointed to replace him as secretary. SCAID has held just two meetings since its inception. Approximately 15-20 persons attended each meeting. Most communication with members is by regular and internet mail. Financial contributions are solicited from time to time for litigation efforts initiated by SCAID. Farnsworth, on behalf of SCAID, submitted comments on the Plan Amendment to the County between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. Farnsworth and Weir also testified on behalf of Petitioners at final hearing. The other individual Petitioners did not.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, under Section 163.3184(9)(b), the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order that Sumter County's Amendment 00-D1 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Jane M. Gordon, Esquire Jonas & LaSorte Mellon United National Bank Tower Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2204 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburg, Florida 34749-0327 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Council Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioner, William B. Hunt, owns property and resides within the County. Petitioner also submitted written comments to the County during the public hearing held on April 7, 1994, concerning the adoption of an amendment to the County's comprehensive plan. Therefore, he is an affected person within the meaning of the law and has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute In July 1991, the County initially transmitted its proposed comprehensive land use plan to the DCA. The DCA issued an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report for the County's plan on October 18, 1991. The County issued a response to the DCA's ORC report and adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. In April 1992, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the comprehensive plan not in compliance. In an attempt to bring the County's plan into compliance, the DCA and County entered into a settlement agreement in March 1993. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was supposed to adopt certain remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan. In August 1993, the County adopted remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan. In October 1993, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the remedial amendments not in compliance. In another attempt to bring the County's plan into compliance, the DCA and County entered into another settlement agreement in February 1994, and into an addendum thereto in April 1994. Pursuant to this agreement, the County adopted the agreed-upon remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 94-12 on April 7, 1994. On May 30, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find the County's comprehensive plan and remedial amendments in compliance. On June 18, 1994, petitioner filed a petition to intervene with the Division of Administrative Hearings seeking to challenge the newly amended plan. After being advised that the petition was filed in the wrong forum, and that he incorrectly sought to intervene rather than to initiate a new proceeding, on December 13, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for an administrative hearing with the DCA. In his lengthy petition, which contains allegations running some fifty-four pages in length, petitioner has challenged the County's plan, as amended, in numerous respects. In his proposed order, however, petitioner has summarized his complaints into the following categories: (a) "many" of the plan objectives are not "specific or measurable," (b) "many" policies in the plan are not "adequate," (c) "many" of the required objectives and policies are not found within a particular element, (d) "many" policies in the plan defer implementation to the land development regulations, or to other kinds of regulations, that are to be adopted after the plan is adopted, (e) "publications" adopted by reference in the plan "have not been adequately cited," (f) "the plan does not control growth," and it "designates an over- allocation of land that can be developed at non-rural densities and intensities," (g) the plan violates the concurrency provision on State Road 200, and (h) the plan fails to include an analysis of projected mass transit level of service and system needs. Is the Plan, as Amended, in Compliance? Generally In attempting to prove the allegations in his petition, petitioner offered only the testimony of a DCA land use planning manager and the County's acting planning director, both of whom concluded that the plan, as amended, was in compliance. Because both witnesses generally refuted all allegations raised in the petition, and they disagreed with the theories advanced by petitioner through his direct examination, the record in this case clearly supports a finding that the plan, as amended, is in compliance. Notwithstanding this state of the record, the undersigned will address in general terms the broad issues raised in the petition, namely, the adequacy of the plan's supporting data and analysis, the adequacy of the goals, objectives and policies, the plan's internal consistency, and the plan's consistency with the state comprehensive plan. In addition, the undersigned will address the more specific objections raised by petitioner in his proposed recommended order. Adequate data and analyses Petitioner has alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because ten elements were not supported by adequate data and analyses, as required by Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. However, petitioner either abandoned these allegations or failed to prove them to the exclusion of fair debate. Goals, objectives and policies Petitioner further alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because a number of the goals, objectives and policies (GOPs) contained in the various elements were inadequate in that they did not meet some of the requirements for GOPs in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. However, petitioner either abandoned these allegations or failed to prove them to the exclusion of fair debate. Internal consistency of plan Petitioner next alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because the internal consistency requirements in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, had not been met. Based on the findings of fact above, however, it is clear that the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County's plan contained GOPs that were in conflict with each other, thereby rendering the plan internally inconsistent. Consistency with state comprehensive plan Petitioner has also alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because it is not compatible with, and does not further, a number of goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan, which are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the County's plan, as amended, is not compatible with, and does not further, the State Comprehensive Plan. Other objections Petitioner has alleged in his proposed recommended order that some of the objectives and policies used by the County do not conform to the definition of those terms in Rule 9J-5.003, Florida Administrative Code. However, the evidence established that those definitions are not mandatory, they merely provide clarification for the local government, and the local government is free to use other definitions in its plan so long as they generally conform with the codified definition. Since the challenged objectives and policies generally conform with the above rule, and they provide the means for their achievement, they are found to be in compliance. Petitioner also alleges that some elements in the plan lack certain policies and objectives required by chapter 9J-5 and thus are deficient. The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that each of the challenged elements was adequate in terms of containing the necessary policies and objectives, and thus the requirements of chapter 9J-5 have been satisfied. Petitioner next alleges that many of the policies in the plan defer implementation to the land development regulations (LDRs) or other regulations that will not be adopted until after this plan becomes effective. