The Issue The issue is whether the establishment of the Tuscany Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Overview In this proceeding, Petitioner, Beverly Hills Development Corporation, seeks the adoption of a rule by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) to establish a new community development district just northeast of Beverly Hills in Citrus County, Florida. The proposed name for the new District is the Tuscany Community Development District (the District). The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony The evidence indicates that all of the statements contained in the Petition, as amended, are true and correct. Edwin M. Bulleit, a certified public accountant with Prager, McCarthy and Sealy, testified that he and his attorney met individually with the different county commissioners for Citrus County regarding the proposed District, and although the commissioners had questions, they had no objections to the adoption of the proposed District. Mr. Bulleit further testified that he felt he adequately answered the questions of the commissioners. Mr. Bulleit testified that a community development district is a mechanism to finance, plan, and manage public improvements. Witness Bulleit further testified that such a mechanism allows development to pay for itself. Mr. Bulleit stated that in his experience, 80 to 90 percent of developments in Florida are pursuing community development-type financing. Mr. Bulleit further testified that community developments provide the opportunity for tax exempt financing, the benefits of which include (i) lower interest rates, which make the development more financially sound and lots within the community development district more affordable, and (ii) access to long-term, 30-year debt financing, which means the financing matches the long-term nature of the assets being financed. Mr. Bulleit testified that a community development district may exercise certain powers subject to the regulatory jurisdiction and permitting authority of all applicable governmental bodies, agencies, and special districts having authority with respect to the community development district. Mr. Dale R. Miller, Vice-President of Petitioner, testified that Petitioner is a Florida corporation with offices in Beverly Hills, Florida. A certified copy of a Certificate of Active Status for Petitioner issued by the Florida Department of State was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Mr. Miller indicated that the land area to be served by the proposed District consists of two parcels of unimproved real property containing approximately 951.14 acres located in the existing Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact (Beverly Hills Property) and 560 acres located outside the Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact (King Land Trust Property) for a total acreage of approximately 1,511.14 acres. Mr. Miller also testified that the Beverly Hills Property and King Land Trust Property are contiguous (320 acres are adjacent to the east of the Beverly Hills Property, while 240 acres are adjacent to the south of the Beverly Hills Property). The conceptual development plan's allotted acreage for each land use was received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. The proposed District is entirely within the territorial limits of Citrus County, Florida. Mr. Miller further testified that the metes and bounds legal description of the external boundaries of the proposed District is as described in and attached to the Petition as Exhibit B and Exhibit B-1 and introduced into evidence at the hearing as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Petitioner filed an amended Exhibit B to its Petition, which contained an amended legal description of the boundaries for the proposed District. Mr. Miller indicated that the owners of the land to be included within the boundaries of the proposed District are Petitioner and William H. Cauthen, as Trustee of the King Land Trust, Inc. Mr. Miller further testified that the owners of the land to be included within the proposed District have consented to establishing the proposed District. The written consents of the owners of the land to be included in the proposed District were attached to the Petition as Exhibits C and C-1, and introduced into evidence at the hearing as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Mr. Miller testified that the five persons designated to serve as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed District are: Ronald J. Collins, Dale R. Miller, Taylor Collins, Paul Buchanan, and John O'Kelley. The initial supervisors will serve on the Board of Supervisors until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes. All of the initial supervisors are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States of America. Mr. Miller also stated that the proposed timetables and related estimates of cost to construct the proposed District's services and facilities, based upon available data, were attached to the Petition as Exhibit D and received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Mr. Miller testified that the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) to establish the proposed District were attached to the Petition as Exhibit E and received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. The future general description, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the proposed District will be incorporated into the adopted and approved Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Also, the requested land use and zoning classifications permit the planned residential and commercial development to be located within the proposed District. Finally, for those portions of the proposed District situated within the Beverly Hills DRI, the proposed public and private uses of land are compatible with all development orders issued pursuant to the DRI process. Mr. Miller testified that the proposed public and private uses of the land at issue were compatible with all of the development orders that have been issued pursuant to the development of regional impact process. Gail Easley, a professional land planner with The Gail Easley Company, testified that she reviewed the Petition and its exhibits in conjunction with the State Comprehensive Plan and found that the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Easley also testified that she reviewed the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, including the goals, objectives, and policies, as well as other materials, and found that the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Easley further stated that the area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. Witnesses Bulleit, Miller, and Easley each testified that the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed District. Witnesses Bulleit and Miller testified that establishing the District will promote development of the land within the District by providing for a more efficient use of its resources. Mr. Miller testified that the community development services and facilities of the District will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing and local regional community development services and facilities. Mr. Miller also stated that the District provides a perpetual entity capable of making reasonable provisions for the operation and maintenance of the District's services and facilities. Mr. Miller further testified that there is no real property located within the external boundaries of the District that is not going to be included within the District. Witnesses Bulleit and Easley testified that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. Louis G. Badami, Director of Utilities for Citrus County, testified that the District would be compatible with the capacity and uses of the existing local and regional water and sewer facilities, including those of Citrus County and Rolling Oaks Utilities, Inc. (Rolling Oaks). The latter utility is privately owned and provides water and wastewater service in an area adjacent to the District. Mr. Badami's testimony focused only on the water and wastewater service territories of Citrus County and Rolling Oaks. More specifically, he went on record as opposing a request to expand the present service territory of Rolling Oaks. He further testified that if the District was merely a funding mechanism to construct and install utilities and there was no expansion of Rolling Oaks' service territory without following applicable rules and regulations, he would recommend to Citrus County that it not oppose the District. Robert A. Knight, Director of Utility Regulation for Citrus County, testified that he was not testifying for or against the proposed District, but rather only about a legal matter regarding the ability of Rolling Oaks to serve the proposed District. In this regard, Mr. Knight did not object to approval of the proposed District in light of the stipulation by Petitioner's representative at the public hearing that Rolling Oaks would follow applicable rules and regulations with respect to expanding its service territory. Four members of the general public provided comment and asked questions concerning the consumption of water and the nature of the expected development within the proposed District. They are concerned that given the present supply of water in Citrus County, there may not be sufficient water from existing wells to serve the hundreds of new homes that will be built in the District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Tuscany Community Development District, as requested by Petitioner, by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Appendix C. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 25th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Daren L. Shippy, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5925 Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire Brannen, Stillwell & Perrin 320 Highway 41 South, Second Floor Inverness, Florida 34450-4956 Charles Canady, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Gregory M. Munson, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 029 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 APPENDIX A Petitioner's Witnesses at the Public Hearing Edwin M. Bulleit Prager, McCarthy and Sealy 4921 Bay Way Drive Tampa, Florida 33629-4803 Dale R. Miller Beverly Hills Development Corporation 3 Beverly Hills Boulevard Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-3421 Gail Easley The Gail Easley Company 34 Northeast Crystal Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-3532 Robert A. Knight Director of Utility Regulation Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Louis G. Badami Director of Utilities Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Public Witnesses at Hearing Louis G. Badami Director of Utilities Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Robert A. Knight Director of Utility Regulation Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 John Chipurn 4311 North Mae West Way Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-8747 Rodney Cole (address not given) Gilbert Buechly 106 South Jefferson Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-3717 Don Jordon (address not given) APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Certificate of Active Status - Beverly Hills Development Corporation Affidavit of Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing for local newspaper of general circulation Notice of Receipt of Petition published in Florida Administrative Weekly - March 22, 2002 Composite exhibit of all attachments to Petition Composite exhibit of two aerial photographs of Proposed District and surrounding area General area development plan/map of area to include Proposed District and surrounding areas Curriculum Vitae of witness Easley List of prior expert testimony of witness Easley Deeds of properties to be included in Proposed District Composite exhibit of all development orders for Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact Generalized future land use map for Citrus County Land Development Code atlas 1981 Master Development Plan for Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact Composite exhibit of map showing Citrus County water and wastewater facilities location and letter from witness Badami to counsel Shippy Other Exhibits Knight Exhibit No. 1 - Prepared testimony of Robert Knight Chipurn Exhibit No. 1 - Newspaper article (April 6, 2002) APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42 -1 TUSCANY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42 -1.001 Creation. 42 -1.002 Boundary. 42 -1.003 Supervisors. 42 -1.001 Creation. The Tuscany Community Development District is hereby established. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History - New. 42 -1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows: Parcel No. 1, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the most Northerly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, said point being on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 491 and being 50 feet from, measured at right angles to, the centerline of said County Road No. 491, thence S. 510 02' 53" E. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, a distance of 400 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. parallel to and 400 feet from, said Southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 4347.25 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 6167.33 feet, thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve, a distance of 1493.96 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. parallel to and 400 feet from, said Southeasterly right-of- way line a distance of 1734.33 feet to a point on the boundary of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 385, page 466, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence S. 10 39' 30" E. along said boundary a distance of 836.98 feet to the SW Corner of said lands, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along the South line of said lands, a distance of 1377.72 feet to the SE Corner of said lands, thence N. 10 39' 30" W. along the East line of said lands, a distance of 1200 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, thence S. 880 20' 30" W. along the North line of said lands, a distance of 1306.83 feet to the SE Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 538, page 632, of said records, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. along the East line of said lands, a distance of 190.26 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, said point being on the South line of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 423, page 128, of said records, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along said South line a distance of 346.97 feet to the SE Corner of said lands, thence N. 10 39' 30" W. along the East line of said lands a distance of 330.02 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, said point also being on the North line of Section 1, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along said North line a distance of 1869.43 feet to the NE Corner of said Section 1, said point also being the NW Corner of Section 6, TOWNSHIP 18, SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, thence N. 890 28' 20" E. along the North line of said Section 6, a distance of 2636.38 feet to the NW Corner of the NE 1/4 of said Section 6, thence N. 890 53' 45" E. along the North line of said Section 6, a distance of 2645.54 feet to the NE Corner of said Section 6, thence S. 00 12' 24" E. along the East line of said Section 6, a distance of 1328.53 feet to the SE Corner of the N 2 of NE 1/4 of said Section 6, thence S. 890 53' 40" W. along the South line of said N 2 of NE 1/4, a distance of 2646.85 feet to the SW Corner of said N 2 of NE 1/4, thence S. 00 09' E. along the East line of the NW 1/4 of said Section 6, a distance of 1328.59 feet to the NE Corner of the SW 1/4 of said Section 6, thence S. 00 03' 50" E. along the East line of said SW 1/4 a distance of 2648.43 feet to the SE Corner of said SW 1/4, said point also being the NE Corner of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, thence S. 00 07' 56" E. along the East line of said NW 1/4 a distance of 2648.76 feet to the SE Corner of said NW 1/4, thence N. 890 42' 40" W. along the South line of said NW 1/4, a distance of 2641.84 feet to the SW Corner of said NW 1/4, said point also being the SE Corner of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, thence S. 890 23' 09" W. along the South line of said NE 1/4 a distance of 1315.58 feet to the NE Corner of the W 2 of SE 1/4 of said Section 12, thence S. 00 09' 37" W. along the East line of said W 2 of SE 1/4, a distance of 2636.62 feet to the SE Corner of said W 2 of SE 1/4, thence S. 890 28' 48" W. along the South line of said Section 12, a distance of 1302.33 feet, thence N. 20 06' 48" W. 170 feet, thence S. 890 28' 48" W. parallel to said South line, a distance of 690.91 feet to a point on a curve, concaved Westerly, having a central angle of 900 and a radius of 280 feet, thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 246.92 feet to the P.T. of said curve (chord bearing and distance between said points being N. 250 46' 44" W. 238.99 feet), thence N. 510 02' 31" W. 2102.26 feet, thence N. 590 40' 08" W. 200 feet to the most Easterly Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 196, page 218, of said records, thence N. 510 02' 31" W. along the Northeasterly line of said lands, a distance of 449.63 feet to the most Northerly corner of said lands, said point being on the Southeasterly line of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT NO. 3, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, page 123, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 380 58' 52" E. along the Southeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT NO. 3, and along the Southeasterly line of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, a distance of 399.96 feet to the most Easterly corner of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, a distance of 1649.50 feet to the Point of Beginning; AND, Begin at the most Northerly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, said point being on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 491, and being 50 feet from, measured at right angles to, the centerline of said County Road No. 491, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. along said Southeasterly right-of-way line a distance of 4347.20 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 5767.33 feet, thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 1397.06 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. along said right-of-way line a distance of 1639.31 feet to the most Westerly Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 385, page 466, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along the boundary of said lands a distance of 400 feet, thence S. 10 39' 30" E. along the boundary of said lands a distance of 95.00 feet to a point that is 400 feet from, measured at right angles to, the Southeasterly right-of-way line of said County Road No. 491, thence S. 250 03' 54" W., parallel to said right-of-way line, a distance of 1734.33 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 6167.33 feet, thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 1493.96 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence S. 380 56' 39" W., parallel to and 400 feet from, said right-of-way line, a distance of 4347.25 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along said Northeasterly line a distance of 400 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT lands in Warranty Deed from Beverly Hills Development Corporation, to Rolling Oaks Utilities, Inc., dated June 6th, 1986, filed August 18, 1986, and recorded in Official Record, Book 710, page 849, public records of Citrus County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the most Easterly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3- A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3-A, a distance of 289.49 feet, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. 