Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Leon Cases, is an applicant to become licensed as an architect in the State of Florida by endorsement as provided in Section 481.213(3), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was originally licensed as an architect in the State of New York in 1992, and the parties stipulate that he has passed the national licensure examination as prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and thus has completed all examination requirements for licensure. The parties also stipulate that the Petitioner has completed an architectural internship which is substantially equivalent to that required by Section 481.211, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner graduated from the School of Architecture and Environmental Studies of the City College of New York on September 1, 1977, with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture (BS Arch). The School of Architecture and Environmental Studies at the City College of New York is a school or college of architecture accredited by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB). The degree which the Petitioner received from the City College of New York is not the professional degree in architecture offered by that college. NAAB accredits schools and colleges of architecture which offer curricula and programs leading to a first professional degree in architecture. A professional degree in architecture in the United States is uniformly evidenced by a five year degree leading to a Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch) or a six or more year two stage degree program (a bachelor's [not a B. Arch degree] degree followed by a master's degree) leading to a Master of Architecture (M. Arch). It is not disputed that the Petitioner's degree (a four-year Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree) is not a professional degree in architecture as defined by NAAB. The Petitioner completed the course requirements for the BS Arch degree from CCNY, but did not attempt or complete the course requirements for the fifth year which results in the B. Arch from CCNY. The fifth year of a five-year program leading to a professional degree in architecture is an important part of the educational process which results in the synthesis of all the undergraduate work which is done in the first four years. This importance is recognized by CCNY which in its catalogue noted that it is only "with this degree [the bachelor of architecture, that] the student may begin the internship required for admission to the examination for licensure as a registered architect." It is in the fifth year of a five-year professional degree program, that a student usually (via a thesis requirement) develops an architectural program and completes the design of a structure from concept to completion. It is this requirement that allows the faculty to measure an individual's capacity to become a practicing architect. The Petitioner completed none of the fifth year requirements at CCNY. After the Petitioner graduated from CCNY he moved to the State of Florida and began working at an architectural firm. He considered applying to sit for the licensure examination in the State of Florida in the early 1980's; however, he determined that he would not be eligible to sit for the examination since he did not have a five-year professional degree in architecture. As a result, the Petitioner determined to apply to New York under the provisions of that state's licensure laws. He was accepted to sit for the examination in New York pursuant to his combination of education and experience, and was licensed after completing all parts of the exam in 1992. The Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination in New York as a result of New York's statutes and rules which permit a combination of education and experience to be used to form the basis for entry to the licensure examination. The State of New York has confirmed this method by which the Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination and ultimately licensed within New York by a document sent to the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design verifying the Petitioner's licensure in that state and the manner by which that licensure occurred. Since 1979 the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design has interpreted the provisions of Chapter 481.209, Florida Statutes, relating to entry to the licensure examination to mandate that a professional degree in architecture from an accredited school or college of architecture approved by NAAB is required. The only proviso is that applicants from an unaccredited school or college of architecture must meet standards which are equivalent to NAAB. These standards have been set forth by Board Rule 61G1-13.003, F.A.C., which mandates a five-year professional degree in architecture. Neither the Board of Architecture and Interior Design nor the Department of Business and Professional Regulation have compiled a subject matter index as mandated by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. No evidence has been adduced to show that the Board has taken a position contrary to its established position that a professional degree in architecture is required by the provisions of Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, prior to licensure in the State of Florida. The Board did produce information relevant to past Board actions on applications either for licensure by endorsement or to sit for the examination, which shows that the Board has consistently denied such applications if a professional degree from an accredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture was not present in the applicant's educational background.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design issue a final order in this cause denying the Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May 1994 at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 11th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The findings addressed immediately below are the four paragraphs following the caption "FINDINGS OF FACT" at pages 11 and 12 of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order. No effort has been made to make specific rulings on other factual assertions that appear throughout other portions of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order in conjunction with arguments and conclusions of law. Paragraph A: Accepted up to the first comma. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph B: Accepted up to the first use of the word "architect." The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph C: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. And, in any event, the argument lacks merit. Paragraph D: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusion of law, rather than proposed finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: All findings of fact proposed by the Respondent have been accepted, with the exception of the last paragraph of same. The last paragraph proposed by the Respondent is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Paglino, Esquire 11601 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33181 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL 04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Architecture & Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