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, however, some of the policies do not defer to the LDRs. In cases where they do, the LDRs must still be adopted in accordance with strict time limitations established by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and thus the necessary guidance in the plan is not lacking. Petitioner further contends that "publications" adopted by reference in the plan "have not been adequately cited." He specifically refers to policy 1.5 of the Traffic Circulation Element which adopts by reference, and without specific citation to a page number, a manual entitled Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation. Through testimony of witness Manning, however, it was established that it is impractical and unnecessary for the local government to cite specific page numbers of the manual in the plan itself. Indeed, reference to the title of the manual is sufficient. Therefore, those provisions of the plan which incorporate by reference other publications without detailed citations are found to be in compliance. Petitioner has also complained that the plan does not control growth, and it over allocates land to non-rural purposes. In this regard, the County's future allocation of land use was made through the use of a multiplier, which is a planning technique for assessing future land use needs. This technique, and the accompanying calculations, were not shown to be unreasonable or to produce inappropriate results. It was further established that, in making its projections, the County exceeded the requirements of chapter 163. Indeed, in the words of a DCA planner, the County made one of the "most honest assessments of development of any plan in the state." Petitioner next asserts that policy 2.1 of the Traffic Circulation Element allows a 20 percent degradation to the existing level of service for two segments on State Road 200, and thus it "violates the concurrency provision of the act and Rule 9J-5." While the level of service for roads must be consistent with Department of Transportation standards to the maximum extent possible, if it cannot meet them, the local government may show justification for deviation from those standards. In this case, the County presented justification for deviating from those standards by 20 percent on State Road 200 as authorized by Rules 9J-5.0055(1)(d) and 9J-5.007(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the questioned policy is deemed to be in compliance. Finally, petitioner alleges that the plan fails to include an analysis of projected mass transit level of service and system needs. Admittedly, such an analysis is not found in the plan. However, this is because the County does not operate a public mass transit system. In circumstances such as these, the County is required by chapter 163 to have a mass transit element in its plan, but it is not required to adopt an objective on this subject. Therefore, the absence of such an analysis does not render the plan not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Marion County's comprehensive plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 94-12, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-7071GM Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4a.-4c. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 4d. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 4e. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 4f. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 4g. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 7-9. Covered in conclusions of law. Respondents: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Hunt 3531 S. E. 30th Terrace Ocala, Florida 34471 Gordon B. Johnston, Esquire 601 S. E. 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Town of Jupiter and Its Neighbors The Town of Jupiter (Town, Jupiter) is an incorporated municipality located in northeastern Palm Beach County between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean. The Village of Tequesta, the Town of Juno Beach and Jupiter Inlet Colony are adjoining municipalities. Jupiter is also bordered by unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The focal point of urban activity in Palm Beach County (County) is the City of West Palm Beach. The dominant community in the County north of West Palm Beach is the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which is south of Jupiter. There is a regional mall, as well as a satellite County Courthouse, in Palm Beach Gardens, both of which are situated on PGA Boulevard. Jupiter is the major center of urban activity north of Palm Beach Gardens. Its market area is sub-regional in scope. Growth in Jupiter: A Brief History The Jupiter of today is much different than the Jupiter of only a few decades ago. In 1960, the Town's population was just 1,058. By 1970, it had increased to 3,136. During the 1970's, the Town more than tripled its population to slightly less than 10,000, but it still was a bedroom community without any significant employment opportunities. This began to change during the next decade. Small businesses, in increasing numbers, started to locate in the Town. They were followed by larger employers. The 1980's saw not only a substantial increase in employment opportunities, but a substantial increase in population as well. The Town now has a population of approximately 28,000 and is becoming a fairly self- sufficient community offering a wide variety services to its residents. There is one existing new car dealership (Dodge) in Jupiter. Two additional new car dealerships (Ford and Cadillac) have been approved and permitted. 2/ Additionally, there are a number of new car dealerships clustered together on Northlake Boulevard in the City of Palm Beach Gardens 3/ less than ten miles from Jupiter to which the Town's residents have access. 4/ There remain only a few tracts of vacant, uncommitted land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town. The unincorporated areas surrounding the Town, however, are largely undeveloped. A considerable amount of the growth in Jupiter since the late 1980's can be attributed to the completion of the "missing link" of I-95, a north-south roadway that is the main intra-urban route in South Florida. Until late 1987, I-95 went as far north in Palm Beach County as PGA Boulevard. In late 1987, a new stretch of I-95, from PGA Boulevard to Fort Pierce, including an interchange at Indiantown Road in Jupiter, was opened to the travelling public. The opening of the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road has enhanced the Town's market potential and contributed significantly to the Town's integration into the broader metropolitan area of greater Palm Beach County. Jupiter does not have a traditional downtown area. Growth has generally occurred along the Town's major roadways, including Indiantown Road, a state roadway which offers the only direct access from I-95 to the Town and therefore serves as the primary gateway to the Town. In recent years, nearly 60 percent of office and other commercial projects in the Town have been located on that segment of Indiantown Road from I-95 to the roadway's eastern terminus at A1A near the coast, a distance of approximately five and a half miles. The initial impact of the fast-paced development on Indiantown Road was to increase traffic congestion and generate complaints that the roadway was becoming a visual eyesore with its "strip commercial" development. At the time, although it was the Town's primary commercial corridor, Indiantown Road had only two lanes, one going east and the other going west. It is now in the process of being widened and transformed into a six-lane, median divided, controlled access roadway. The Planning Process and the Indiantown Road Corridor Study In the fall of 1986, the Town began the laborious process that culminated in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan more than three years later. During the planning process, the members of the Town Council, Jupiter's governing body, having heard the complaints of residents regarding the negative impact of development on Indiantown Road and the inadequacy of the Town's existing land development regulations to deal with the situation, determined that a study should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. Of particular concern to the Council members were issues relating to traffic and aesthetics. In November, 1988, the Council retained Henry Skokowski, a planning consultant, to conduct such a study. Skokowski was specifically directed by the Council to, among other things, examine the various types of commercial land uses and determine those that should be permitted and those that should be prohibited in the Indiantown Road corridor. Skokowski's initial draft of the results of his study was submitted to the Council in February, 1989. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comments in April, 1989. The Council accepted Skokowski's final draft of the results of his study in the latter part of 1989. The final draft was virtually identical in substance to Skokowski's initial offering. In both, he recommended, among other things, that certain commercial land uses, including "auto . . . sales," that he reasonably felt did not mesh with the desired overall character of the corridor, be absolutely prohibited, without exception, throughout the length of the corridor. 