593.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N. 750 59' 21" W. 62.48 feet, thence North 155.26 feet, thence N. 130 10' 38" E. 155.26 feet, thence N. 110 58' 12" W. 405.23 feet, thence N. 240 E. 244.86 feet, thence N. 600 E. 268.59 feet, S. 660 E. 336.93 feet, thence N. 720 E. 126.01 feet, thence S. 780 42' 12" E. 313.71 feet, thence S. 330 E. 317.81 feet, thence S. 110 13' 17" E. 237.44 feet, thence S. 460 05' 58" W. 238.07 feet, thence S. 670 37' 34" W. 481.20 feet, thence S. 550 W. 268.27 feet, thence N. 750 59' 21" W. 351.69 feet to the Point of Beginning, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT NORTH FOREST RIDGE BOULEVARD, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 29, 30 and 31, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT OAKWOOD VILLAGE OF BEVERLY HILLS PHASE ONE, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 10 to 14 inclusive, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT OAKWOOD VILLAGE OF BEVERLY HILLS, PHASE 2, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 15 to 18 inclusive, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT the N 2 and NE 1/4 of Section 6, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of Section 1, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, that lies North of the North boundary and West of a Northerly projection of the Easterly boundary of lands described in Official Record, Book 385, pages 466 and 467, public records of Citrus County, Florida. AND, LESS AND EXCEPT the lands in the attached legal descriptions, labeled as follows: Golf Course Greenside Unit 10 Phase 1 Unit 10 Phase 2 Unit 11 Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History - New. 42 -1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Ronald J. Collins, Dale R. Miller, Taylor Collins, Paul Buchanan, and John O'Kelley. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History - New.
The Issue Whether Rule 61B-23.003(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Michael Gertinisan, is a unit owner and member of the Bay Hills Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Association). The Association is responsible for the operation of the Bay Hills Village Condominium. Petitioner purchased his unit in December, 1992. Prior to December, 1992, the Petitioner had leased the unit for a number of years. The Bay Hills Village Condominium is a mobile home park condominium where each unit is comprised of a parcel of vacant land upon which is placed a mobile home. Transfer of control of the Association from the developer to the unit owners, other than the developer, pursuant to Section 718.301, Florida Statutes, has not occurred. However, unit owners, other than the developer, are entitled to elect a representative to the board of administration of the Association in an upcoming election. The declaration of condominium for Bay Hills Village Condominium was recorded in the public records in 1985. A number of units were sold to purchasers in 1985. At the time Bay Hill Village Condominium was created and the declaration of condominium recorded in the public records in 1985, the controlling statute, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, contained no maximum period of time during which the developer was entitled to control the operation of the Association through its ability to elect a majority of the board of administration. The developer of a condominium is statutorily entitled to control the affairs of the condominium association for a period set forth in the statutes. This right to control the affairs of the condominium association for the period set forth in the statutes is a substantive vested right. With the right to control the condominium association, comes the attendant rights, including but not limited to, the right to: (a) adopt a budget meeting the marketing needs of the developer; (b) enter in to contracts with related entities providing for maintenance and management of the condominiums; (c) control ingress and egress on and over the condominium property to move construction equipment; (d) adopt board policies relating to the renting of units in the condominium; (e) adopt board policies regarding placement of "For Sale" signs on the condominium property and to model its units; (f) maintain the property in accordance with the developer's need to conduct an ongoing sales program; and (g) change the size and configuration of units in the condominium to meet the needs of the developer's marketing campaign. In those situations where the developer still exercises control over the condominium association, the aforestated rights of the developer would be substantively impaired by a retroactive application of Section 718.301(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as created by Chapter 91-103, Section 12, Laws of Florida, to condominiums in existence prior to the affective date of the Chapter 91-103, Section 12, Laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, ORDERED that the Petitioner failed to establish that Rule 61B-23.003(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and the relief sought by the Petitioner is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6214RX The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner elected to not file any proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively. Proposed finding of fact is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Gertinisan 10506 Bay Hills Circle Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 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
Conclusions On Tuesday, October 11, 1994, the local public hearing in this proceeding was held before the Honorable Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was held in Room 290, City Commission Chambers, City of Daytona Beach City Hall, 301 South Ridgewood Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the petition of Indigo Development Inc. ("Petitioner") to establish the Indigo Community Development District ("District"). This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code. Statement of the Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. Appearances Appearances on behalf of the Petitioner were entered by: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Preliminary Statement The Petitioner filed the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District with the Secretary of the Commission on August 2, 1994. On August 1, 1994, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the petition and exhibits, together with a filing fee, to Frank Gummey, City Attorney for the City of Daytona Beach. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the petition and exhibits, along with a filing fee to Volusia County. A copy of the petition, including its attached exhibits, was received into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A. On August 10, 1994, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. The Commission published a notice of receipt of petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the notice of receipt of petition was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit B. By order of the undersigned, the local public hearing was scheduled in Daytona Beach, Florida, for Tuesday, October 11, 1994. The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code, and provided additional individual notice to others as provided in Rule 42-1.011(1)(b). Copies of return receipts from certified mailing of notices were received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit E. The Petitioner also filed the prepared testimony of four witnesses, together with attached exhibits, on October 4, 1994. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a local government has the option to hold a public hearing within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City Commission of the City of Daytona Beach ("City") held a public hearing on the petition on August 17, 1994, and adopted Resolution No. 94-412 supporting establishment of the District. The County Council of Volusia County also expressed support for the establishment of the District, adopting Resolution 94-230 on September 15, 1994. Certified copies of both resolutions were received into evidence respectively as Petitioner's Exhibits F and G. At the local public hearing on October 11, 1994, the Petitioner presented the testimony of William H. McMunn, President of Indigo Development Inc., and agent of the Petitioner in this proceeding; Fred A. Greene, an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis in public infrastructure design, permitting, cost estimation, and construction administration for special districts; Allen E. Salowe, a development economist and managing principal in the firm of A.E. Salowe & Associates, an expert in planning and economic development and analysis; and Gary R. Walters, President of Gary Walters and Associates, a community planning and management consulting firm providing services in conjunction with Gary L. Moyer, P.A., and an expert in special district operations and management. Their full names and addresses are attached to this report as Exhibit 1. The Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits A-J, which were received into evidence at the hearing. A list of Petitioner's exhibits in this proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2. Neither the City nor Volusia County presented any witnesses or exhibits. No public comment was received at the hearing. In accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, the record in this matter was left open until October 21, 1994, to allow for the submission of additional written comments or materials. With the exception of a copy of the Petitioner's letter transmitting proof of publication of the notice of hearing to the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, no additional written comments or materials were filed. A transcript of the local public hearing was filed by the Petitioner with the undersigned hearing officer on October 21, 1994. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and Conclusions. At hearing, the Petitioner was given leave to file a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions no later than October 31, 1994. The Petitioner timely filed such Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions. Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district of approximately 2,480 acres located entirely within the City. It would be located generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard (formerly 11th Street), and north of U.S. 92. If established, the District will be an independent special district authorized pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The District will have all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including but not limited to the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. Currently the lands to be included within the District are principally undeveloped. Neighboring lands are also principally undeveloped, although currently existing uses include the City's sewage treatment plant, a municipally-owned stadium and a privately-owned horse farm. In May, 1992, an Application for Development Approval ("ADA") for the Ladies Professional Golf Association Development of Regional Impact ("LPGA DRI") encompassing all of the real property located within the external boundaries of the proposed District was submitted to the City. The ADA requested DRI review and approval of a development consisting of no more than 6,018 residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The ADA, as amended, also included lands east of I-95 which are not included in the proposed District. All lands within the District will be developed as a mixed-use project pursuant to the LPGA DRI Development Order issued August 18, 1993, by the City. The LPGA DRI is a development which is consistent in all respects with the City's duly adopted local comprehensive plan and development regulations. The proposed development plan for the lands within the District contemplates the construction of approximately 4,035 single family dwelling units, 856,999 square feet of commercial space, 321,082 square feet of office space, 238,752 square feet of industrial space, and 1,566 multi family and hotel units in four phases over a 23-year period. There are presently no residents living within the District. There are five parcels within the external boundaries of the proposed District which are excluded from the District. These parcels are: (1) the Ladies Professional Golf Association golf course which is owned by the City, (2) the Phase I Entrance Road which is owned by the City, (3) the road connecting the Phase IIA Entrance Road to the City's maintenance facility, which is owned by the City, (4) a sub-station site which is presently owned by Florida Power & Light Company, and (5) the state sovereignty lands underlying the Tomoka River. These exclusions do not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed district or interfere with the ability of the proposed District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to participate in the acquisition or construction of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, these improvements will be dedicated to the City and the ownership and operation of these improvements will become the responsibility of the City. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. The Petitioner intends for the District to provide maintenance for the seven entrances to the District and certain roadway landscaping, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 interchange. This maintenance may include provision of appropriate landscaping, irrigation and/or mowing services. The Petitioner also intends for the District to construct a street lighting system, the capital costs of which will be borne by the District. Upon completion, portions of this system will be dedicated to the City, and ownership, operation and maintenance of those portions of the system will become the City's responsibility. The remaining portions of the street lighting system will be owned, operated and maintained by the District. The Petitioner also presently intends for the District to construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Once complete, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The Petitioner intends, in addition, for the District to provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals which run roughly east-west through the proposed District. It is intended, after establishment of the District, that the District and the City will enter into interlocal agreements which will further define the relationship between them. The estimated cost in 1993 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $30,656,000 with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2018. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary for a variety of reasons, including final design and permitting criteria, and future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest and general market circumstances. The Petitioner expects that the District will finance such services and improvements through the use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non- ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The City adopted Resolution 94-412 in which it consents to the exercise by the District of special powers, as authorized by Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), and for security as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d). The City, in adopting Resolution 94-412, also found that the District is not inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Additional findings by the City indicate that the land area within the District is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functional, interrelated community, and that the District is the best alternative for timely delivering community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served. The City also determined that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities, and that the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. The City's Resolution 94-412 further recommends that the Commission adopt a rule to establish the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Volusia County adopted Resolution 94-230 which, based upon findings that the proposed District is located wholly within the boundaries of the City and that establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any County facilities or services, expresses County support for the City's recommendation as to the establishment of the District. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was identified for the record as a copy of the petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission. McMunn stated that he had reviewed the contents of the petition and approved its findings, then generally described each of the attachments. Both McMunn and Salowe indicated that Attachment 10, page 3, second paragraph, should read "1993 dollars" and that the same change should be made in Table 2 of that document. McMunn testified further that ownership of the land within the proposed District had not changed since submission of his prefiled direct testimony, which testimony indicated that the Petitioner either owns or has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the District. With the correction to the EIS by McMunn and Salowe, the petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Salowe reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ("Local Comprehensive Plan"). In addition, the City Commission, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the proposed District for consistency with applicable elements or portions of the state and effective local comprehensive plans. The City concluded that the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Planning Council concluded that the proposed District is consistent with its adopted policies and with applicable portions of both state and local comprehensive plans. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition from the standpoint of its programs and responsibilities and the requirements of Section 190.005(e)2-6, Florida Statutes, and, based on this review, stated that the establishment of the District would not be incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, two goals of the State Comprehensive Plan, and policies supporting those goals, apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, two goals and policies supporting those goals apply directly to the District. Goal 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. From a planning perspective, the District will have the fiscal capacity to provide a wide range of services and facilities to a population in a designated growth area lying within the City. Goal 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. From a planning perspective, all District board meetings will be publicly noticed and open to the public, therefore, all citizens may participate. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual public facilities reports with the City which the City may use and rely on in any revisions to the Local Comprehensive Plan. Goal 18, Public Facilities, provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. From an economics perspective, the proposed District will provide designated improvements and services at no cost to the local government. These actions allow local government resources to be focused on the public facilities needs outside of the District and so contribute to the timely, orderly and efficient provision of services to all City residents. Goal 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District would finance and deliver quality public services and facilities at a level demanded by residents and property owners of the District who directly benefit and pay for those services and facilities. Based on the testimony in the record, the proposed District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the Future Land Use Element and Map and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Local Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the District. The Future Land Use Element and supporting policies, seek to achieve a future land use pattern that provides for a sufficient supply of land to meet growth demands and insure that land uses are located in a rational and efficient manner. From a planning perspective, the proposed District would further this goal by means of effective infrastructure planning, public finance, and community-wide maintenance. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies acknowledge the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and require appropriate mechanisms to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate their activities where such activities have a bearing on required levels of service and land planning decisions by the City. From a planning perspective, the District satisfies that need. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to accommodate new development within sound fiscal practices. From an economics perspective, the District furthers that intent because it provides an additional source of public funding and revenue to satisfy the LPGA DRI capital improvements requirements without burdening the borrowing capacity or indebtedness of the City. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district. The Local Comprehensive Plan is mostly silent on the powers of such districts, but it does not prevent a community development district from exercising any of the general or optional powers set forth in Sections 190.011 and 190.012, Florida Statutes. The City concluded the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in this record, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Greene, Salowe and Walters. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 2,480 acres, located entirely within the City, and generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard, and north of U.S. 92. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community which is included in the LPGA DRI Development Order approved August 18, 1993, which Development Order contemplates the possible establishment of such a district. Although five parcels of land within the external boundaries of the proposed District are excluded from the District because they are owned by governmental entities or utilities, their exclusion will not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed District or otherwise interfere with the ability of the District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The proposed development plan for lands within the District is focused largely on construction of single-family residences and selected multi-family residential areas supported both by both neighborhood and community-wide commercial development. Much as in other similarly-sized projects which lie adjacent to I-95 and have been approved as DRIs, the proposed district facilities can be provided in an efficient, functional, and integrated manner. Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the larger whole. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs so as to handle the growth and development of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 2,480 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate roads, drainage, water, sewer, lighting, security, parks and recreation, and other basic facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. With adequate planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance, provision of these facilities and services will contribute to the development of a functional interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. From a planning perspective, the property that comprises this community is compact because all of the property is part of a single project, is close together, and, with the exception of the municipally- owned LPGA golf course, has no barriers segregating one portion of the project from any of the others. Contiguity has to do with whether all parts of the project are touching along a boundary or point. From a planning perspective, the property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The land need not be physically connected in order to be functionally connected, especially when planning specialized governmental systems, facilities and services. However, all parts of the project do need to be spatially imminent so that the facilities and services can be provided in a cost-effective manner and can be properly maintained with minimum difficulty. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. From an economics perspective, the physical configuration of the proposed District is ideal. The area to be included in the District is compact and contiguous. The size and physical configuration of the District allows economical construction of road and lighting improvements, and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation and open space systems in a long- term cost-effective manner. The cost efficient delivery of potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse lines is also enhanced by the compactness and contiguity of the site. The area to be included within the proposed District can be expected to succeed as a functional, interrelated community from a district management perspective because the characteristics of compactness, contiguity and size ensure that the delivery of services and facilities will not be unnecessarily impeded by distance, physical barriers or other spacial problems. The City concluded that the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a single functional interrelated community. From planning, economics, engineering and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or acquisition of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, reuse, and lighting systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated, in whole or in part, to the City and the ownership and operation of the dedicated improvements will become the City's responsibility. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. It is intended that the proposed District will own, operate, and maintain the seven entrances to the District. The District will also provide roadway landscape maintenance, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 Interchange. It is intended in addition that the District will provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals. The proposed District would also construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Upon completion, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated, and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be apportioned between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. It is expected that the District will finance these services and improvements through use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non-ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. Use of non-ad valorem or special assessments and user fees will ensure that the real property benefitting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to establishment of the proposed District were identified. First, the City might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, generally either through a private developer dependent upon commercial loans or through a community-wide property owners' association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative can provide a long-term perspective; whether the alternative is a stable provider; and whether the alternative can secure low-cost long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality. Delivery by the Local General Purpose Government The City is a perpetual entity capable of providing services at sustained levels. It can also provide a relatively low-cost source of financing. There are, however, already substantial demands upon the City's financial and staff resources, the response to which will inevitably be dispersed over an expanding population residing within a very broad geographic area. Delivery by Private Means Private means for delivering community development services and facilities include delivery through a master neighborhood-type property owners' association or by a private developer. Either of these means can satisfy the demand for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, neither can assure a long-term perspective or necessarily qualify as a low-cost source of financing. A property owners' association might satisfy demands for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. They also frequently experience difficulty in collecting maintenance assessments. Consequently, a property owners' association could not effectively plan, finance, construct, operate and maintain the necessary infrastructure. While a private developer might provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders, such financing, if obtainable, is likely to be more expensive than financing through a public entity. Moreover, only a public entity can guarantee long-term maintenance. Delivery by the District The District is an independent special purpose unit of local government designed to focus its attention on providing the best long-term services to its specific benefitted properties and residents. It has limited powers and jurisdiction. The District will be governed by its own board of supervisors and managed by those whose sole purpose is to provide long-term planning, financing, and management of services and facilities. Sources of funding assure that District services and facilities will be adequately managed at sustained levels of quality. From an engineering perspective, the District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. Knowing when, where and how infrastructure will be needed to service a projected population allows for more efficient delivery. The proposed District is better able than the other available alternatives to focus attention on when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a more complete utilization of existing facilities. The LPGA DRI development order acknowledges the possible establishment of the District and further describes and defines the intended services and facilities to be provided by the District. The City has concluded that the proposed District is the best alternative for the timely delivery of community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Establishment of the proposed District and the compatibility of district services and facilities with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities was considered during the LPGA DRI approval process. The services and facilities to be provided by the proposed District, none of which is presently in existence, are required by the LPGA DRI. The land area of the proposed District is isolated in part, and buffered by, major City roadways and by conservation areas. Although there are existing sewer and water trunk lines on the site which are owned and operated by the City, the services and facilities of the proposed District are, from a planning perspective, fully compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local or regional community development services and facilities. Moreover, none of the supplemental services and facilities which have been or later may be authorized by consent of the City following establishment of the District are presently existing on the site or provided to the LPGA International community. From an economics perspective, the proposed District will finance the water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems, as well as certain roadways and street lighting. It will also maintain the entrances, landscaping and signage, as well as portions of the water management system, conservation, recreation, and open space areas in perpetuity. Maintenance of the water management system will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The management and operation of District facilities will be coordinated with the City. The proposed District will not only provide operation and maintenance services not currently available, but the City, developers, builders and residents will all benefit through increased access, traffic flow, safety, and general enhancement of the affected property. The City has concluded that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area for suitability for separate special district governance. They are whether the area is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be the basis for a functional interrelated community, and whether the land area needs, and the owners and residents will benefit from, the community development services and facilities. Considering the first of these criteria from planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, it is clear that the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed systems. As for an evaluation based on the second of the abovementioned criteria, the infrastructure needs of the area within the proposed District are spelled out in the development order issued for the project. All of the proposed District facilities and services are contemplated in the LPGA DRI Development Order and are thus needed for development of the area. The land within the proposed District also needs supplemental services and facilities that can be provided by the District, including, but not limited to, roadway landscaping and maintenance of entrances, open space, recreation and conservation areas. The construction and maintenance of these services and facilities will benefit both owners and residents of lands within the District. The City has concluded