The Issue Whether land Santa Rosa County has zoned "Planned Business District" lies in a commercial or industrial zone within the meaning of Section 479.01(2), Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 14-10.0051(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact By applications dated July 18, 1986, petitioner Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising (Salter) sought permits to mount back to back signs, ten feet high and 36 feet wide, on a metal "unipole" 40 feet above the ground, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, on the south side of U.S. Highway 98 in Santa Rosa County, 11.5 miles east of State Road 399. The site proposed for the signs lies outside any incorporated municipality, about halfway between Gulf Breeze and the Okaloosa County line. The proposed site is near the northeast corner of a parcel with 1,300 feet fronting U.S. Highway 98. The signs would stand 50 feet from the highway right of way, some 1,066 feet east of the nearest building, which is part of a privately owned zoo, forthrightly named "The Zoo." Whether The Zoo will ever expand, as Pat Finn, the proprietor, reportedly hopes, is not clear from the evidence. Mr. Finn gave Salter written permission to apply for the permits, and executed a lease in Salter's favor. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Salter applied for and obtained written approval from Santa Rosa County's planning department to erect the signs for which it now seeks permits. No other highway signs have been permitted in the immediate vicinity since October 1, 1984. Across the street, mechanics repair automobiles and motorcycles at a commercial garage. Also on the north side of the highway is a lumber company, about a quarter of a mile from the site, and an establishment selling campers, maybe half a mile from the site. For several miles in either direction, much of the property along this four-lane divided highway is undeveloped, but there are occasional shopping centers, Convenience stores, restaurants and other commercial establishments, including a boat dealer and tent merchant. For several miles in either direction, with the exception of one or two residences, all residential development is more than 300 feet back from U.S. Highway 98, and most of it is more than 500 feet back. In response to recent legislation, Santa Rosa County hired Robert Eugene Arn, Jr., in the spring of 1986, to head its planning department and to review zoning in the county, including in the area in question. According to Mr. Arn, erection of the proposed signs is permissible under Santa Rosa County's present zoning. Before his arrival, an ad hoc committee had examined aerial photographs, considered present and potential land uses in the area, and otherwise informed itself on the circumstances over a period of about a year. The county adopted a zoning ordinance, effective June 24, 1986, covering south Santa Rosa County. Consistently with the purposes of the ordinance, and with the comprehensive plan, the proposed site has been zoned "Planned Business District" (PBD), allowing commercial activity on parcels of adequate size, without requiring variances or special exceptions for commercial uses, which uses need not be incidental to other, primary land uses. In pertinent part, the ordinance provides: PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT Within this district as shown on the zoning map of the South Santa Rosa County Planning Area, Florida, the following regula- tions shall apply: INTENT AND PURPOSE, PERMITTED USES: Intent and Purpose: It is the purpose of this article to permit Planned Business Developments along major arterials and to encourage the development of this land with highway frontage as planned communities, and business and commercial centers; encourage flexible and creative concepts of site planning; preserve the natural amenities of the land by encouraging functional open areas; accomplish a more desirable environment that would not be possible through the strict application of the minimum requirements of these regulations; provide for an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of streets and utilities where access to regional systems is impractical and thereby lowering development and housing costs; and provide a stable environmental character compatible with surrounding areas; limit access on to major arterials to central locations in order to reduce safety hazards posed by unlimited or uncontrolled access. Permitted Uses: The uses permitted within this district shall include the following: Residential units, including single- family attached and detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple-family dwellings. Churches, schools, community or club buildings and similar public and semi-public facilities. Non-residential uses, including commercial or retail uses, offices, clinics and professional uses. Mobile homes (as defined in Section 1.1.) are prohibited in Area #1 (as defined in Section 1.1.). The basis for this restric- tion is found in the already developed nature of Area #1 and the need to protect established property values from uses that could potentially adversely affect such values. DEFINITIONS: In addition to the definitions contained in Section 1 of this ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and derivations shall have the following meaning: Planned Business Development: An area of land of at least fifteen (15) acres devoted by its owner to development as a single entity for a number of dwelling units, and/or commercial uses in accordance with a plan which does not necessarily comply with the provisions of Sections 3 through 6 of this ordinance with respect to lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, off-street parking, bulk or type of dwelling, density and other regulations. Plan: The proposal for development of a Planned Business Development, including a plat of subdivision, all covenants, grants of easements and other conditions relating to use, location and bulk of buildings, density of development, common open space and public facilities. The plan shall include such information as required by Article D of this Section. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: When a parcel of land is zoned for Planned Business District (PBD), such parcel shall not be subdivided into smaller parcels less than fifteen (15) acres in size without first complying with the provisions of this Section for Master Planning. The procedure for obtaining approval for the purpose of undertaking a Planned Business Development shall be as follows: Preliminary Planned Business Development and Master Plan Approval: The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director, his application for the approval of the Planned Business Development and shall submit the following exhibits at the same time: (a) A statement of objectives describing: The general purpose of the proposed development. The general character of the proposed development. A Master Plan. A Master Plan, drawn at a scale suitable for presentation, showing and/or describing the following: Proposed Land Uses. Final Development Plan: If approval for the Planned Business Development is granted, the applicant shall submit a Final Planned Business Development Plan covering all or part of the approved Master Plan within twelve (12) months, to the Planning Director. The Final Development Plan shall include the following exhibits. A statement of objectives: The general purpose of the proposed development. The general character of