5/ This recommendation, from the outset, was the subject of considerable public debate and discussion before the Town Council. Skokowski endorsed a nodular pattern of development for the corridor. Under his plan, the corridor would contain six urban subdistricts, each having as their focal point a major intersection, with the remaining portions of the corridor consisting of parkway subdistricts with suburban characteristics reflecting a less intensive commercial development pattern than found in the urban subdistricts. From west to east, the six urban subdistricts, which constituted nodes of development, were the Central Boulevard District, the Center Street Landmark District, the Maplewood Drive District, the Civic District, 6/ the Alternate A1A District and the US 1 District. Through the creation of a special overlay zone for the corridor and the adoption of regulations restricting the permitted uses of land 7/ and establishing design, landscaping, and signage requirements on a subdistrict by subdistrict basis, Skokowski envisioned that each subdistrict would develop an identity that was not only distinctive and unique, but compatible with, and reflective of, community values unlike the strip commercial development that then existed in the corridor. Throughout the course of his study, Skokowski met regularly with those who were responsible for drafting the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also met with the Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning in an effort to obtain input from the County regarding anticipated development on or around Indiantown Road. In response to Skokowski's request, the Department's Executive Director promised to provide the Town with notification of any proposed zoning actions in the unincorporated areas of the County. Skokowski did not meet with any representative of either the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the completion of his study. On January 16, 1990, the Town Council adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the Plan is "in compliance." Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: A General Overview The Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan contains nine different elements: future land use; traffic circulation; housing; infrastructure; conservation; coastal management; recreation; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Each element has at least one goal 8/ and objective 9/ and has policies as well. 10/ Some elements also contain maps. One such element is the future land use element, which contains a future land use map. The map employs six land use classifications: residential; commercial; industrial; recreation; conservation; and public/institutional. Most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is designated for commercial use on the future land use map. Approximately two-thirds of the total land area in the Town that is designated for commercial use on the future land use map is located in the Indiantown Road corridor. Each of the elements of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan was based upon "data inventory and analysis." The Town Council adopted this "data inventory and analysis" as part of the Plan. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Objectives and Policies The following is the lone goal set forth in the Plan's future land use element: Ensure that the future land use pattern maintains the existing low intensity, residential character, recognizes and protects the environmental quality of the Town, and allows the Town to become a full- service community 11/ serving Northern Palm Beach County. Objective 1.1 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "managed growth." It provides as follows: Direct future growth into areas served by urban services that have adequate capacity, as defined by the adopted level of service standards, which shall be incorporated into the Town's development regulations by May 1990. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "managed growth:" Policy 1.1.1- All development shall be approved only if the level of service standards as set forth in Policy 1.2.1 of the Capital Improvement Element are met concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. These standards shall be integrated into the land development regulations. Policy 1.1.4- Commercial shopping centers in excess of 80,000 square feet should be located only at intersections of major arterials. Policy 1.1.5- Strip or highway commercial development shall be discouraged. Policy 1.1.6- A commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertake[n] in 1989. This will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway 12/ containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards 13/ that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations. 14/ Policy 1.1.7- Concentrations of commercial offices, and tourist related activities shall be near locations having high accessibility. Policy 1.1.8- Non-residential outdoor storage areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.13- The town through its Coastal Construction Code and its future land use map shall minimize the intensity and density of future development within coastal areas vulnerable to hurricane damage. Policy 1.1.14- The impact of land use on water quality and quantity shall be considered in land use planning and regulation. This shall be assured by inclusion of provisions in the Land [D]evelopment Regulations for consideration of the impacts of proposed development on water quality and quantity. These considerations shall include the provisions of Conservation Element Policies 1.4.1-13 for surface water quality, 1.3.1-13 for groundwater quality, Infrastructure Element Policies 1.1.2 for wellfield protection, 1.5.1 for protection of potable water supply and 1.6.1-5 for protection of groundwater quality and quantity. Objective 1.2 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land use compatibility." It provides as follows: By May 1990 the land development regulations shall contain provisions and standards which ensure that future growth patterns take into consideration topography, soil and other natural and historic resources, the intensities, densities and type of land use activities and relationship to surrounding properties, as well as providing for streetscaping, proper transition of land uses, buffering, and coordination of coastal population densities with the Palm Beach County Hurricane Evacuation Plan. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land use compatibility:" Policy 1.2.1- Where there are differences between residential uses in terms of intensity and type of units, adequate transitioning shall be accomplished through provisions such as setbacks, buffers and height limitations. The land development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall contain such provisions to assure adequate transitioning. Policy 1.2.3- Where existing land use conflicts exist, the Town shall incorporate into its land development regulations provisions that address noise, dust, lighting and aesthetics. The Town shall support increasing the depth of property(s) in areas where existing lots are shallow (less than 150 feet in depth), are situated adjacent to an arterial roadway, have a commercial or industrial land use designation, and abut residentially designated land; however, the land development regulations shall contain adequate buffering and performance criteria for concerns noted above. Policy 1.2.4- Existing land uses which are not compatible with adjacent land uses, the character, natural resources or the future land use plan shall be eliminated upon redevelopment, and until that time may not be expanded. This requirement shall be included in the revision to the local development regulations to be adopted by May 1990. Objective 1.3 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land development regulations." It provides as follows: The Town shall prepare land development regulations that effectively implement all provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, contain innovative techniques for the production of affordable housing, provide a means to protect environmentally sensitive areas and maintain flexibility in site design. In addition the Town shall encourage the use of innovating land development regulations such as the Town's existing provisions for PUD and other land development techniques. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land development regulations:" Policy 1.3.3- Adopt land development regulations that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which at a minimum address: subdivision of land signage wellfield and aquifer protection drainage and stormwater management periodic flooding open space needs off-street parking environmentally sensitive areas/habitats In addition, these regulations shall ensure that development orders and permits not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels of service for the affected public facility below the adopted level of service of standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.4- The concept of an environmental[ly] sensitive area overlay zone will be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance. This concept will be folded into the new development code at the time the current Zoning Ordinance and other local development regulations are consolidated into one regulatory document. Policy 1.3.5- The [L]and [D]evelopment Regulation shall include the following non- residential land use categories, and shall incorporate the following location and intensity criteria: Commercial Neighborhood Commercial- Stores offering frequently needed goods and services to nearby residential areas. Typical activities include pharmacy, dry-cleaning, florist, hardware and garden supplies, professional offices, and personal services. Location Criteria: In areas accessible to immediate surrounding neighborhoods; Can be located in conjunction with groups of retail or highway commercial uses to achieve greater consumer volume and multi- purpose trips; When a part of a planned unit development must be situated in the interior of the project and not along an external roadway; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity measures: Site area- minimum 20,000 