that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special district government. From planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A contains the consent of Patricia Lagoni who, as Trustee under Trust No. IDI-3, dated June 7, 1991, and under Trust No. IDI-2, dated June 27, 1989, is the sole owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the proposed District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain the names of five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, to serve on the initial board of supervisors. The five persons designated in the petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Joseph Benedict, III 695 Airport Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Patricia Lagoni 131 Muirfield Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Gary Moothart 3 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 William H. McMunn 3 South Ravinsfield Lane Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Bruce W. Teeters 10 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to propose a name for the District. The petition proposes the name "Indigo Community Development District." Section 190.005(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes, requires that the petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petition's Composite Exhibit A shows the location of those facilities within the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A provides such a timetable and estimate. Section 190.005(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. The petition provides that information. Section 190.005(1)(a)8, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include an economic impact statement ("EIS") which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The petition contains an EIS. It meets all requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement The EIS assumes it is socially desirable to use the least expensive and least intrusive method to deliver a given public improvement and to provide beneficial maintenance. An entity that is directly accountable to its users for costs and delivery of benefits is more likely to achieve the desired result. The District is such an entity. The District is a limited and highly specialized unit of local government. It is a special purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned new communities. Its economic benefits exceed its economic cost to all affected parties. The Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds or other forms of long-term indebtedness for capital to provide planned public infrastructure. The indebtedness will be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The EIS contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District . Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to rule adoption should be more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by the Petitioner. Benefits to the City will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the District except for those it chooses to accept. The Petitioner incurred substantial costs in seeking establishment of the District and will be required to provide technical assistance to the District after establishment. The Petitioner will pay substantial sums in non- ad valorem assessments on real property within the District. Benefits to the Petitioner include access to public bond financing for certain improvements and a long-term stable source of capital, which will benefit the Petitioner's development project. In addition, consistently high levels of quality should be maintained. Consumers will pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities; however, the District's facilities would be required even in the absence of the District itself. The cost would have to be recovered in some other way. Generally, district financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities. The EIS concludes that the benefits from the District would outweigh the costs to each affected person or class of persons. Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee to the local general purpose government. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Volusia County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the Daytona Beach News Journal for four consecutive weeks, on Tuesdays, beginning September 13, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires the Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were submitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer at the local public hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit J and are a part of the record. Copies of the proofs of publication were furnished to the Secretary of the Commission as required on October 18, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires the Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notice was mailed as required by the rule. Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses, with the consent of the local general-purpose government. Section 190.012(2)(d) provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to security. On August 17, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-412, the City consented to the District's exercise of powers necessary to finance, plan, establish, acquire, own, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, extend, equip, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and for security uses as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Conclusions Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that: This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Volusia County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes. All portions of the petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law. All statements contained within the petition as corrected and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1994 COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Frank Gummey Office of the City Attorney City of Daytona Beach City Hall, Suite 220 Daytona Beach, FL 32095 EXHIBIT 1 PETITIONER'S WITNESSES AT HEARING William H. McMunn Indigo Development Inc. 149C South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred A. Greene Gee & Jenson Engineers, Architects, and Planners One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Allen E. Salowe A.E. Salowe and Associates 1334 Plantation Oaks Drive, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters and Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, FL 32174 EXHIBIT 2 LIST OF PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Number Description Composite Petition to Establish the Indigo Exhibit A Community Development District Notice Published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994 Letter from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to David Coburn Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to David Coburn Return Receipts from certified mailing of Copies of Notices of Local Public Hearing to Persons Specified in Rule 42-1.011(b), F.A.C. City of Daytona Beach Resolution 94-12, adopted August 17, 1994, recommending that the Indigo Community Development District be established in accordance with the petition of Indigo Development Inc. Resolution of County Council of Volusia County, Florida, adopted September 15, 1994, supporting establishment of proposed Indigo Community Development District LPGA DRI Development Order August 18, 1993 Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for the Initial Board of Supervisors Copies of Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing, Published in the Daytona Beach News Journal on September 13, 20, 27 and October 4, 1994 CHAPTER 42_-1 EXHIBIT 3 TEXT OF PROPOSED RULE INDIGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42_-1.001 Creation. 42-1.002 Boundary. 42-1.003 Supervisors. 42_-1.001 Creation. The Indigo Community Development District is hereby created. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: A portion of Sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, all being in Township 15 South, Range 32 East, Volusia County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: As a Point of Reference, commence at a concrete monument marking the West one-quarter corner of said Section 9, being also the East one-quarter corner of said Section 8; thence run North 00 degrees 46'29" West, along the West line of said Section 9, being also the East line of said Section 8, a distance of 55.73 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of- way line of the 125-foot wide right-of-way of Eleventh Street, as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (F.D.O.T.) Right-of-Way Map, Section 79507-2602, sheet 11, revision dated October 29, 1974, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, said point also lying in a curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 85.25 feet (85.22 feet per F.D.O.T. map), or through a central angle of 6507'49" (65 degrees 06'15" per F.D.O.T. map), having a chord distance of 80.73 feet and a chord bearing of North 31 degrees 47'25" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 17'40" East per F.D.O.T. map), along said Southerly right-of-way line, a distance of 1250.13 feet to a point therein; thence, departing said Southerly right-of-way line of Eleventh Street, run Southerly and Easterly, along a curve, concave Easterly, and having a radius of 397.81 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 268.87 feet, or through a central angle of 38 degrees 43'28", having a chord distance of 263.78 feet and a chord bearing of South 44 degrees 06'11" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 24 degrees 44'27" East a distance of 230.27 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 17'04" East a distance of 192.82 feet to the Point of Tangency of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 4703.96 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 07'28"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 338.61 feet, having a chord distance of 338.53 feet and a chord bearing of South 19 degrees 03'59" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1638.51 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 20'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 352.80 feet, having a chord distance of 352.12 feet and a chord bearing of South 27 degrees 17'49" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 471.84 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 19'26"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 225.02 feet, having a chord distance of 222.89 feet and a chord bearing of South 47 degrees 07'39" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 27654.59 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 08'14"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 548.95 feet, having a chord distance of 548.94 feet and a chord bearing of South 60 degrees 13'14" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 817.82 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 47'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 282.59 feet, having a chord distance of 281.19 feet and a chord bearing of South 49 degrees 45'10" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 689.52 feet and a central angle of 30 degrees 16'48"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 364.40 feet, having a chord distance of 360.18 feet and a chord bearing of South 24 degrees 42'50" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 44977.15 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 54'22"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 711.30 feet, having a chord distance of 711.29 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 01'37" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 85351.12 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 15'35"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 386.86 feet, having a chord distance of 386.86 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 21'01" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2145.74 feet and a central angle of 09 degrees 15'55"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 346.99 feet, having a chord distance of 346.61 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees51'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 881.18 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 38'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 332.89 feet, having a chord distance of 330.91 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 18'29" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 634.07 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 08'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 267.11 feet, having a chord distance of 265.14 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 03'44'' East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 7337.11 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 02'20"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 261.10 feet, having a chord distance of 261.08 feet and a chord bearing of South 18 degrees 00'48" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 75 degrees 29'28" East a distance of 61.32 feet; thence run South 45 degrees 02'04" East a distance of 70.58 feet; thence run South 55 degrees 22'59" East a distance of 74.58 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 54'44" East a distance of 123.51 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 27'15" East a distance of 110.00 feet; thence run South 25 degrees 20'31" East a distance of 199.03 feet; thence run South 61 degrees 52'08" West a distance of 217.66 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 39'56" East a distance of 456.10 feet; thence run North 70 degrees 19'19" East a distance of 249.84 feet; thence run South 07 degrees 17'17" East a distance of 254.15 feet; thence run South 01 degrees 10'43" East a distance of 246.45 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 04'00" West a distance of 57.51 feet; thence run South 27 degrees 37'10" West a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run South 29 degrees 24'23" West a distance of 101.59 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 22'25" West a distance of 56.54 feet; thence run South 23 degrees 10'06" West a distance of 116.83 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Easterly, said curve having a radius of 2566.72 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 16'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 191.29 feet, having a chord distance of 191.24 feet and a chord bearing of South 02 degrees 24'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 3397.22 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 20'40"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 850.52 feet, having a chord distance of 848.30 feet and a chord bearing of South 11 degrees 42'37" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1230.00 feet and a central angle of 25 degrees 00'33"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 536.88 feet, having a chord distance of 532.63 feet and a chord bearing of South 31 degrees 23'13" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1009.14 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 59'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 228.88 feet, having a chord distance of 228.39 feet and a chord bearing of South 50 degrees 23'21" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 56 degrees 53'12" East a distance of 101.20 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 405.47 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 07'57"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 376.01 feet, having a chord distance of 362.68 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 19'14" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 834.58 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 48'32"; thence run Southerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 390.50 feet, having a chord distance of 386.95 feet and a chord bearing of South 09 degrees 39'01" West to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 540.74 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 48'25"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 507.81 feet, having a chord distance of 489.36 feet and a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 50'55" East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 7495.84 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 38'23"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 345.34 feet, having a chord distance of 345.31 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 25'57" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 623.80 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 41'49"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 301.55 feet, having a chord distance of 298.62 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees 15'51" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2412.56 feet and a central angle of 07 degrees 28'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 315.03 feet, having a chord distance of 314.81 feet and a chord bearing of South 04 degrees 09'23" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1127.49 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 57'01"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 215.48 feet, having a chord distance of 215.16 feet and a chord bearing of South 13 degrees 22'20" East, to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 31'09" West a distance of 635.44 feet; thence run South 12 degrees 13'30" East a distance of 98.61 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 03'21" East a distance of 72.06 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 09'45" East a distance of 11.25 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 05'17" East a distance of 60.81 feet; thence run South 18 degrees 02'24" East a distance of 72.04 feet; thence run South 19 degrees 