the proposed development. (5) Revision of a Planned Unit Development: Any proposed major and substantial change in the approval Preliminary Planned Business Development Master Plan which affects the intent and character of the development, the density or land use pattern, proposed buffers, the location or dimensions or arterial or collector streets, or similar substantial changes, shall be reviewed by the Planning Department in the same manner of the initial site plan approval. A request for a revision of the Preliminary Planned Business Development Master Plan, shall be supported by a written statement and by revised plans demonstrating the reasons the revisions are necessary or desirable... By use of the master plan mechanism, the ordinance reserves many areas for future designations. But, at the same time that it adopted its zoning ordinance, Santa Rosa County adopted maps showing a corridor in which commercial development is contemplated, extending 300 to 500 feet either side of the highway. Single family residences would normally be 300 to 500 feet back from the highway, although nothing in the ordinance precludes single family residences adjacent to the highway. The property across the road from the proposed site has been zoned PBD and "HCD", or highway commercial development. Land zoned HCD can be developed commercially, but multiple family housing is also allowed. DOT has granted permit applications for sites zoned HCD. DOT has never denied such an application, as far as the record reveals, but DOT's Mr. Culpepper testified that DOT would deny an application for a site zoned HCD if it were located in a (multi-family) residential area. DOT's stated reason for proposing to deny Salter's most recent applications is "unpermittable zoning": "PBD is not acceptable zoning for a state sign permit." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. At hearing, Mr. Culpepper explicated the Department's position, testifying that, if the area in question were the subject of a master plan specifying commercial uses, the signs could be permitted; but that, because PBD zoning allows both residential and commercial uses, and the ultimate fate of the property is not yet legally specified, no permit can issue. Of course, as much of the property as has been developed is now given over to a commercial use, The Zoo, with its parking lot and gift store. Santa Rosa County's current policy is to allow land uses antedating adoption of zoning ordinances to persist, even if they are non-conforming. No master plan covering the area in question has been filed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, Theodore C. Boldt, was a professional land surveyor registered by the State of Florida under license Number LS002387, granted after examination on July 9, 1976, with an expiration date of January 31, 1989. The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors, (Board), was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of land surveying in this state. On August 5, 1985, the Board entered a Final Order in which it concluded Respondent had violated various sections of the Florida Statutes and Rules. The Board suspended Respondent's license to practice land surveying for six months and, inter alia, required him to submit twenty-five surveys representative of his land surveying practice, accompanied by field notes and record plats for review by the Board. Respondent has submitted fifteen of the surveys, the first ten of which were accepted by the Board. Survey eleven through fifteen, however, were determined to be unsatisfactory. On the basis of that Board determination, an Administrative Complaint was filed in this case alleging that the five surveys failed to meet minimum acceptable standards and thereby constituted a violation of Florida Statutes. The surveys in question were evaluated by Walter A. Paxton, Jr., a registered land surveyor for fifteen years, who has spent a total of thirty-five years in the surveying field. During the course of his career, he has done several thousand surveys and has never had a complaint filed against him. As a part of his practice, he keeps up with the Rules and Standards of the profession by review of agency bulletins and letters and by taking continuing education seminars. Mr. Paxton graded these surveys utilizing a Minimum Standards Probation Report Checklist which identified numerous items for evaluation and grading. Grades available included violation; acceptable, which means that the answer meets the requirements of the rules; not applicable, which means that the subject matter does not pertain to the case under consideration; and marginally acceptable, which refers to an error of a minor nature, such as a typographical error, which is not a true violation of the Rule setting forth minimum standards. With regard to the first survey evaluated, Survey Exhibit 11, Mr. Paxton found one violation. Under the pertinent rule, each survey must fall into a descriptive category to be designated on the drawing. In this case, Respondent described the survey as a "Boundary" survey when, in fact, it should have been described as "As Built." A "Boundary" survey is generally utilized only for raw acreage and this property had a structure built on it. Mr. Paxton also found one marginally acceptable item in that the survey did not reflect the relevant Rule under which the survey was conducted. As to Survey Exhibit 12, Mr. Paxton found two violations. Again, the type of survey described was wrong and the survey failed to show the lot dimensions on the West side of the final drawing. The field notes reflected 81 feet for the West side of the lot. Of the four marginally acceptable issues, the first dealt with the completeness of the survey and relates to the Respondent's failure to put in the total dimensions as described above. In the second, the drawing failed to show the bearings on the finished product. The third relates to Respondent's failure to indicate the adjoining lot and block number on the South side of the drawing. The fourth pertains to Respondent's failure to reflect the Rule number in his certification. This last was a deficiency in each of the five surveys in question. As to survey Number 13, Mr. Paxton found one violation which again related to Respondent's use of the term "Boundary" survey instead of "As Built" on a survey of a lot on which a structure has been erected. Two marginally acceptable items related to the failure to show the Rule in the certification and Respondent's failure to list both lot and block when identifying lots adjacent to the property under survey. This, too, is a repeat deficiency. In the fourth survey, Number 14, Mr. Paxton found three violations and three marginally acceptables. The violations related to the Respondent's failure to show a Block identification on the survey and his showing only of the lot number. The second was that Respondent's field notes did not indicate a closure on elevation, but instead, showed only the elevation from the benchmark to a point on the ground. Respondent admitted this was a violation. The third related to Respondent's failure to indicate the original benchmark on the drawing but only the site benchmark. In this case, Respondent admits to this but indicates he could not find the original benchmark because of the distance from the site of the survey. He described the search therefor as being "hard" to do. The marginally acceptable items on this survey again relate to