sq. ft. maximum 2 acres Site coverage maximum- 35% Height limitation- 35 feet/2 stories General Commercial- Consists of a wide range of commercial goods and services serving a community-wide market. A representative sample of activities includes personal services, banking and finance offices, retail stores, nurseries, printing and publishing, auto repair, marine facilities, and medical and dental clinics. Location Criteria: At major intersections, or existing commercial core areas; Central to and/or readily accessible from all residential areas of the community; Preferably grouped with other stores in this category to achieve a combined market draw on multi-purpose trips; Not adjacent to low density, single family neighborhoods; Adjacent to Medium Density Residential areas when proper buffering is provided; Situated preferably on an arterial roadway, but never on a local street; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Office Commercial- Activities that generally do not entail sale or display of goods and do not require high visibility from major roadways. Typical uses include legal, financial, realty, technical and some medical service establishments. May also contain retail uses that directly serve the needs of the office businesses. Location Criteria: Location needs are often determined by type of service (attorney near courthouse, physician near hospital, etc.); Attractive or prestigious setting often desired; suitable for location near multi- family housing to serve as a transitional use between more intensive commercial and industrial uses; In some instances may locate adjacent to low density residential neighborhood only when height is limited to one story, less than 35% of project site utilized for structure(s) and adequate buffering provided; May locate in industrial park however should be located in designated tract of land in park; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Heavy Products Commercial- Activities that sell large or bulk products or maintains large inventories of products. These usually serve a sizeable market area and are often similar to or part of industrial activities. Building materials, heavy machinery and wholesale establishments are typical heavy commercial uses. Location Criteria: Parcels should be accessible from outlying service areas and near primary routes for shipping and receiving goods (highways, rail); Should be spatially separated from residential areas; Should not be located in proximity to other commercial activities, e.g., retail stores, offices; Suitable siting is near or in industrial areas due to similar location and transportation needs; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Site coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 35 feet Industrial * * * Conservation * * * Public/Institutional * * * Objective 1.4 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: To expand and diversify the economic base through the provision of adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth. Policy 1.4.1 is among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: Higher densities and intensities of development shall be located in areas having high accessibility and a full complement of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer), that have adequate capacity to maintain the adopted levels of service. Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the Plan's intergovernmental coordination element each reference the Indiantown Road corridor study. They provide as follows: Policy 1.1.7- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in this study to provide input about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT shall formally review the resulting development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. Policy 1.1.8- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the study to provide input about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impact on traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County and MPO shall have formal review of the resulting development strategy to ensure compatibility with County and MPO plans. Policy 1.1.9- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Treasure Coast regional Planning Council in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, MPO and FDOT, if necessary. Immediately preceding these three policies is the statement that "[a] commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway." 15/ Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Data Inventory and Analysis The goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan can be better understood if they are read in conjunction with the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. For instance, an examination of the following excerpts from the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan provides considerable assistance in understanding what the Town Council meant when it announced in the goal of the future land use element that it desired that the Town "become a full-service community serving Northern Palm Beach County:" Growth Management Philosophy Until the advent of the '80s, Jupiter was one those hidden treasures [i]n the Treasure Coast region. . . . In 1980, Jupiter was basically a "bedroom" community; however, with recent annexations, the Town now contains over 400 acres planned for industrial park usage. Therefore, Jupiter is now evolving into a "total service" community. To maintain a community that maximizes quality of life, the following growth principles and strategies will be the basis for future growth decisions: Land use decisions . . . will be made within the context of the Greater Jupiter Area 16/ since certain uses within the existing Town limits serve a "market area" that extends considerably beyond the present jurisdictional limits. It is anticipated that the Town's employment base will expand significantly in the coming years as the planned industrial parks, and office/ business centers come on line. The residential character of the Town will remain one of low intensity, a more human scale of residential living. Future residential areas will be developed only in areas with adequate human service. 17/ * * * Being the major urban hub of north county, retail and office businesses located in Jupiter depend on a population base that is considerabl[y] larger than just the existing population residing within the present Town limits. Residential areas to the north, especially along Loxahatchee River Road and to the west, primarily from the Jupiter Farms area shop and do business in Jupiter. 18/ * * * Community shopping centers require a wider market area [than neighborhood shopping centers]. 19/ The Jupiter Mall would be an example of such a retail center. Based on the Town's projected 1995 population (46,900), only one such shopping center is justified. However, because Jupiter is a commercial hub serving much of the County, north of Donald Ross Road, another such center might be justified. Prior to any approval, a market study should be required in order to avoid the problem of overcommercialization. The analysis should include all commercial development in north county, not just limited to Jupiter's corporate Town limits. Leading tenants include variety store and small department store. 20/ * * * Historically the Town has had only a minor amount of land utilized for industrial purposes. Until recent years, it has considered itself a residential, bedroom community; however, that philosophy has changed. It now sees itself as a "total" community. This means the creation of a major employment base. 21/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES 1. Town image, e.g., bedroom community, full service town. 22/ The following references to the Indiantown Road corridor are made in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: Development in the Indiantown Road corridor can generally be described as uncontrolled strip commercial, often experiencing traffic congestion and presenting a poor visual image to visitors. As Jupiter has grown no definitive urban center has emerged. Growth has occurred generally along the Town's major roadways. Consider as a long-range strategy the creation of a traditional downtown. 23/ * * * Nearly 60% of the commercial/office projects have been located within the Indiantown Road corridor. . . . Over the past decade Indiantown Road (SR 706) has experienced increased periods of traffic congestion. This has occurred as commercial development along this main artery has mushroomed. Lack of lot depth as well as overall size have created a "hodgepodge" commercial development pattern along SR 706 which has lead to a traffic headache, as well as a visual eyesore. The problems of Indiantown Road are compounded since it will serve as Jupiter's major entryway once Interstate 95 is completed and the entrance on SR 706 is opened. 24/ Consideration should be given to a special overlay zone for Indiantown Road. In developing the overlay zone determining what constitutes the Indiantown Road corridor (depth of property along the roadway), establishing the desired character of the corridor, 25/ and preparing a special set of standards e.g., signage, off-street parking, buffering, to control development would be necessary. Although Indiantown Road is the most obvious example of strip commercial development other local roads are afflicted with the same problem, however maybe not to the same degree. Yet, there are several areas in and around Jupiter that are developing more in a node fashion than in a linear commercial strip. Not only is the Town beset by this commercial problem, but has been faced with possible intrusion of commercial into residential neighborhoods. Precautions need to be taken to make sure that neighborhood integrity remains intact. 