05'10" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 20 degrees 02'54" East a distance of 71.99 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 05'34" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 22 degrees 53'29" East a distance of 108.95 feet; thence run South 04 degrees 10'49" West a distance of 45.54 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Northeasterly, said curve having a radius of 4147.11 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 38'03"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 45.90 feet, having a chord distance of 45.90 feet and a chord bearing of South 23 degrees 57'44" East to a point; thence run South 73 degrees 04'08" West a distance of 247.53 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 69.97 feet; thence continue South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 1234.58 feet; thence run South 67 degrees 37'05" West a distance of 94.86 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of-way line of a 50-foot wide State of Florida Outfall Ditch Easement, as described in deed from Tomoka Land Company, dated June 16, 1941, and recorded in Deed Book 291, Page 272, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 81 degrees 20'55" West (North 81 degrees 23'36" West per deed), along the Southerly line of said Outfall Ditch Easement, a distance of 800 feet, more or less, to a point in the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River, a distance of 8100 feet, more or less, to a point lying 5 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the Northerly right-of-way line of the 240-foot wide right-of-way of State Road #600 (U.S. Highway #92), as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Map, Section 7906, revision dated July 12, 1940; thence run South 51 degrees 01'34" West (South 50 degrees 51'45" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 5455 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 5 feet Northeasterly of the Easterly right- of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence, running parallel to and 5 feet Northerly or Easterly from the right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street run the following courses and distances: South 74 degrees 43'02" West (South 74 degrees 38'29" West per F.D.O.T. map), a distance of 388.29 feet; thence run North 75 degrees 52'42" West (North 75 degrees 57'15" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 745.26 feet; thence run North 61 degrees 40'39" West (North 61 degrees 45'12" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 588.04 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 33'17" West to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street (at this point the right-of-way of Eleventh Street becomes 200 feet wide); thence run North 39 degrees 03'42" West (North 39 degrees 08'15" West, 4016.04 feet, per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 4015.80 feet to a point therein, said point lying in a curve, concave Northerly, and having a radius of 1841.75 feet; thence run Northerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 864.15 feet, or through a central angle of 26 degrees 53'00", having a chord distance of 886.25 feet and a chord bearing of North 25 degrees 37'12" West to the Point of Cusp of a curve, concave Southerly, and having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 170.88 feet, or through a central angle of 97 degrees 54'24", having a chord distance of 150.83 feet and a chord bearing of South 61 degrees 12'48" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2177.89 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 25'48"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 396.46 feet, having a chord distance of 395.91 feet and a chord bearing of North 64 degrees 37'06" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 699.34 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 47'06"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 204.87 feet, having a chord distance of 204.14 feet and a chord bearing of North 51 degrees 00'40" East to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2039.93 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 56'00"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 709.70 feet, having a chord distance of 706.13 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 39'07" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1357.26 feet and a central angle of 22 degrees 20'20"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 529.18 feet, having a chord distance of 525.83 feet and a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 51'17" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 45 degrees 01'27" East a distance of 357.30 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 36'05"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 44.04 feet, having a chord distance of 44.04 feet and a chord bearing of North 43 degrees 43'24" East to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 39'13" East a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run North 39 degrees 50'12" East a distance of 2033.09 feet to a point in the Southerly line of the City of Daytona Beach Sewage Treatment Plant, as described in Official Records Book 1875, Page 1551, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 89 degrees 33'20" East (North 89 degrees 33'15" East per deed), a distance of 294.14 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence run North 00 degrees 37'30" West (North 00 degrees 37'36" West, 1947.42 feet per deed) a distance of 1947.54 feet to the Northeast corner of said parcel, said point also lying in the Southerly line of a 50-foot wide City of Daytona Beach Easement as described in Official Records Book 1478, Page 598, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run South 70 degrees 42'56" West (South 70 degrees 43'27" West, 862.55 feet, per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 70 degrees 37'55" West per Easement deed) along the Northerly line of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the Southerly line of said Easement, a distance of 862.59 feet; thence run South 89 degrees 33'29" West (South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.16 feet per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.93 feet per Easement deed) a distance of 1183.22 feet to the Northwest corner of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the end of said Easement, said point also lying in the East line of the City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, as described in Official Records Book 92, Page 687, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 00 degrees 34'23" West, along the East line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence run South 89 degrees 33'09" West, along the North line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, being also the North line of Section 29, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, a distance of 1281.00 feet to an intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence run North 00 degrees 06'57" West (North 00 degrees 11'30" West per F.D.O.T. map), along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 11083.14 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1809.86 feet and a central angle of 64 degrees 28'16"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 2036.39 feet, having a chord distance of 1930.65 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 07'11" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 16'30" East per F.D.O.T. map), along the Southerly line of said Eleventh Street, a distance of 1553.03 feet; thence run North 89 degrees 13'54" East a distance of 67.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the State of Florida Sovereignty Lands of the Tomoka River, the L.P.G.A. Golf Course, as described in Official Records Book 3799, Page 1647, the L.P.G.A- Entrance Road, Phase I (now known as Champions Drive), as described in Official Records Book 3713, Page 1288, and a portion of Section 33, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, deeded from Patricia Lagoni, as Trustee, to Florida Power & Light Company, as described in Official Records Book 3783, Page 2241, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and the City of Daytona Beach Maintenance Building Access Road, said parcel also being subject to Florida Power & Light Company Easements as described in Official Records Book 170, Pages 347-349, Official Records Book 511, Pages 86-88, and Official Records Book 1335, Page 500, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and also being subject to any other easements of record, said parcel having a net acreage of 2,480 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History-- New _ - - . 42_-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Joseph Benedict, III; Patricia Lagoni; Gary Moothart; William H. McMunn; Bruce H. Teeters. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New - - .
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deltampa, Inc., a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Deltona Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is the owner of approximately 5,408 acres of property located in northern Hillsborough County, Florida. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 4) Petitioner proposes to develop its property into a functionally interrelated residential community called Tampa Palms, which will ultimately consist of approximately 13,500 single-family and multiple-family dwelling units, a regional shopping center, an industrial park, golf courses, parks and related recreational facilities, commercial and office facilities, and educational facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) The proposed name of the new district shall be the Tampa Palms Community Development District, and its external boundaries are set forth in the Legal Description at Exhibit 4. (Exhibit 4-5) The Tampa Palms development is planned to be constructed over a period of 20 years in four phases of five years each. The total area to be developed consists of approximately nine square miles of which some 60 percent or about 3,000 acres will involve low-density housing or open space, parks, and golf courses. Residential development will take place over 1,651 acres or about 30 percent of the site. A full range of community support facilities planned to meet the needs of the residents will include two school sites, 20 park sites, six church sites, two fire station sites, and two public facility sites, totalling about 300 acres or some six percent of the site. There will be 3,000 single-family residential units and about 10,500 multiple-family units. Density of the 1,650 acres of residential development will be approximately 8.5 units per acre, with 2.2 units per acre for single family units. Maximum density in the multifamily area will be 35 units per acre, and overall density for the entire site is projected to be 2.5 units per acre. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1A) The site in question is a contiguous parcel which is bordered on the east generally by the lower Hillsborough River flood detention area and the proposed 1-75 right-of-way for the interstate highway which is under construction at the present time. The Hillsborough River runs across the southern portion of the site and Cypress Creek, an ill-defined, non-navigable water course, is on the western portion of the site. The site is approximately 10 miles northeast of Tampa. The property is bisected diagonally northeast to southwest by State Road 581. Interstate highway 1-75 passes by the property at the northwest corner and will eventually merge with the 1-75 Tampa bypass north of the site. The City of Tampa Morris Bridge Water Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the property at the northeast corner on a 60-acre site donated to the city by Deltona and will provide service to residents of Tampa Palms. Hooker's Point Wastewater Facility has a force main within one mile of Tampa Palms and will service the proposed community. The University of South Florida is located immediately to the south of Petitioner's site. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 5) A proposed industrial area will be located in the northeast corner of the property consisting of approximately 75 acres. It is contemplated that only light industry of a research and development type will be conducted there. Additionally, about 150 acres in that general area will be used for shopping centers, hotel, and office facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) Potable water for the future residents of Tampa Palms will be supplied by the City of Tampa, which operates a water treatment plant adjacent to the northeast corner of the proposed development. Non-potable water will be developed by on-site wells to supply irrigation water to the proposed golf courses. The city water treatment plant has sufficient capacity to supply adequate water supplies to the estimated peak population of 31,700. Off-site wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Tampa advanced wastewater treatment plant at Hooker's Point. No septic tanks will be used at the Tampa Palms development. Wastewater will be collected by a central system and pumped off site for treatment. Solid waste generated by the development will be collected twice weekly by the Hillsborough County Solid Waste Control Department and will be disposed of at a county landfill site. (Testimony of Apthorp; Exhibits 1, 6) The Hillsborough River has a history of flooding in periods of high water and heavy rainfall in the area surrounding Tampa. Several years ago, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers entered into a program called the Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Program which would attempt to restrict the flooding downstream by acquiring some 17,000 acres to the east of the Tampa Palms site, and constructing a dam at the southeast corner of the Tampa Palms property. It is an open structure through which the river flows in normal conditions, but has the capability of being closed in periods of high water and creating a temporary impoundment. This system also includes a levee which parallels the eastern side of the development site, thus providing flood protection from that direction. To prevent flooding of the site from the Cypress Creek system on the west, Petitioner plans to construct an earthen levee along the western boundaries of its property in a north-south direction and laterally across the northern border in an easterly direction until the elevation is sufficient to preclude flooding problems. The structure will have a maximum height of about six feet in the southernmost section and be as high as only two to three feet in the northern portions. It will have a freeboard or additional dirt belt above the 500-year flood level of Cypress Creek of one-and-a-half feet. The levee will have a 10-foot wide top and a six to one foot slope. It will be sodded and grassed to prevent erosion. There will be several drainage structures throughout the levee to allow drainage from the property to pass into Cypress Creek when the waterway is at a low flow level. These will consist of culverts with gate structures which will require monitoring and continuing maintenance to be performed by Petitioner or its successors. Petitioner plans an extensive drainage system for its property to maintain the integrity of the wetlands areas and to prevent pollution and excessive surface runoff into the Hillsborough River. The proposed drainage system for the project will consist of a network of 15-foot wide grassy swales adjacent to streets and rear yards from which runoff will flow into wetlands or lakes, and then through storm water structures to ultimate outfall into the Hillsborough River. The system is designed to permit drainage by gravity through extensive areas of natural vegetation to remove pollutants and result in approximately the same flow into receiving waters as existed prior to development of the property. Some 180 acres of lakes will be created from areas dredged to secure fill for the development. All lake areas will be deeper than six feet to lessen the establishment of aquatic plants and will be monitored for water quality as necessary. About twenty 50-foot long concrete seawalls will be built near the lakes to impound water, thereby creating additional storage, and equipped with piping which will allow the water to slow the drain down after storm events. It is anticipated that such controlled structures will eliminate the potential for any flood-type impacts to downstream users and allow more contact time with natural wetland vegetation. The drainage system will be operated and maintained by Petitioner until such time as an acceptable and qualified public entity assumes such responsibilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 14) Fire and police protection will be provided to the proposed district by Hillsborough County. In addition, the County will provide for solid waste collection and issuance of building permits. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to application of the Deltona Corporation on November 8, 1979, for approval of a development of regional impact pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, F.S., the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, by Resolution adopted October 1, 1980, issued a Development Order approving the application, subject to various conditions. In the Development Order, the Board of County Commissioners concluded that the development would not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state land development plan applicable to the area and was consistent with local land development regulations, and with the report and recommendations of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (Exhibit 7) By Resolution dated May 6, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners expressed its opinion that Petitioner should continue its efforts to establish a community development district for the Tampa Palms development and specifically found that: The creation of a community develop- ment district in conjunction with the development of Tampa Palms is not, in the Board's opinion, inconsistent with the approved Hillsborough County Com- prehensive Land Use Plan or other local land use regulations, and A community development district appears, in the Board's opinion, to be the best alternative available for delivering to and maintaining the com- munity development services and facil- ities in the Tampa Palms area, and The services and facilities to be operated and maintained by the proposed district do not appear to be, in the Board's opinion, incom- atible with the capacity and uses of existing and proposed local and regional community development ser- vices, and The Tampa Palms development, due to its size and location and the extent of community services and facilities to be created within the development appears to be, in the Board's opinion, amenable to separate special district government. (Exhi- bit 2) The five persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed community development district are Frank E. Mackle, III; Richard F. Schulte, William I. Livingston, Paul M. Schaefer, and Edward G. Grafton. It is intended that they shall serve as the Board of Supervisors until replaced in accordance with Section 190.006, F.S. (Petition) The following ultimate findings are made based upon the testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. (Testimony of Apthorp) The creation of the district is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. This finding is supported by the Development Order and subsequent Resolution issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibits 2, 7) The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. This finding is supported by the previous findings of fact concerning the size of the proposed district and the fact that the 5,400 acres are in one contiguous parcel. The district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. This finding is supported by the Development Order issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners and its subsequent Resolution acknowledging that a community development district would be the best alternative available for such purposes. Hillsborough County is presently not in a position to provide many of the essential services required by a community of the contemplated size of Tampa Palms, including but not limited to public streets and an extensive surface water management system. The proposed development will result in a substantially self-contained community which will be comprehensively planned so as to provide necessary services required by its residents. A community development district will be in a position to provide reliable operation and maintenance of those services and facilities not otherwise conducted by the County or other appropriate unit of local government. (Exhibits 2, 7) The community development services and facilities of the district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The proposed development of the property is scheduled, in accordance with the terms of the County Development Order, to coincide with the provision of essential area services which will not be provided by the district. (Exhibits 2, 7) The area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature and location of the proposed Tampa Palms development would be facilitated and best served by the establishment of a separate special-district government under all of the facts and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereby submitted, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of Deltampa, Inc., and adopt a rule which will establish the Tampa Palms Community Development District, pursuant to Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 20th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Schumaker, Esquire Deltona Corporation Post Office Box 369 Miami, Florida 33145 Honorable John T. Herndon Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioners' Notice of Proposed Non-Substantial Change should be approved, thereby extending the commencement date and the first two phasing deadlines in their Development Order by four years and 364 days, and extending the termination date by eighteen months less two days.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, W. T. Cox, Jr., individually and as Trustee, Priceco (a Florida general partnership), Agnes T. May, John B. Whitaker, and Betty Sue Whitaker, have challenged a decision by Respondent, Lake County (County), which denied their Notice of Proposed Non- Substantial Change (NOPC). If approved, the NOPC would extend by four years and 364 days the commencement date and the first two phasing deadlines on a proposed project on their land, along with an extension of the termination date by eighteen months less two days. Petitioners are the owners of several parcels of property which make up a 1,433-acre tract of land east of the City of Clermont and the Florida Turnpike and just west of Lake Apopka in Lake County, Florida, known as Sugarloaf Mountain. Much, if not most, of the land was formerly orange groves, until a freeze destroyed the trees. W. T. Cox, Jr. is the principal landowner in the group, with 900 of the 1,433 total acres for the project. Petitioners intend to sell their separate parcels of property as a single parcel to a developer who will build a large planned unit development on the property. Efforts to initially develop the property began on February 19, 1991, when the County approved Planned Unit Development Ordinace No. 9-91 for Sugarloaf Mountain (Sugarloaf PUD). The Sugarloaf PUD contained no commencement or termination date requirements or limitations. On July 26, 1994, the County issued the Development Order for the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact (DO). An appeal of the DO was taken by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on September 23, 1994. By agreement of the parties, the matter was submitted to binding arbitration, and the sole issue was whether the project was vested. This appeal was resolved by an Arbitrator's Order dated October 16, 1995, which found that the property was vested by common law, and that the project was accordingly exempted from the density and intensity provisions of the County's then current Comprehensive Plan. On January 16, 1996, Petitioners and the County entered into an agreement, recorded in the public records, modifying the DO to conform to the terms of the settlement with the DCA. Under the terms of the original DO, Petitioners were obligated to "substantially proceed" with development within five years of the effective date of the DO (commencement date); otherwise, the development approval would terminate. As a result of the arbitration, this date was extended to December 18, 2000. The term "substantially proceed" is defined in the DO to mean "that the developer [has] constructed . . . improvements that can be expected to generate at least 392 ADT [average daily trips] . . . representing five percent of the first phase of the development." This requirement translates into approximately 40 conventional single-family homes, or 69 single-family homes for retirees. However, one could not construct such homes before preparing a capital improvements plan, and then providing substantial infrastructure improvements in accordance with that plan, including onsite road improvements, a stormwater management system, and a water and sewer system for all or most of the project. Therefore, all of these improvements would have to have been constructed along with at least 40 homes by December 18, 2000 (the commencement date), for the owners to have substantially proceeded within the meaning of the DO, and to have had the right to continue to develop the property. Under Section V of the DO, the commencement date "may be extended upon Lake County's finding of excusable delay, and no adverse impacts resulting from the delay, in any proposed development activity, consistent with the substantial deviation provisions of subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes." However, the DO does not define the term "excusable delay," or provide any criteria for applying this provision. Due to various circumstances described in greater detail below, development had not yet substantially proceeded by January 2000. Accordingly, on January 19, 2000, or eleven months prior to the required commencement date, Petitioners filed their NOPC with the County seeking to extend all deadlines by five years less one day. As required by law, copies were also filed with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Commission (ECFRPC) and the DCA. As later slightly modified at the request of the DCA, the NOPC requested an extension of the commencement date and the first two phasing deadlines by five years less one day, along with an extension of the termination date by eighteen months less two days. No substantive amendments were proposed in the NOPC. That is, Petitioners did not request any amendment affecting any of the criteria listed in the DCA's Substantial Deviation Determination Chart, and all existing land use entitlement quantities would remain unchanged. After reviewing the NOPC, on June 22, 2000, the ECFRPC advised the County by letter that because Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, provided that "an extension of less than five years is not a substantial deviation," it concluded that "these proposed changes do not result in an automatic substantial deviation determination pursuant to the threshold criteria of section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, nor is it expected that it will cause new or increased impacts to regional resources or facilities when considered independently or cumulatively with prior project changes." Therefore, the ECFRPC did not "recommend that this proposal be submitted for additional regional review by this agency." On February 29, 2000, the DCA advised the County by letter that "the proposed extension of the date of the build- out is not a substantial deviation and is not subject to a public hearing." The County also agreed that the NOPC was a nonsubstantial deviation and therefore it did not require further DRI review. However, the County required the NOPC to be considered by its Board of County Commissioners (Board) at a public meeting. Accordingly, on June 15, 2000, the County placed the NOPC on its agenda for a public meeting on September 26, 2000. At a meeting on September 19, 2000, counsel for Petitioners requested a continuance due to the unavailability of several key witnesses on the subject of excusable delay. A request for a 60-day continuance was again made at the outset of the meeting on September 26, 2000. Both requests for a continuance were denied and Petitioners were directed to present their case without the benefit of such witnesses. Speaking in opposition to the NOPC were the County's senior director of growth management who pointed out generally that the area in question was largely agricultural in nature and the proposed intensity of the project was incompatible with adjacent and adjoining land uses; that the 1991 PUD was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; that the general welfare of the citizens should be taken into account when considering the request; and that the applicant had not met the burden of demonstrating substantial development. In addition, a number of area residents and representatives of organizations also spoke in opposition to the extension. They generally opposed a large development in that area of the County. Speaking in support of the NOPC were Cecilia Bonifay, Petitioners' counsel; Steven C. Ruoff, a realtor involved in the project; Steven H. Price, an attorney and the son of Karick Price, one of the owners; and John Reaves, a potential buyer of the property. Those persons generally pointed out that the principal owner (W. T. Cox, Jr.) was elderly and in poor health, and that because of restrictions in the original DO and the property's unusual location, the owners had experienced difficulty in marketing the property to a developer. They further pointed out that the property was then under contract with a new developer, but that insufficient time remained to comply with the commencement date. Thereafter, by a 5-0 vote, the County denied the NOPC. Although the reasons for the denial were not clear, the minutes of the meeting reflect that one Board member's decision was based on the fact that he was unhappy with the "proposed densities" of the project. Likewise, a second member concluded that "the densities are currently too high" and that "there has not been substantial proceeding on the project." A third member also concluded that the applicant had not "proceeded with the development." No reasons were given by the other two members. Excusable delay was mentioned by only one member, but the minutes do not reflect that excusable delay was a consideration in that member's vote. It is also fair to infer that at least some of the Board members were unhappy with the earlier decision approving the PUD in 1991, a decision made when the Board had a mostly different member composition. A formal order memorializing the Board's decision was never prepared. Relying on the minutes of the meeting as the "order," on November 6, 2000, or within 45 days, Petitioners filed their Petition for Appeal of a Development Order with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission). Because Petitioners contended that the Board hearing was neither fair nor complete, they requested that the instant proceeding be conducted de novo, rather than simply a review of the record below. Criteria for an extension and the Board's past practice Section V of the DO provides the only criteria for granting an extension. That provision reads in relevant part as follows: [The expiration date] may be extended on Lake County's finding of excusable delay, and no adverse impacts resulting from the delay, in any proposed development activity, consistent with the substantial deviation provisions of subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The County has no other criteria defining the standards to be used in determining whether "excusable delay" has been shown by an applicant. Indeed, its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations do not contain any definitions or criteria. Further, the Board has never made any express findings on excusable delay or stated any criteria for determining it in any amended development orders resulting from extensions granted in other cases. At the same time, there are no standards enuciated in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, nor are there any rules on the subject. A request for an extension of the build-out and commencement dates of a development order is subject to review by the DCA and the regional planning council under the substantial deviation provisions of Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. However, if as here, the proposed request is for an extension of one day less than five years, it is conclusively not a substantial deviation under the statute. For this reason, the practice of the DCA and ECFRPC has been to grant such extensions automatically. The Board has approved extensions of various deadlines in four DRIs over the seven years before the current request was heard by the Board. There is no evidence that the Board has ever denied such a request. Based on this consistent practice, Petitioners reasonably inferred in 1999 that obtaining the Board's approval of their request would be routine. On October 26, 1993, the Board approved a 54-month extension for the Monterey/Royal Highlands DRI (Monterey). In that case, the original owner (and applicant for an extension) had sold the property to a new developer but then had to foreclose on it when the buyer defaulted and went bankrupt. Because of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code, the original owner could not re-obtain or exercise any control over the property until the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings. In its approval, the Board recited the bankruptcy as the reason for no construction having been undertaken yet, but made no mention of excusable delay. In another case in 1994 involving the Plantation at Leesburg DRI (Plantation), the Board granted a request for an extension of one day less than five years. While the DRI admittedly did not include any language requiring a showing of excusable delay, the minutes of the meeting reflect no discussion of any standard for granting an extension. The staff report did note, however, that the project was vested and that the request was not a substantial deviation, even though it included a revision of the master plan of the DRI. In 1997, the Board granted an extension for the Southlake Florida Quality Development (Southlake), which was subject to requirements similar to those for DRIs. There, without any mention of excusable delay, the Board approved a staff recommendation that a 10-year extension be granted for the purpose of "allow[ing] for continuation and completion of the project on a more realistic basis" than originally proposed. Like the Monterey and Plantation extensions, the Board did not employ any stated standard in reaching its decision on the Southlake extension. In March 2000, the Board approved an extension for the Pennbrooke Fairways DRI (Pennbrooke), a project which had already constructed some 400 units, a golf course, and other amenities. The Pennbrooke development order contained an "excusable delay" standard almost identical to the one in issue here. In recommending approval of an extension of five years less a day, the staff noted that the project was vested, that the request was for a nonsubstantial amendment, and