Respondent's failure to show the Rule number in the certification portion of the survey; his failure to include the Block number in addition to the Lot number on the sketch; and his failure to identify adjoining property Lot and Block numbers on the drawing. The fifth survey contained two violations and four marginally acceptable items. The violations were, again, the failure to properly describe the survey as "As Built", and the failure to indicate angles on the field notes. The four marginally acceptables relate to the Respondent's failure to refer to the Rule in his certification; his failure to indicate the block number as well as the lot number on the sketch; the failure to maintain acceptable quality field notes (the failure to list the angles as required); and the failure to reflect on the second sketch of this property a revision date indicating the first sketch was changed. Based on the above identified violations and marginally acceptable items, Mr. Paxton concluded that the surveys in question here do not meet the acceptable standards of the State of Florida for surveys and it is so found. Respondent does not deny that the actions alleged as violations or marginally acceptable areas occurred. He objects, however, to the fact that they were described as violations. Mr. Boldt has been in the surveying profession for 49 years, having started with his father at the age of 10. It is his practice not to put the Block number on a survey unless Lots beside or behind the Lot being surveyed are in a different Block. This practice has been accepted by various banks and the county since he has been doing it and certainly since 1983, when the subject was made a matter of Rule. By the same token, banks and the county have also for years accepted without question his use of the descriptive term, "Boundary" for the type of survey. Accepted use is irrelevant, however, if the rules in question prescribe otherwise. From his testimony it can only be gathered that Respondent complies with the Rules "when he can." When Mr. Paxton pointed out that the requirements identified here appear in the Rules of the Board, Respondent pointed out that the Rules were "new Rules". This approach to the profession of land surveying, while satisfactory to him, is not acceptable when measured against the Board rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered land surveyor in Florida be suspended for 18 months with such suspension to be stayed for a probation period of 18 months under such terms and conditions as the Board of Professional Land Surveyors may specify. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1988, at 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 29th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore C. Boldt 5424 Hayden Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 33582 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director DPR, Board of Professional Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen P. Hamner, Jr., has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architectural licensure examination, administered by the Respondent, consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year, and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for the 12-hour "Part A" examination in June, 1980. The examination consists of a drafting or sketching problem and is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, designing elevations, building cross sections, facades and floor plans, as well as taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all areas, heating and cooling, including solar heating potential, prevailing climate conditions, use of natural lighting, and numerous other esthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination was adopted in Florida pursuant to the above-cited rules. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by that applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB and the Florida board. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether an applicant, such as the Petitioner, is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, esthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on the same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the design and site portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of 20 states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem, including the Petitioner's, in a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, as well as in Respondent's Exhibit Three. The graders are instructed to note the areas of strength and weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to those grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution in order to pass that portion of the examination. The Petitioner herein received two "1's" and one "2" on the examination, all of which were failing grades. Although he demonstrated an effort to comply with instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet, he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses (Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture and a grader in this examination, and Mr. Dan Branch, a grader of the petitioner's own examination) shows that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based on the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. Many technical errors were pointed out by these witnesses, as well as by the petitioner's own admissions. The record thus discloses that the Petitioner's examination solution was deficient in its allowance for parking space and the ability of vehicular ingress to egress from the parking lot surrounding the building to be designed. There were no room designations on the rooms in the floor plan; there was only one rest room space and one set of toilets for men and women where two spaces and sets of facilities were required by the instruction program. The Petitioner failed to mark the building elevations on the building floor plans, did not depict where furniture would be located, and two different elevation drawings and two sectional drawings required to be depicted on the examination were not. The Petitioner did not show what type of material would be used in the roof nor what type of insulation, nor did he show what type and uses of glass were to be made. The Petitioner failed to give adequate consideration to grading and site planning, failed to adequately make notation of the types of materials to be used in the elevation's floor plans and wall sections, and generally did not adequately adhere to the program presented him. In general, it was shown by these witnesses that while the Petitioner had made a substantial effort to pass the examination, he had failed to place within the solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine clearly that his program or design could be a successful one. The Petitioner's own admissions show that he approached the examination in question in such a manner as to substitute his own judgment and opinion regarding which techniques and components were architecturally sound for the problem for those required to be treated as essential elements of the site and design problem posed him in the instructions. The program presented to the Petitioner assumed he would be in the hypothetical position of an "architect" presented with a program which had already reached a point of completion as to design ideas and site location. The insertion of his own ideas and judgment regarding various elements of the project is contrary to established architectural practice, for a program which had already reached the point of completion, in terms of initial design decisions, as that presented to the examination candidates in this instance. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design-problem posed by the examination reflected sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980, site and design portion of the architectural examination be upheld, and that the petition be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glen P. Hamner, Jr. 1231 Bayshore Drive Valparaiso, Florida 32580 John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samual Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John Binkley, has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The Architectural Licensure Examination administered by the Respondent consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for a twelve hour examination consisting of a drafting or sketching problem concerning which he was required to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to both floors, heating and cooling, including passive solar heating, prevailing climate conditions and numerous other aesthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) . Pursuant to the authority delineated below, this examination has been adopted for use by Florida applicants for licensure. The examination itself is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure, the Petitioner, to design a structure for placement on a particular site, including mandatory requirements for accommodating the structure to the site, and vice versa, detailed design of elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans, effective use of natural light and solar heating potential, regard for the physical and aesthetic needs of the building's occupants, impact on the environment of the site aid its locality and numerous other criteria. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by the applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders, and through them, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether an applicant such as the Petitioner is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on these same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the site and design portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem submitted by applicants, including the Petitioner, on a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, and the evaluation criteria set forth in the grading sheet (Respondent's Exhibit C). The graders are instructed to note areas of strength and of weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution to the problem in order to pass the relevant portion of the exam. The Petitioner herein received two failing grades and one passing grade. The Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet. He failed however, to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida, and architect Robert Yarbro, both graders of the Petitioner's examination, establishes that the Petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based upon the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. He failed to make adequate provision for exits from the second floor of his structure. Indeed one grader, with a serious consideration to the consequences of a fire in the structure indicated that this single deficiency, standing alone, would justify a failing grade. Further, the lack of a second stairway from the second floor failed to meet the extent building code requirements. The Petitioner also failed to so orient the building on the construction site that adequate provision for prevailing temperatures and solar angles in the area could be accomplished for the purpose of conserving energy. The site in question, which was the identical site all applicants for the exam were required to consider and respond to, is located in the central United States (Indiana) where the prevailing concern for energy conservation is for heating in the winter season as opposed to cooling in the summer. A substantially greater number of days each year require heating of a structure in this locality instead of cooling. The Petitioner, however, oriented the building in such a way as to maximize cooling in the summer, but which would minimize solar heating, which is the reverse of the proper practice for that locality and the practice required in the instructions to the examination. The Petitioner's Exhibit One shows solar angles for that locality of the earth by latitude and is used by the Petitioner in an attempt to justify his placing of the great majority of the window area on the northern portion of the building, and indeed the Petitioner testified that this was done because that portion of the building received no direct sunlight. This testimony bears out the fact that, even at the hearing, the Petitioner apparently did not understand that in this locale and climate, use of solar energy for heating the building was the primary and relevant consideration rather than the avoidance of solar energy's detrimental effect on cooling of the building. The Petitioner further failed to make adequate provision for parking, especially with regard to the turning radius of vehicles and their ability to make ingress and egress from the parking spaces he designed, two of which were shown to be entirely unusable. Additionally, the Petitioner had an excessive grade within the parking lot and a 25 percent grade on the exit from the parking lot which was shown to be extremely excessive in view of prevailing winter weather conditions involving snow and ice and consequent safety hazards to persons and vehicles using the site. In his solution to the portion of the problem involving accommodating the site to the proposed structure, the Petitioner accomplished leveling the site by packing fill dirt around the southern border which resulted in an unfeasible gradient in the southern parking lot, and more importantly, the Petitioner used wooden railroad crossties to buttress and support a vertical six foot embankment of filled earth behind which would be placed a large volume of fill in violation of sound architectural principles. Professor Butt established that this would be an extremely dangerous condition in light of the drainage conditions that would prevail on the southern portion of the building site and that should such a six foot embankment be required as a result of such filling, that the minimum support should be a structural steel bulkhead or wall. Further deficiencies were described by the graders who were expert witnesses in addition to the deficiencies upon which the failing grade was based. The testimony of the witnesses that the failure to include the required second exit from the second floor was sufficient to justify a failing grade standing alone was not refuted by the Petitioner and his only justification for that deficiency in the design was that he felt occupants of the second floor, in case of fire, could make their escape by climbing out windows on to the roof of the first story of the building. Further, the Petitioner acknowledged that the grade of approach into or out of the parking area consisting of a four foot pitch in six horizontal feet is an excessive gradient and merely opined that there were only twelve hours to resolve the design problem and that in an actual project such as this that kind of problem would be ironed out later in the construction stage. That contention, however, does not constitute justification for departure from the requirements and instructions of the examination in this regard. Finally, witness Butt established that the Petitioner's failure to give due regard to one of the major design criteria, adjustment of the building to the construction site, engendered some of the other deficiencies resulting in the failing grade, especially the resulting significant problem involving the excessive grade in the parking lot and the resulting excessive and dangerous fill and retaining wall on the southern portion of the site. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design problem posed by the examination reflects sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980 site and design portion of the Architectural Examination be upheld and that the Petition be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Binkley 1937 Millbrook Terrace Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 John Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Counsel for the Board of Architecture Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted sufficient additional credit for exam factors which would be sufficient to receive a passing grade on the design implementation portion of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination.
Findings Of Fact In June 1989, Petitioner, Deborah Martohue, was an examinee on Section 4, Parts A and B, of the Uniform National Examination for Landscape Architects. She had previously passed Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the June 1988 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. Licensure is granted by Respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the subjective portions of the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. Prior to the administration of the exam, master graders from all 43 states who use the exam meet and critique both the examination questions and the evaluation guide to insure uniformity. By notice, Petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that she had received a failing scaled score of 64.8158 on Section 4, Design Implementation, of the examination. A minimum scaled score of 74.5 is required for a passing grade. On October 30, 1989, Petitioner reviewed her examination and using the evaluation guide, disputed 25 points concerning the scoring on Section 4 of the examination. As a result of Petitioner's concerns, the Board assigned a new person to regrade her examination. As a result Petitioner's overall scaled score was raised form 64.8158 to 73.1489. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner objected to the scores received on Section 4A, Factors 2 and 3, out of a total of four factors, and Section 4B, Factors 1,3,4,5, and 6, out of a total of nine factors, of the examination. It is Petitioner's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating her solutions to the problems, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate her answers. In addition, Petitioner contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which she was not given credit. Other than her own testimony, Petitioner did not present any other competent evidence to support her contentions. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of C. Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect and master grader with five years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet, and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded Petitioner's examination and assigned it a scaled score of 70.3712, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions, but lower scores to others for an overall average of 70.3. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Petitioner's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where Petitioner had not received the desired grade, she had prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner's examination was graded arbitrarily or capriciously, or that Respondent failed to conduct the examination fairly, uniformly and in accordance with its own rules and regulations, or that the examination instructions were insufficient and misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on Section 4 of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-1567 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15. Rejected: paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (restatement of the testimony or argument) COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Martohue 1315 Margate Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Ard Executive Director Landscape Architecture Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Robert William Morgan, applied for a land surveyor's license pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. He qualified for and passed the first part of the exam on April 9 and 10, 1981, took the second part of the written examination administered by the Board of Land Surveyors of the Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent). Mr. Morgan was notified that he had failed to pass the second part of the examination by the Respondent by notice dated July 17, 1981. He requested a review of his examination by the Board and filed written objections. On September 3, 1981 he was informed by the Respondent that his protest was denied and his failing grade on the examination would stand. On October 1, 1981, the Petitioner made a timely petition to contest the Board's denial of his application for licensure pursuant to Section 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes. There is no dispute that the only obstacle to the Petitioner's licensure in the eyes of the Board is that he made a score of 66 percent on the examination when 70 percent is required for passing. The rules cited below set forth the subject matter of the examination as well as the guidelines for preparing, administering and grading it. The Rules provide that the examination will consist of two parts which shall be prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and, in part, by a consultant or testing service employed by the Department of Professional Regulation. The second part of the examination is the sole portion in dispute in this proceeding. Pursuant to the Rules cited below, the examination is designed to test an applicant's knowledge in land boundary plot problems (either metes and bounds or lot and block types), general surveying computations, trigonometry, curves, intersections (areas) legal responsibilities in professional practice, writing land or legal descriptions, construction or topographic surveying, specialty problems involving water boundary surveys, error theory and condominium surveys. The content of part two of the examination generally involves six (6) to eight (8) problems drawn from those areas, each of which problems will normally generate between five (5) to fifteen (15) multiple choice questions, each of which receive 2 points of credit when completed correctly. Part two of the examination, according to the Rule, is not to be machine graded and grades for part two of the examination must be based upon the application of "good land surveying judgment and a selection and evaluation of pertinent information with the demonstration of ability to make reasonable assumptions when necessary". The Rules require that the applicant must choose the multiple choice answer for a question on part two that is most nearly correct, further he is to be given space on his examination sheet to