26/ * * * [S]imilar to the Town's proposed land use designation within the Indiantown Road corridor, the County too, has proposed that commercial development be allowed along this roadway. A concern the Town has is the manner in which it is developed. This is especially important, because the Indiantown Road corridor is the gateway into Jupiter. To date, the development has reflected a rather non-descript, strip commercial pattern. The Town has been sufficiently concerned that it has contracted to have an urban design corridor study completed for this key roadway. 27/ Design recommendations will become a part of the Town's land development regulations. Coordination between the two governing bodies will be needed at the time the local development regulations are prepared. 28/ * * * The majority of land use conflicts occur in those areas where commercial and industrial uses abut residential neighborhoods. This has been a problem along Indiantown Road. The proposed siting of a cement batch plant in the Pennock Industrial Park created considerable controversy over the potential adverse impacts, e.g., noise, dust, light, visual image, and aesthetics. Similar concerns have been voiced over the potential negative impacts generated by strip shopping centers and car dealerships, as well. Much of the development in this major traffic corridor occurred at a time when Jupiter was a much smaller, rural community. Some of the development predates landscape and signage requirements. Because the land along Indiantown Road was subdivided over twenty years ago, many of the lots along the road are very shallow. This causes problems in providing for adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential uses. The Town has been encouraging combining of lots to create additional depth that can allow for better site design and buffering. Also, the Town has adopted the Indiantown Road Urban Corridor Study, and will be integrating many of its recommendations into updated development regulation[s]. The study has recommended the creation of an "Indiantown Road Overlay Zone." 29 / This district will contain additional provisions related to design guidelines and streetscape standards so that development within the Town's major corridor achieves some logical, overall design. 30/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES . . . 2. Gateway into Town; . . . Depth of commercial along Indiantown Road; Strip commercial development vs. a node policy; . . . 9. Maintaining areas in residential use by eliminating pressures of commercial development; * * * Besides the commercial demands of the local population, [with] the opening of Interstate 95 Exit on Indiantown Road in conjunction with the existing Florida Turnpike exit on Indiantown Road, it can be expected that there will be significant increased demands for interchange commercial uses to serve the traveling public. 31/ Already a number of inquiries have been made to staff regarding the Town's position relative to development around these interchange areas. This will become the gateway to Jupiter. The commercial development pattern that ultimately emerges within the corridor can visually replicate what already exists, or can become a "memorable["] entryway leading into Jupiter. The concept of an overlay zone for the Indiantown Road corridor should be considered. 32/ * * * Most neighborhood and community shopping centers are located on major roadways, primarily at the intersections of designated arterials such as Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard, Indiantown Road and U.S. 1 and Indiantown Road and Alternate A1A. Future siting of shopping centers, especially those with 100,000 leasable floor area and up should be situated at locations having good access and sufficient roadway capacity to maintain the Town's adopted level of service. Further, they should be located so that the only access is from one road. 33/ * * * The existing major roadways identified in the functional classification are shown on Exhibit 1 . . . and are summarized below. . . Principal local arterials 34/ . . . f. Indiantown Road from U.S. 1 to west town limit Collector streets 35/ Indiantown Road from County Road A1A to U.S. 1 36/ * * * The level of service analysis shown on Exhibit 1 indicates severe capacity deficiencies for east/west travel on Indiantown Road. From Center Street to U.S. 1 and west of the Turnpike, this facility operates at Level of Service "E" which is characterized by very long vehicle delay and long traffic queues such that forced vehicular flow conditions exist much of the day. . . . The five-year programs of the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County will provide relief for some of the congestion presently experienced in Jupiter. As shown on Exhibit 2 . . . , construction is planned to be undertaken within five years to improve Indiantown Road. Indiantown Road is scheduled to be widened to a six-lane cross section from east of Center Street to east of Alternate A-1-A in fiscal year 1989/1990. Indiantown Road from Florida's Turnpike west to Jupiter Farms Road is planned to be widened to four lanes in the fiscal year 1991/1992. . . . The only existing deficiencies not currently "planned" to be improved is the six-laning of Alternate A-1-A south of the Loxahatchee River Bridge to Center Street and Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1 to six lanes. . . . Designing and obtaining right- of-way for the Indiantown Road Intracoastal crossing (Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1) is also programmed for FY 89/90, 90/91, respectively. The responsibility for improvement of these facilities is primarily that of the Florida Department of Transportation. 37/ * * * Improvements to Indiantown Road will greatly improve the east/west access within the Town. 38/ * * * The future major streets are shown by functional classification on Exhibit 3 . . . and are summarized as follows. . . . Principal local arterials . . . g. Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to I-95. . . Collector streets Indiantown Road from County Road A-1-A to U.S. 1 39/ * * * At buildout the proposed coastal population densities in the surge vulnerable areas in the Town of Jupiter will be 31,5000 residents. This represents a 230 percent increase. The evacuation routes to accommodate evacuation vehicles will have capacities as follows: -Indiantown Road at six lanes 40/ * * * The proper strategy to follow would be to conserve and maintain or in fact upgrade some of the older residential areas in the Indiantown Road/Center Street area. The Town has been implementing such a policy. The Town has had an ongoing series of drainage and road improvement projects. This effort is continuing with the present focus on the area immediately south of Indiantown Road bounded on the east by Old Dixie. . . . The Town has taken steps since the adoption of its present land use plan to eliminate those uses inconsistent with the community's character and proposed future land uses. Some methods that have been employed are the deepening of commercial frontage along Indiantown Road, adding increased depths to buffers between conflicting land uses and not allowing the re-establishment of non- conforming land uses. 41/ * * * Intergovernmental coordination is necessary in order to implement the following policies: POLICY: A commercial corridor study is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway. Issues for coordination/cooperation: Indiantown Road (SR 706) is owned and operated by the State. It is a major arterial for the unincorporated County area west of Jupiter, and development approved along it and in its vicinity can impact traffic conditions within Jupiter to a significant degree. Agencies involved: Florida Department of Transportation Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommended methods for coordination/ cooperation: FDOT representatives should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT should formally review the resultant development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. The Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County MPO should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impacts o[n] traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County should have formal review of the resultant development strategy to ensure compatibility with County plans. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council should be involved in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, and FDOT, if necessary. 