that the developer was requesting the extension because of "changing economic and other conditions." The recommendation was accepted, but the minutes of the meeting do not reflect that there was any discussion of the merits of the requested extension or any mention of excusable delay. In each of the four cases, either the minutes or the staff reports emphasized that the requested extensions were nonsubstantial amendments to the original approvals, and some mention is made of the fact that the projects were vested, though without explanation of the weight given that factor, or any other. In three of the four cases, the requested extension was for less than five years (while the fourth was for ten). Although three of the four development orders include an excusable delay standard, all four cases omit any findings on excusable delay or any other standard for an extension. Admittedly, some development had taken place in three of the four cases, but the County concedes it had not reached the level specified in the development orders, and there is no indication in the record that the County relied on this fact in determining whether to grant an extension. Finally, even though none of the cases makes clear the Board's basis for approving an extension, in two cases the reason given by the applicant was lack of control over the property due to bankruptcy, in another case the applicant cited the need for a more realistic schedule for construction, and in the remaining case the applicant cited "the other changing economic and other conditions." Although the County's practice in granting extensions, and denying this one, has not been clear and consistent, it does show that before the instant decision the standard was not strict and the bar was not high. Indeed, the County generally took into account a project's vested status and the finding of the state agencies that a request was not a substantial deviation. The Board never made findings on excusable delay and never formulated or followed any criteria for determining it. Nor did the Board consider whether adverse impacts would result from the delay, or whether circumstances had changed enough to warrant further review, as specified by the standard in each development order. The applicant's excusable delay. Although Petitioners did not begin construction within five years of obtaining the DO, they did make an effort to implement the DO but were unable to do so at once, for two reasons. First, the health of the principal owner and leader of the group, W. T. Cox, Jr., had grown increasingly impaired during 1996, the first year under the DO, impeding communications and decision-making in the group. Second, through discussions with County officials, the owners learned that they had insufficient resources to carry out the development by themselves. They then concluded that they must market the property so as to attract a joint venturer who could bring substantially more financial resources and development experience to the venture, or to sell the property outright to a large development company with the necessary resources. The leader of the group from its inception was Mr. Cox, who had approached Mr. Karick Price (the owner of 500 acres) with the original idea for the development. Mr. Cox had substantial development experience and access to financial resources. However, at about the same time the DO became effective in late 1995, Mr. Cox's health began to deteriorate, along with his ability to conduct business. In 1996, he suffered a stroke, and his condition worsened. In 1997, it became necessary for Mr. Cox to rely almost exclusively on a local attorney, Phillip Tatich, to assist him in his work activities. Mr. Tatich was later appointed a co-trustee of Mr. Cox's living trust in February 1998, after which he took over Mr. Cox's responsibilities in the group. During those same two years after the effective date of the DO, Mr. Price's health also deteriorated (due to multiple sclerosis), and his son Steven was asked to take over the responsibility for the family's interests in the DRI. Although Steven Price is an attorney, he does not specialize in land use or have experience in developing property. Consequently, he deferred to Mr. Cox, whose own health was on the decline. After Mr. Tatich became co-trustee for Mr. Cox in early 1998, he began to familiarize himself with the various properties in Mr. Cox's portfolio. By July 1998, Mr. Tatich was fully knowledgeable about the requirements of the DO and the options available to Petitioners. Despite the health problems with Mr. Cox, during 1996 and 1997, the owners were not idle. First, in early 1996 they negotiated an agreement with the DCA which clarified the meaning of several requirements in the DO. They also attempted to complete the sale of the property to a Euro- Canadian group of investors. After that deal fell through, Petitioners began to negotiate with the Barclay group, which resulted in a signed contract, but did not lead to a closing. At about the same time, a DRI expert advised Petitioners about the DO's requirements for capital improvements, the lack of clarity about the extent of those requirements, and the need for prompt action to meet the commencement date. Based on the expert's report, Petitioners decided that they had to focus their efforts on marketing the property, or to sell the property to a developer who could make use of the DRI entitlements. Given the proximity of the commencement date, Petitioners elected to market the property, hoping to attract a joint venturer to provide the experience and funding they lacked. In September 1997, Petitioners signed a formal listing agreement with Realvest Partners, Inc. (Realvest), a Maitland, Florida firm that specializes in appraising and developing large tracts of land for development purposes. Realvest did everything reasonable to market the property. Among other things, the listing broker (Mr. Ruoff) persuaded a number of other landowners to agree to an assemblage of their properties with the Sugarloaf property, for purposes of marketing an even larger tract (4,000 acres) that would have direct access to the Florida Turnpike and adjoin the city limits of Minneola and Clermont. Mr. Ruoff met more than 100 times with prospective buyers and showed the property at least 50 times over the two years that he marketed the property. This work generated a number of offers, including offers from Arvida and the Del Webb Corporation, each of which had the resources to develop such a large tract of property. Although each company came close to reaching a signed contract with the owners of the assemblage, both deals fell through because of the unreasonable demands of one of the assemblage owners (not a Petitioner). Neither company was willing to purchase the Sugarloaf property by itself, primarily because of its lack of access to major roads. Despite these failures, Petitioners continued to search for a buyer for the Sugarloaf property, and they negotiated with several other groups. After 6 to 8 months of negotiations, the Groner-Reaves group (in which Arnold Palmer is associated) signed a purchase contract in June 2000, which remains pending until this proceeding is concluded. Although the County witness asserted that the property was "unsalable," the owners were not responsible for that characteristic of the property, and they did all that they could do to sell their property alone and in an assemblage. As noted above, they eventually succeeded in securing a purchase contract. The unsalability of the property confirms the fact that a delay in selling the property was beyond Petitioners' control and thus excusable. Petitioners' decision not to start construction was reasonable even after Mr. Tatich joined the group as Mr. Cox's trustee. This is because in February 1998, he lacked the knowledge to make a sensible recommendation. After learning of the DO's requirements, he concurred in the owners' previous conclusion that without Mr. Cox, the other group members lacked the resources and experience to substantially proceed with construction on their own. In addition, even assuming that Petitioners could have mustered the enormous amount of resources required just to proceed with construction and meet the commencement date, starting construction would have established a particular pattern of development that could have clashed with the plans of some prospective purchasers in what was already a very narrow market. In summary, the delay in development activity was excusable due to the health impairment of Mr. Cox, the lack of financial resources and development experience of the other owners, the complexity of the DO and the unusual capital costs associated with the DRI, and the difficult marketing conditions for the property. All of these reasons exemplify factors beyond the control of the owners, and some of them were unforseen. No adverse impacts Petitioners also demonstrated that no adverse impacts would result from the delay. The request changes no substantive condition of the DO and generates no new impact of any kind. Also, Petitioners rebutted the County's own contrary evidence on this issue. At the hearing, the County speculated that the delay might cause a potential adverse impact on the nearby roads by delaying the time when the owners would have to pay for the expensive offsite road improvements on County Roads 561, 561A, and 455, as well as for a Turnpike interchange. The County reasoned that while the development is continuing in the surrounding area, traffic generated by such offsite development is increasing and could possibly exceed the established level of service for each of those roads before Sugarloaf makes the improvements. Petitioners established that the County's concern was no more than speculation and that the roads in question have more than enough capacity to absorb growth well above the combined current rate in the area and proposed buildout for Phase I of 660 houses over the next five years. Moreover, whatever impacts have occurred in the past five years are not attributable to Sugarloaf, which has generated no traffic. Therefore, no adverse impacts will occur by virtue of granting the request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issue a final order approving Petitioners' Notice of Proposed Non-Substantial Change. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 25th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor Room 2105, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles T. Canady, General Counsel Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Timothy A. Smith, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue, 17th Floor Orlando, Florida 32801-3414 Melanie N. Marsh, Esquire Post Office Box 7800 Tavares, Florida 32778-7800
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will: have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area; help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl; facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will: plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities; act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County; have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities; provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will: cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads; be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because: the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations; the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements; Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives: Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility. Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries; Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.; Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA). The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District: On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects. St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998. The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD. The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St. Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity. The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St. Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.
Conclusions On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St. Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 16th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Board to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2019-01002 (Application) filed by Edgewater Valor cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Edgewater Valor proposes to develop an 80-unit attached dwelling with 164 associated off-street parking spaces on 2.931 acres of property it owns. The property is located at 1026 Sunset Point Road and 1919 Edgewater Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The proposal consists of three buildings and a structured parking platform with a pool and deck on the west side of the parking platform. Sixty percent of the 164 parking spaces is garage parking, with the rest as exposed surface parking. Two of the buildings, both in the T district, are proposed at a height of 86 feet measured from base flood elevation. The third building, in the MDR district, is proposed at a height of 38 feet measured from base flood elevation. The buildings in the T district are set back 152 feet from the east property line. The building in the MDR district is set back 75 feet from the east property line. The proposal includes landscaping and setbacks that exceed the Board's requirements for approval. The Application requests Level Two approval of flexibility for a building height of 86 feet from base flood elevation in the T zoning district. A Level One approval allows a building height of up to 50 feet, and up to 100 feet as a Level Two approval. The Application also requests Level Two approval of flexibility for an attached dwelling use in the MDR zoning district. The attached dwelling has a building height of 38 feet from base flood elevation, where up to 40 feet is allowed as a Level Two approval and flexibility from lot width in the MDR zoning district. Edgewater Valor owns 2.437 acres of the property which is zoned T with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The remaining 0.494 acres is zoned MDR with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Residential Medium (RM). The property to the north of the proposed development is zoned T and is currently developed as a Comfort Suites hotel. The property to the south is zoned Office (O), MDR, and Preservation (P). There is a vacant automobile service station adjacent to the proposed development to the southwest, and a multi-family development to the south across Sunset Point Road. The property to the east is zoned MDR and P with single-family detached dwellings and attached dwellings further east along Sunset Point Road. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) and P. EDNA's boundaries are Sunset Point Road north to Union Street, and Edgewater Drive east to Pinellas Trail. The neighborhood consists of 400 homes that are mostly single-family, single-story detached dwellings. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive. The Comfort Suites hotel is located directly across from the proposed development on the opposite corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Sunnydale Drive travels east away from Edgewater Drive and dead-ends as a cul-de-sac with mostly single- family detached dwellings.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's application for a Notice of Proposed Change to its Development of Regional Impact constitutes a substantial deviation from the criteria in Section 380.06(19)(b)1.