outline his reasons, methods and references by which the graders may determine his land surveying judgment which went into his answer. In the absence of such an outline, in explanation of an answer, even though the preliminary answer is marked correct, it is not to be given credit. Further, it has long been the Board's policy (expressed in the Rules) that if an outline or explanation of reasons for an answer is judged by the Board's testing service as adequate according to fundamental land surveying principles then credit will be given for the entire question pair "if the correct answer is close. . ." The second part of the examination, in dispute herein, was formulated and administered by Mr. Dave Gibson of the University of Florida School of Engineering who prepared the multiple choice examination to be machine scored in its entirety. No space was provided on the examination sheet for the applicant to outline his reasons or his methods and references in arriving at his solution so that the examining graders could determine his land surveying judgment underlying his answers to the multiple choice questions. The applicant, instead, was required by the format of the examination prepared by Mr. Gibson, and the instructions given by the Board, to choose the most nearly correct answer from a series of multiple choice answers on a machine scored answer sheet (emphasis supplied). The applicant was thus forced to select a single reason for his answer to the immediately preceding multiple choice question in each pair without having a blank space in order to outline the reasons for his answer. The choices were adequate for the applicant to express his reasons for his answers in some cases and in some cases they were not. In grading of the examination, credit was only given for the most nearly correct answer instead of an "adequate outline". Thus, where there was more than one acceptable method or reason for an answer to a specific question, the Board only gave credit for the one its consultant considered most nearly correct, even though another answer in a number of instances could have been correct by the Board's own admission. Indeed, the Board admitted that where there was more than one correct answer to a question, the standard policy of the Board had been to give credit for both answers. The parties are in agreement that the only questions in dispute are questions 13 and 14, 31 and 32, and 45 and 46, passage of all of which would give him a total score of 72 percent instead of 66 percent. These questions are arranged in pairs, 13 is the preliminary question and answer with 14 being the answer to be supplied in explanation to the answer to question 13 (no space being given, as formerly by the Board, to write an explanation). The same paired relationship is true of questions 31 and 32, with 32 providing the explanatory answer and question 46 containing the explanatory answer for question 45. The second part of the exam in question, consisted of forty (40) multiple choice questions followed by forty (40) multiple choice reasons, methods or references for the answer to the questions, as well as an essay question worth twenty (20) points. The odd numbers on the machine scored answer sheet for part two of the exam are the questions and the even numbers are the methods or reasons for the answers to the odd-numbered questions. The parties do not dispute that Mr. Morgan received 54 points on the multiple choice questions and 12 points on the essay question for a total of 66 percent on the examination. It must be remembered, however, that in order to get credit for a correct answer an "adequate outline" of the reason for the answer must be given as the second answer in the pair. It is also undisputed that Mr. Morgan correctly answered questions 13, 31 and 46 of the three pairs, but was not given credit for these answers at all because of his answers to questions 14, 32 and 45 were not in the view of the Board the "most nearly correct answers for 14 and 31" or as "equally correct as other answers" for question 45. Mr. Gibson, the Board's consultant who administered and graded the examination, did not give credit for an "adequate explanatory answer or outline". In some instances, however, more than one answer was accepted as correct, after Mr. Gibson and the Board determined that the examination should be "re-keyed", because of sixteen (16) questions on part two which the Board felt were ambiguous and could be correctly answered in more than one way. Question 13 on the examination was one of a series of questions testing the applicant's knowledge of topography and grading of land. It reads as follows: 13. If a lath were placed at the cul-de-sac center on road A, how far above the existing ground should a mark be placed on the lath that reads, 'cut three feet', most nearly. The elevation of the existing ground was determined from other parts of the examination. The notes on Mr. Morgan's examination reflect that he correctly calculated this to be eighty-six (86) feet. He also correctly answered question 13 by selecting choice B or "two feet". Solution number 14, the reason, method or reference for question 13, then states: This is the usual amount for most of Florida. By subtracting the elevation of the mark from the proposed pavement elevation. By subtracting the elevations of the mark from the existing ground elevation. Of those three choices, A, B and C, Mr. Morgan picked choice B as his reason for his answer to question 13. Mr. Gibson felt that the correct answer should be choice C in solution 14. The Board's witnesses admitted that the determination of the answer to question 13 was a two step process. The elevation of the mark on the stake must be determined from the proposed grade elevation within the meaning of the term "cut three" on the stake. Once the elevation of the mark is calculated, the height of the mark above existing ground elevation could be determined by calculating the difference between the elevations of the existing ground and the mark on the grade stake. If the elevation of the mark, which is eighty-eight feet, is subtracted from the elevation of the existing ground as directed in choice C of solution 14, the result is minus 2. The mark cannot logically be minus 2 feet above the existing ground on a grade stake as described in the question. Further, minus 2 was not even one of the choices for an answer to question 13. The correct and acceptable answer under the Board's "key" was 2 or plus 2 feet as Mr. Morgan correctly marked on his answer sheet. If one applies the "most nearly correct rule" to the answers in a mathematical sense, the most nearly correct answer would have been zero for question 13 using choice C as the answer for 14. This is obviously not the most logical and correct answer. Choice A for question 14 in explanation of the answer for 13 is admittedly a "detractor" type choice and not worthy of serious consideration. Choice B is an expression of the meaning of "cut three" and is the key to solving the problem stated in question 13, that is, the elevation of the existing grade, 85 feet, minus the elevation of the mark equals minus 3, which is directly symbolic of the surveyors term "cut three". Until this relationship is known, the elevation of the mark cannot be determined from the information given and therefore without knowing the elevation of the mark, the height of the mark above existing ground cannot be determined. Thus, choice C is an