42/ The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan indicates that the future land use plan includes "commercial uses" among its land use categories. It then goes on to give the following definition of such "commercial uses:" Commercial uses- means activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, consumption, and distribution of products or performances of professional and non-professional services. The Town Council may approve the use of such land areas for residential purposes provided a rezoning to a residential zoning district is approved and the rezoning is implemented by a planned unit development. The following discussion appears under the subheading of "Land Use Performance Standards" in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: The land use classification system described allows for flexibility. Specific protection should be developed and included at the time the local development code is revised to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the following criteria serve as the basis for permitting any land use change. These along with other provisions and policies of all Comprehensive Plan elements will have to be met in order to receive a development order. The recommended performance standards are as follows: Compatibility with surrounding land uses Intensity of use Adequacy of facilities -water services -sewer services -roadway access -fire and police service Environmental impact Following the recitation of the foregoing "recommended performance standards," the statement is made that "[i]n evaluating any proposed land use change as well as any other development approval requirement the Town shall take into consideration . . . whether or not the proposed change complies with the [same] location criteria" that are set forth in Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element. The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the plan gives the following description of the three major categories of land use problems that the Town should strive to avoid or at least minimize through the planning process: Misuse of Land Widely scattered land development results in a pattern which is more costly to provide with essential services; Construction of buildings in flood prone areas results in damage to property, danger to life and added financial burdens on the [Town] for providing flood abatement measures; Land and water resources are destroyed by scattered substandard development; and Less than adequate room for expansion of businesses and industry result in congestion and inharmonious growth. Conflicting Uses of Land Encroachment of business and industrial uses into existing or emerging residential areas results in instability of these residential neighborhoods; and Unplanned mixing of various land uses results in incompatible relationships among various activities which cause deterioration of the overall environment. Overuse of Land Inadequate provision of off-street parking causes encroachment of residential neighborhoods by traffic seeking parking; Strip development along major highways results in reduced traffic capacity and increased traffic congestion; Excessive land coverage by buildings and parking areas results in inadequate open space; and Poorly conceived site and building design standards can result in overuse of land. Ordinances Creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District In March, 1990, the Town Council adopted a series of ordinances that incorporated, in all respects material to the instant case, the above-described "comprehensive strategy" that Skokowski had devised for the Indiantown Road corridor. These ordinances amended the Town's zoning code by creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District (I.O.Z.). The I.O.Z. is codified in Section 517 of the code, which describes the I.O.Z.'s purpose and intent as follows: The purpose and intent of this specialized overlay zoning district is to encourage and provide for enhanced property development within the Indiantown Road corridor. Objectives to be attained through the establishment of this district include protection of adjacent residential land uses; enhancement of the commercial status of the corridor; reduction of visual distraction through uniform sign criteria; enhancement of physical appearance through increased landscaping of public and private property; clustering of compl[e]mentary uses throughout various locations along the corridor; provisions of architectural design guidelines within specific locations along the corridor; encourage the construction of pedestrian oriented facilities in both public and private structures; installation of special landscape and architectural features at major intersections; and establish development incentives to accomplish these objectives. Before the Town Council took final action on the matter, the Town's Director of Community Development provided the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) with a copy of what was to become Section 517 and asked DOT to favor the Town with its comments. DOT, however, declined to do so. The ordinances adopted by the Town to effectuate the creation of the I.O.Z. were Ordinances 14-90, 15-90, 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25- 90. 61. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 divided the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District into parkway subdistricts and five urban subdistricts: the Central Boulevard District; the Center Street/Maplewood Drive District; 43/ the Civic Center District; the Alternate A1A District; and the U.S. Highway One District. Ordinance 14-90 imposed design, landscaping, and signage requirements applicable to these subdistricts. Ordinance 15-90 further restricted the land use activities permitted in these subdistricts. The underlying zoning district of most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is "C-2" (Commercial, General), in which 41 commercial land use activities are permitted, 11 by right and 30, including automobile sales, by special exception. Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits, without exception, anywhere from 11 to 18 of these 41 commercial land activities, depending upon the subdistrict. Automobile sales are absolutely prohibited throughout the corridor. Attachments 1-11 appended to this Final Order show each of the land use activities that were permitted, by right or special exception, in each subdistrict prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-90 and the changes, if any, made by Ordinance 15-90 to their status as permitted activities. Relationship of the I.O.Z. to the Comprehensive Plan Section 517.3 of the Town's zoning code states that "[t]he establishment of the IOZ [as codified in Section 517] is hereby declared consistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan." It has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that, in making this declaration, the Town Council, which only a couple of months earlier had adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, was in error. A reasonable argument may be made that the I.O.Z (Section 517 of the Town's zoning code) and its component parts, including the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90, are compatible with the Plan and take action in the direction of realizing the Town's aspirations, as announced in the Plan, with respect to the Indiantown Road corridor. The I.O.Z. is a "coherent, comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor that employs "the concept of an overlay zone" and a "node policy" of development (as opposed to linear, "[s]trip commercial") and is reasonably designed to allow this roadway to "become a 'memorable' entryway leading into Jupiter." The use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are an integral part of this "coherent, comprehensive strategy." They play a role in "establishing the desired character of the corridor." Ordinance 15-90 is not at variance with any of the land use designations made on the Plan's future land use map, including those designating land in the Indiantown Road corridor for commercial use. While the ordinance absolutely prohibits certain land use activities, those that it allows are in keeping with the map's land use designations. For instance, the activities it permits on land designated on the map for commercial use, which is most of the land in the corridor, are indeed "commercial uses," as that term is defined on page I-30 of the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. Because the ordinance permits these "commercial uses" throughout much of the corridor, it furthers the Plan's vision of the Indiantown Road corridor as an area where commercial development predominates. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and the goal of the future land use element of the Plan. It has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate that the ordinance will prevent the Town from fulfilling its desire, as expressed in the goal of the future land use element, of completing its transformation from a bedroom community to one that offers, in addition to housing, job opportunities and goods and services accommodating the needs of the residents of the Greater Jupiter area that cannot be adequately met by surrounding communities. To become a "total" or "full-service" community Jupiter need not offer every conceivable good and service in the marketplace. Accordingly, it may absolutely prohibit within its jurisdictional boundaries certain commercial land use activities that involve specialized goods and services that are available elsewhere in the region and still reach its goal of becoming a "total" or "full- service" community. Moreover, Ordinance 15-90 applies only to the land area within the Indiantown Road corridor, which, as noted above, contains approximately two- thirds of the Town's commercially designated land. The remaining land area in the Town designated for commercial use is unaffected by the ordinance and unencumbered by its land use restrictions. Therefore, even if, in order to become a "total" or "full-service" community, the Town was required to offer within its jurisdictional boundaries those goods and services that are unavailable in the Indiantown Road corridor as a result of Ordinance 15-90, the Town would still be able to meet this requirement because the ordinance does not preclude the Town from offering these goods and services in commercially designated areas in the Town that are outside of the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. While the land use activities absolutely prohibited by Ordinance 15-90 tend to require larger lot sizes, have generally lower traffic generation rates and are less likely to be found in "[s]trip commercial" developments than certain land use activities permitted by the ordinance, it has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that these prohibitions will likely result in the "[s]trip or highway commercial development" that Policy 1.1.5 seeks to discourage. Ordinance 15-90 renders ineffective neither the requirements of the Plan 44/ nor those of the remaining portions of the I.O.Z. designed to combat and prevent "[s]trip or highway commercial development." The ordinance works, not at cross-purposes with these requirements, but in tandem with them, imposing additional, rather than conflicting, restrictions on development in the Indiantown Road corridor. Under the regulatory framework established by the Town through the adoption of the Plan and the I.O.Z., a proposed development that meets the requirements of Ordinance 15-90, but is inconsistent with the anti-strip commercial provisions of the Plan and the remaining portions of the I.O.Z., will not be approved. Accordingly, Ordinance 15-90 will not have the effect of enhancing the potential for the occurrence of "[s]trip or highway commercial development" in the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.6 of the future land use element of the Plan. As noted above, Policy 1.1.6 references the Indiantown Road corridor study and indicates that this study "will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations." While the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are neither "streetscape guidelines" nor "site development standards," Policy 1.1.6 does not mandate that the "coherent, comprehensive strategy" resulting from the Indiantown Road corridor study include only "streetscape guidelines" and "site development standards." Given that use restrictions are typically included in a "comprehensive strategy" for a roadway corridor and that there was considerable public debate preceding the adoption of the Plan concerning Skokowski's recommendation (which was ultimately incorporated in Ordinance 15-90) that certain use restrictions be included in a "comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor, it is reasonable to assume that, had the Town Council intended that such use restrictions not be a part of the "comprehensive strategy" envisioned in Policy 1.1.6, it would have so specified in that policy or elsewhere in the Plan. Its failure to have done so reflects that the Town Council had no such intention at the time it adopted the Plan. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. As mentioned above, Policy 1.3.5 directs, among other things, that the Town's land development regulations include, within a commercial land use category, the subcategories of "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," and "Heavy Products Commercial" and it gives a representative sample of activities that would fall into each of these subcategories. In addition, the policy prescribes location and intensity criteria for each of these subcategories. Policy 1.3.5 does not require the Town, in its land development regulations, to permit in areas that meet the location criteria of a particular subcategory all of the commercial land use activities that may fall within that subcategory. Accordingly, as it has done in Ordinance 15-90, the Town may prohibit some of these activities without running afoul of the mandate of Policy 1.3.5. Policy 1.3.5 does impose upon the Town the obligation to permit a "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," or "Heavy Products Commercial" land use activity only in those areas that, according to the policy's location criteria, are suitable for that particular activity. There has been no showing that the various commercial land use activities permitted by Ordinance 15-90 are allowed to take place in areas that do not meet the location criteria prescribed in Policy 1.3.5. If anything, the evidence establishes the contrary. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. As indicated above, Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 provide that, in the development of the Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town "shall seek the active involvement" [of] the Florida Department of Transportation" (DOT), as well as the "Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)," to provide appropriate input. In conducting his study of the Indiantown Road corridor, Skokowski sought the "active involvement" of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. He did not seek DOT's input, 45/ but the Town's Director of Community Development, prior to the Town Council's adoption of the I.O.Z., did. Accordingly, in adopting Ordinance 15-90 and the other ordinances that were based upon Skokowski's Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town Council did not act in derogation of the requirements of either Policy 1.1.7 or Policy 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. Petitioner's Challenge to the I.O.Z.'s Use Restrictions Petitioner owns approximately 680 acres of land in Jupiter, including land situated in the Indiantown Road corridor that is subject to the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90. It acquired 640 of these 680 acres in 1981 and the remaining acreage in 1987. Petitioner has been developing this property since its acquisition. A golf course and residential community have already been completed. Work has begun on a 40-acre commercial project located in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road area. Petitioner desires to build an auto campus as part of this project, but is unable to do so because Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits automobile sales from occurring on the land. On or around December 10, 1990, Petitioner sent a petition to the Mayor of Jupiter, the body of which read as follows: This petition is submitted on behalf of Restigouche, Inc. [Petitioner] pursuant to Fla. Stat. #163.3213(3) and Rule 9J-24.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of this Petition is to challenge the consistency of such portions of [the] Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District Ordinance, as adopted by the Town of Jupiter under Ordinance 15-90. These portions define permitted uses, uses permitted by special exception and prohibited uses within the IOZ. Section 517 of the Zoning Code was adopted by several ordinances[.] Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 were adopted March 6, 1990. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 were adopted March 20, 1990. Ordinance 15-90 reduces the allowable uses of the property owners within the IOZ. The underlying zoning category for Restigouche's property in the Maplewood/Center Street District is C-2. Table 1 of the IOZ contains a list of 41 uses available to property within Zoning District C-2 by right or by special exception. The table shows that the uses for property within the IOZ have been reduced to the extent that those uses designated as "X" have moved from permitted by right or special exception to prohibited uses. Ordinance 15-90, which incorporates this down zoning, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter as adopted by the Town Council January 16, 1990. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for the creation of a district along the Indiantown Road Corridor that would limit uses from those as stated in the appropriate underlying zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that a study of the development along Indiantown Road was being undertaken at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption and acknowledges that signage, streetscape and site development criteria to enhance the visual aspects of Indiantown Road would be adopted. The Comprehensive Plan does not state that a new zoning district would be created limiting uses from those already available for the underlying zoning. Policy 1.3.5 states that land development regulation[s] shall include four designated types of commercial zoning as specified in this policy. These are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Heavy Products Commercial. Specific description of policies and goals for each of these is stated. There is no policy for the recognition of a land use or zoning category specifically applicable to Indiantown Road. The Petitioner is a substantially affected person by virtue of its ownership since 1981 of property within the Maplewood/Center Street District which is part of the IOZ and is the successor developer of a previously approved Development of Regional Impact. Petitioner has expended millions of dollars in improvements to the property within the Maplewood/Center Street District in the IOZ and has contributed substantial acreage for the construction of a public school, park and fire station. The Petitioner is Restigouche, Inc., its address is 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter Florida 33458, telephone number (407)744-4778. The Petitioner's representative at that office is Eileen F. Letsch, Vice-President. Petitioner is represented in this matter by its counsel, Paul B. Erickson of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A., 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. The relief sought by Restigouche, Inc. is recognition by the Town of Jupiter that such portions of Section 517 which diminish permissible zoning uses from those allowed in the underlying C-2 Zoning District are void and unenforceable allowing the Application for Special Exception to be considered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town did not grant the relief sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, on or about March 5, 1991, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (Department). The body of the petition read as follows: Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") files this challenge to the consistency of a land development regulation of the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Restigouche is not aware of any Agency file number for this proceeding. Restigouche, Inc. is a Florida corporation. This petition is filed by Eileen F. Letsch, Executive Vice-President, 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458, (407)744-4778. Restigouche is represented in this Petition by Paul B. Erickson, Esq. of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. Restigouche is the owner of property in the Town of Jupiter, Florida which is within the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District ("IOZ") created by the Town under Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 on March 6, 1990 and applied to Restigouche's property by Ordinance 21-90 on March 20, 1990. These ordinances as enacted create Section 517 of Ordinance 10-88 which is the current zoning ordinance of the Town of Jupiter. Restigouche challenged the consistency of the IOZ with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter by letter to the chief elected official of the Town dated December 12, 1990. A copy of the petition is attached. The Town of Jupiter adopted its Comprehensive Plan January 20, 1990. The IOZ as it was enacted in part by Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 is a down zoning regulation which reduces the number of permissible uses for Restigouche's property by right or special exception from 41 to 27. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 14-90 established landscaping and site development standards for property within the IOZ. The portions of the IOZ as adopted in Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the IOZ as an area of landscaping and site development standards. It does not refer to the IOZ as an area where permissible uses will be down-zoned. The Comprehensive Plan establishes mandatory criteria for the development of commercial uses within the Town in Policy 1.3.5. This does not recognize or allow a separate, restrictive commercial zoning district along Indiantown Road. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 15-90 should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 9J-24.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and so notified the parties. By letter dated March 22, 1991, the Department requested the Mayor of the Town to furnish it with the following materials: those portions of the Town's land development regulations which discuss or implement the IOZ; the standards for all zoning districts which underlie the IOZ; any supportive studies regarding the IOZ; and those portions of the comprehensive plan which discuss the IOZ or densities and allowable uses in the area in question. The requested materials were furnished on or about March 28, 1991. An informal hearing on Petitioner's challenge to the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions was held in Jupiter on April 12, 1991. Representatives of both Petitioner and the Town participated in the hearing. They presented information and argument for the Department's consideration. Following the informal hearing, the Department gave the parties the opportunity to supplement what they had presented at hearing. Both parties took advantage of the opportunity. In its supplemental submission, Petitioner presented additional written argument, in which it identified with specificity those provisions of the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan with which it claimed the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions were inconsistent. These specifically identified Plan provisions were Goal 1, Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, and Policies 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.3.5 of the future land use element and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the intergovernmental coordination element. Petitioner also submitted 1) an engineer's report supporting its position that its proposed auto campus "would have significantly less impact upon public facilities" than would a 230,500 square foot retail center constructed on its property, 2) photographs of a model of the proposed auto campus, and 3) site plans of the proposed auto campus. By letter dated April 30, 1991, the Town objected to Petitioner's submission of the engineer's report and asked that it not be considered by the Department because it was generated after the informal hearing and therefore was "not available for discussion . . . at the hearing." On May 10, 1991, following its review and consideration of not only the information, argument and materials with which it had been presented, but of the entire Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan as well, which it had on file, the Department issued its written decision finding that "the provisions of the Town of Jupiter Land Development Regulations contained in the IOZ which have been challenged by Petitioners 46/ in this proceeding are consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan." The Department explained its determination as follows in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3 of its written decision: The Town of Jupiter's IOZ is not in conflict with the Comprehensive [P]lan because the IOZ is specifically authorized by the Plan, and there are no provisions in the Plan which prohibit the Town from adjusting allowable uses within underlying zoning districts. The uses permitted in the IOZ are certainly within the permissible range of uses for the designation in the plan. The plan does not guarantee a minimal zoning category for properties within the general commercial designation. It only provides that the zoning will effectively include general commercial uses. Further, the IOZ cannot accurately be referred to as a separate zoning category as argued by the Petitioners. The IOZ modifies underlying general commercial zoning districts (which the Petitioners agree are authorized by the Plan). In fact, land development regulations such as the IOZ are considered to be innovative and are encouraged in s. 163.3202(3), F.S. There are no provisions in Chapter 163, F.S., that require comprehensive plans to identify and authorize all implementing land development regulations. Although Policy 1.3.5 lists certain uses which are eliminated or limited within the IOZ, these uses are allowed in commercial zoning districts outside the IOZ. The Petitioners may have cited portions of certain policy statements that, when taken in isolation, seem to suggest potential conflicts with the IOZ. However, the IOZ serves as the implementing solution to a problem area identified in the Plan as being of significant concern. Therefore, the IOZ, on balance, takes action in [the] direction of implementing and furthering substantive portions of the Plan. Further, the lack of recognition in the comprehensive plan of implementing land development regulations does not, by itself, constitute an inconsistency. On May 31, 1991, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting a hearing on its consistency challenge. Petitioner did so in good faith as part of its effort to convince the Town Council that the I.O.Z. should be modified in a manner that would allow Petitioner to construct its proposed auto campus in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road. Petitioner hoped that the Hearing Officer would agree with its position that the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions are inconsistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan and that, after the Hearing Officer found these use restrictions to be inconsistent with the Plan, the Town Council would take action to eliminate them to avoid the sanctions it would face if it did not take such action.