expression of the first step to a two-step process required to arrive at the correct answer to question 13. It is not the final step in explanation of the answer for question 13, but it must be found to be an "adequate reason", since the only other alternatives offered the examinee require him to disregard elementary mathematical principles, such as subtraction, which he is charged with applying in solving the examination. Thus, choice 14-B is the correct explanation for the answer to question 13 since it correctly expresses the initial part of the two-part process required to arrive at the correct answer to question 13 and since the other two choices A and C are either illogical or do not comport with applicable mathematical principles such as subtraction. Question 31 reads as follows: Concerning Palm Avenue about the 1955 MHW line, which statement is most nearly correct? The original developer is fee owner subject to public easement. The public is the complete owner subject to easements for the subdivision lot owners. Each lot owner owns fee title to the street center line subject to a public easement. State of Florida holds fee title subject to a public easement. The public is the complete owner subject to no easement. Mr. Morgan selected choice C for his answer, which is agreed to be the correct answer. Question 32 reads: Reason for Response given in question 31 Public only receive an easement from the developer. The public received complete title from the developer. Riparian rights. Deed for lots presumes grant to center of adjoining street. The lack of improving the street gives the fee title to the state. Mr. Morgan selected choice D as his answer for question 32, the Board did not give him credit for this answer because it felt the reason he gave was not the most nearly correct. As admitted by the Board's consultant, Mr. Gibson, the object of question 31 was to test the applicant's knowledge of legal principles pertaining to street or subdivision plats. Specifically, it required the applicant to state the title for that portion of the street above the mean high water mark, given the facts presented to him in the problem. Mr. Gibson also admitted that the applicant was expected to apply the substantive law of Florida as its existed at the time the applicant took the exam in April of 1981. He also admitted that the correct answer for the state of the title for question 31 contained two parts: an easement held by the public; and the underlying fee title held by the abutting lot owners. Both Witnesses Gibson and Davis admitted that the two best explanations contained in question 32, A and D, each only explain one part of the state of the title of the property involved. Response A only explains the easement portion of the title and response D explains the state of the fee title. These two witnesses conceded that Mr. Morgan's choice for question 32, response D, was a correct answer. Although they maintained they did not consider it the best answer, they failed to establish that response A is an any more correct or complete statement of title in explaining that an easement goes to the public for use of the street than is the explanation in the Petitioner's answer D, which states that the deed for the lots presumes a grant of the fee title to the center of the street. The Respondent's answer obviously is "adequate" if it is one of two possible correct answers. The Petitioner should thus get credit for his answers to questions 13 and 14 and questions 31 and 32. His reasons given for his obviously correct answers to the first questions in the two pairs are clearly adequate, which would have been obvious to the Board had it afforded him the hitherto provided space on his answer sheet to explain the answers to the first question in each pair. The final pair of answers in dispute are those for questions 45 and Question 45 reads: At what point of construction should the measurements be made for the surveyor's certificate required for a condominium? After the architect's plans are prepared but before construction starts. After the piling and footers are placed but before construction of the buildings. After the columns and floors are completed but before framing of the units. After framing of the units but before the walls are finished. After the interior walls are finished. Mr. Morgan chose response A. One of the requirements of applicants for licensure and examinees is that they be knowledgeable of substantive Florida Law pertaining to the profession of land surveying. Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, pertaining to land surveying, provides for two certifications which a surveyor is called upon to make during the course of development and construction of a condominium. One of these is the certificate which should be issued by the surveyor after construction is substantially complete. Accordingly, with that in mind, the Board maintained that the Petitioner should have answered "E" to question 45 which reads "after the interior walls are finished", as being the time at which the surveyor's certificate should be issued. The other surveyor's certificate required in the course of the development of a condominium, must be prepared much earlier as one of the documents that a developer must file with the Division of Land Sales and Condominiums when he wants to offer sales contracts and take advance subscription agreements for condominium reservation deposits. The developer cannot take a reservation or deposit until he files a surveyor's certificate filed with the Division. The Petitioner chose response A because of his knowledge of this last-described surveyor s certificate. The author of the examination, Witness Gibson, admitted that when he prepared the examination he was not aware of this other certificate required of surveyors when dealing with condominium developments. His question, therefore, did not specify which certificate was required for a correct response to the question. It was finally admitted that Mr. Morgan's choice, response A, was one of two correct answers to question 45 given the requirements of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, which he is charged with knowledge of as a candidate for licensure. The Respondent acknowledged that historically it has been the Board's policy to give credit for a question where there is more than one correct answer to that question. If an answer is correct for any reasonable reading of the question to which it applies, then it is just as correct as any other answer. Accordingly, the Petitioner should be given credit for a correct answer to question 45. The Respondent admitted that the Petitioner correctly answered question 46, thus he should be given total credit for both questions 45 and 46.
Recommendation Having considered the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Land Surveyors awarding Robert William Morgan a passing score of seventy-two percent (72 percent) on part two of the land surveyor's examination administered April 9 and 10, 1981 and therefore, it being agreed that no other impediment to licensure is extant, that the Board grant him licensure as a land surveyor. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Davis, Esquire DAVIS, JUDKINS & SIMPSON Post Office Box 1368 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ROBERT MORGAN, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 81-2502 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS, Respondent. /