-15., Florida Statutes, and whether the proposed change is consistent with Bay County's Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Bay Point Club, Inc. (Petitioner), is the owner of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 located within the Bay Point Yacht and Country Club Resort Development of Regional Impact (Bay Point DRI) in Panama City, Florida. The Bay Point DRI was approved by Respondent, Bay County (County), on July 22, 1986, and authorized the development of 2,161 residential units, 200 hotel units, 123 marina slips, and recreational facilities on approximately 946 acres. The County is responsible for issuing development orders for projects that are to undergo development of regional impact review, including amendments to development orders of previously determined DRIs, in conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. When the original Development Order was issued in 1986, Bay Point Yacht & Country Club was the sole developer of the Bay Point DRI. Since that time, the ownership and control of the properties within the Bay Point DRI has changed, and there are now multiple owners and developers of the 36 separate development areas or parcels included within the Bay Point DRI, including Petitioner, who owns the above four parcels. The Bay Point DRI was approved by the County prior to the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). When the first Plan was adopted in 1991, the County recognized and incorporated the Bay Point DRI through the adoption of an overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which delineates the boundaries of the property. As stated in Future Land Use Element Policy 3.4.5, the overlay was adopted to ensure the consistency and compatibility of the Bay Point DRI with the County's FLUM. Parcels F and 12 were designated as "Seasonal/Resort" and Parcels 9 and 10 were designated as "Residential" on the FLUM. These designations remain in effect as of the date of the final hearing. A Seasonal/Resort classification allows a broad range of uses such as beach houses, multifamily housing, condominiums, hotels, lodges, restaurants, and other similar uses, while a Residential classification permits those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy. The Bay Point DRI has been amended 15 times, which amendments cumulatively reduced by 145 the total number of residential units. None of these amendments constituted a substantial deviation from the approval given in the original Development Order, and the County has never required a corresponding amendment to its Plan, FLUM, or DRI overlay as a condition for approval for any of these changes to the DRI. In July 1993, PFP One, Inc., Petitioner's parent company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as manager of the FSLIC Resolution Trust Fund, to purchase Parcels F (a waterfront lot adjacent to the Bay Point Marina), 10, and 9 for $235,000. At that time, Parcels 9 and 10 were vacant, and they remain vacant today. A private membership tennis facility was operating on Parcel F through a lease agreement Petitioner inherited as a part of the purchase. These tennis facilities were closed on April 1, 2000, due to a lack of membership support. Parcel 12 was purchased by PFP One, Inc. in 1994. It contained a private clubhouse facility which had once been operational prior to the approval of the DRI, but was closed at the time of the sale. The clubhouse was remodeled by Petitioner shortly after the Parcel was purchased and reopened the same year. Due to a lack of membership support, however, the clubhouse was closed in 1996. The single-family residential portion of Bay Point begins within a few hundred feet west of the above Parcels. The Development Order currently provides the following descriptions for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9: Parcel F: Located adjacent to the Bay Point Clubhouse, this 4.8 acre site currently supports the Bay Point Tennis Center. As a part of Bay Point's long term plan, the Tennis Center is scheduled to be moved to Area 9 in 1986. In 1987, a 70-unit condominium project designated as Port Towers is planned to be built on this waterfront site. [A] total of 97,000-sq. ft. of heated and cooled space are planned. Included will be a pool and recreation center. Building height would be restricted to not more than five stories with a majority of the project being of the two and three story height. Four, 2100 sq. ft. penthouse units, eight (8) 1,800 sq. ft. three-bedroom units, forty (40), 1400 sq. ft. two-bedroom units and eighteen (18), 1000 sq. ft. one-bedroom units are planned. There would be no restrictions of resort rental use, although it is assumed that, like Marina Club Village, the vast majority of these units will be primary and secondary homes because of pricing. Restrictive covenants for this project would be developed similar to those currently in force at Bay Point. Parcel 12: A 4-acre main clubhouse site, which is adjacent to the swimming pool, snack bar, health club and real estate facilities, is in the vested area and was substantially completed prior to July 1, 1973. Parcel 10: This one acre site is the planned location of the new Sport Center Clubhouse which will serve Bay Point's member golf facilities and the resort's tennis and health facilities. Included in the 14,000 square ft. Clubhouse will be a 90-seat restaurant and snack bar area, a health club, exercise and massage rooms, men and women's locker rooms, offices for the Director of Tennis and Golf Professional and a classroom. Additional space will house the club's sports retail center which sells both hard and soft goods associated with golf, tennis and physical exercise. Parcel 9: This 6 acre site has been set aside as the future location of the Bay Point Tennis Center. When completed, it will consist of up to 14 tennis courts, one of which will be the center court with stadium stands. The original description of Parcels F and 12 reflects that the acreage of the two sites combined is 8.83 acres. A survey completed just before the NOPC was submitted determined that the combined acreage of the two parcels was actually 9.67 acres. Petitioner has stipulated that in the event the smaller acreage number is correct, the density that will be developed on the property will be in conformity with the limitations imposed by the smaller acreage. On May 14, 2001, Petitioner filed with the County a Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously-Approved Development of Regional Impact (NOPC) under Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. Copies were also provided to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the West Florida Regional Planning Council (Council). Under the NOPC, Petitioner proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels F and 12 as follows: The proposed project will be a 136-unit condominium project with approximately 58 units on Parcel F and 78 units on Parcel 12. The number of units on both parcels will increase from the current 70 units authorized on Parcel F to 136 units on Parcels F and 12 combined, a cumulative increase of 66 units. Three concrete structures are planned. The center building, which is the farthest from any existing development, is 11 stories in height with a step increase to 12 stories. The two exterior buildings are six stories in height with step increases to ten stories. All improvements to the project will be built by year end 2004, which is the current build-out date for the Bay Point DRI, as amended. The existing tennis courts located on Parcel F will be reduced to four hard surface courts with separate restroom facilities. The residential units will consist of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom condominiums, approximately 900 to 2,400 sq. ft. in size. Thus, the proposed change in Parcels F and 12 will increase the number of condominium units from 70 to 136, change the height limitation from 5 stories to 12 stories, and eliminate the existing tennis facility. In addition, Petitioner proposes to eliminate the swimming pool and clubhouse now located on Parcel 12 and replace them with condominiums. The NOPC also proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels 9 and 10 in the following manner: The designations for Parcels 9 and 10 will be changed from "Tennis Complex" and "Sports Center/Clubhouse," respectively, to Recreation. These changes are sought because of the historical absence of community or public support for the existing private tennis and clubhouse facilities presently located on Parcels F and 12. Funded through annual memberships by residents of Bay Point and the public, support for these facilities has been insufficient to economically sustain them and justify their continued operation. Consequently, due to lack of membership support, the Clubhouse on Parcel 12 was closed in 1996. For the same reason, the tennis courts on Parcel F were closed April 1, 2000. Changing the designation on Parcels 9 and 10, from Tennis Complex and Clubhouse to Recreation[,] will afford the Applicant with the flexibility needed to develop new or expanded active and/or passive recreational opportunities which the residents of Bay Point are willing and able to support, and which are economically feasible. In no event, however, will the Applicant develop, or allow others to develop, recreational facilities on Parcel 9 or Parcel 10 which exceed the intensity standards authorized for the development of these properties by the original Bay Point DRI. Under these proposed changes, Parcels 9 and 10, which are predominately wetlands, will remain undeveloped and constitute a passive recreation area. The changes proposed in the NOPC will require corresponding changes to the uses originally approved for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9 in the Bay Point DRI Development Order, including changes to Map H, the Master Development Plan Map. The changes proposed by the NOPC for the DRI Development Order, including the changes to Map H, will not require a corresponding amendment to the underlying land use designations for Parcels F and 12 (Seasonal/Resort) and Parcels 9 and 10 (Residential). The NOPC was reviewed by the Council for conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06(19)(f)4., Florida Statutes. On June 11, 2001, the Council advised the County that the changes proposed for Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 did not appear to constitute a substantial change from the previously- approved Bay Point DRI. The DCA did not submit a written objection to the proposed NOPC. On August 7 and September 7, 2001, the County held quasi-judicial public hearings on the NOPC. At the latter meeting, the County denied the NOPC on the basis of a 2-2 tie vote regarding the question of whether the proposal constituted a substantial deviation. The County did not make any determination with respect to the question of whether the NOPC was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. This finding was confirmed in a letter from the County Attorney's Office dated September 7, 2001, and transmitted to Petitioner on September 11, 2001. On October 11, 2001, Petitioner filed its Petition to Appeal DRI Development Order with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission). On November 7, 2001, Intervenors, K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman, who all own property within the Bay Point DRI and have standing to participate, filed a Petition to Intervene. On November 8, 2001, Intervenor, Bay Point Community Association, Inc., which is the homeowners' association for the approximately 1,300 residences within the Bay Point DRI and likewise has standing to participate, filed its Petition to Intervene. These Petitions were granted by the Commission on December 19, 2001. Although the Petitions to Intervene contended that the NOPC constituted a substantial deviation requiring further DRI review by the County, that issue has been abandoned. Remaining at issue is the contention that the NOPC is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan (Plan) by generally failing to protect residential property values, promote viable neighborhoods, and maintain the community character in residential areas, as required by various Plan Objectives and Policies. Intervenors also contend that the NOPC lacks a needed stormwater plan. In more simple terms, however, Intervenors object to any high- rise development in an area surrounded by single-family residential homes and in a community (Bay Point) where no other buildings exceed seven stories in height. The characteristics of the community Bay Point is a unique, residential resort development on St. Andrews Bay in Panama City, Florida. A large portion of the land lying north of Bay Point is owned by the United States Navy; thus, Bay Point is somewhat isolated from the unplanned developments which occur in other inland areas, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico. Residential and commercial development commenced in Bay Point in 1971. To date, no high-rise buildings have been constructed in the community. Most structures are one or two stories in height, and only four buildings in Bay Point exceed two stories: the Bay Town commercial and condominium development (three stories); the Lagoon Towers condominium with sixty-three units (seven stories), which is the tallest building in Bay Point; the Marriott Legends Edge timeshare with twenty-eight units (six stories); and the Marriott Hotel (five stories). The three tallest buildings are in the extreme southeast portion of Bay Point a minimum of 1,600 feet and as far as 3,000 feet from the site of Petitioner's proposed high rise condominium buildings. When viewed from a distance, the four buildings which exceed two stories in height can barely be seen above the tree line. Bay Point is a mixed use development because it includes residential and nonresidential uses, as well as some community facilities. However, it is fair to state that Bay Point is a low-rise, low-density residential development, and it was planned as a predominately residential community under the 1986 DRI Development Order. Access to the residential part of the community is controlled through gates and a security force. Although there are some resort rental activities and tourist accommodations (a Marriott hotel), Bay Point is comprised of predominately permanent residents. There are 681 single-family homes on individual lots in the western portion of Bay Point, which are one and two-story structures comprising 79.9 percent of the development in Bay Point. The two-story single-family homes tend to be clustered along the bay or along the canals running through the development. As originally developed, commercial development made up only 10.4 percent of the land area of Bay Point. Of that total, 6.6 percent is retail and office development (such as offices, restaurants, retail shops, and a post office); 1.5 percent is commercial recreation (pro shops and golf and tennis club); and 1.7 percent is a Marriott Hotel. In addition, community facilities (including a playground for children) comprise 1.5 percent of the land area. There is also a 201-slip marina and a semi-private golf club on the premises. The "resort core" area of Bay Point refers to certain development in the Seasonal/Resort land use category containing a mixture of mainly seasonal and tourist residential, commercial, and noncommercial uses. Of the almost 1,000 acres in the Bay Point DRI, only about 24 acres were planned and approved for "resort core," or less than 15 percent of the 200 acres designated as Seasonal/Resort. The remaining 85 percent of the Seasonal/Resort area has a predominately residential character. Petitioner's project on Parcels F and 12 is far from any development that could be characterized as "resort core," and all of the development in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding Parcels F and 12 is residential development with structures not exceeding two stories in height. Thus, Petitioner cannot rely on any perceived proximity of Parcels F and 12 to the "resort core" as a basis for justifying the high-rise structures. Consistency with the Plan Intervenors contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.4.5 (which allegation is subject to an objection by Petitioner); Housing Element Objective 8.5; Housing Element Policy 8.5.1; Housing Objective 8.9 (which allegation is subject to a Motion to Strike); Stormwater Management Objectives 5E.9 and 5E.12; Stormwater Management Policies 5E.9.1, 5E.10.1, and 5E.12.1; and FLUE Policy 3.3.1. Each of these items will be addressed separately below. As a part of its 1999 Plan (which amended and updated the 1991 Plan), the County adopted special treatment zones (STZs) to be designated on the FLUM in addition to the future land use categories. The specific STZs are established pursuant to FLUE Objective 3.4, which provides that the zones are created "for purposes of dealing with unique or desirable circumstances." The unique circumstance in this case is the DRI. In the Plan, the County has either adopted or expressed its intent to adopt distinct land development regulations or land use controls for each STZ. FLUE Policy 3.4.5 establishes the Bay Point DRI STZ. This policy provides that: [t]he Bay Point Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Special Treatment Zone shall be established in order to ensure compatibility and consistency between the Bay Point DRI Development Order and the FLUM. Development in this area shall be governed by the DRI Development Order. (Emphasis supplied) The last sentence of Policy 3.4.5 was added by comprehensive plan amendment adopted on July 10, 2001. By virtue of the underscored language, the conditions and restrictions on the use and development of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, are incorporated into the County's Plan. This was confirmed at hearing by the County's Planning and Zoning Manager. Thus, the maximum five-story height limitation on Parcel 12 contained in the DRI Development Order is incorporated into the Plan by reference through Policy 3.4.5. Because all three of Petitioner's proposed high-rise condominium buildings exceed the five-story height limitation for Parcel F found in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, the NOPC is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.5. Objective 8.5 of the Housing Element provides that all projects in the County will "preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods through the enforcement of land use regulations." Petitioner contends that this Objective cannot apply to the development on Parcels F and 12 because these parcels are in a mixed land use category under the FLUM and therefore are not in "residential areas or neighborhood" as contemplated by the Objective. However, the Objective refers to "residential areas and neighborhoods," and not to future land use categories. Thus, the Objective is directed towards existing residential and multi-family development in Bay Point, including Intervenors' property, and must be taken into account when judging the merits of Petitioner's application. "Character" and "aesthetics" are not defined in the Plan. Rather, they are terms of art in the planning profession and are commonly understood by planning professionals. These terms refer to development as it exists, not development that could occur based on a land use category. This is because one cannot protect the character and aesthetics of a land use designation. The evidence shows that "character" consists of those attributes that lend a sense of place to an area, which people in the area can identify with that is distinguishable from other such areas. It includes such factors as type of buildings, building height and mass, the relationship of one building to another, the types of activities that go on in the area or neighborhood, the presence or absence of vegetation, the presence or absence of underground utilities, street design, architectural design, and the preservation of the long-standing stable nature of a neighborhood. "Aesthetics" are those attributes that determine whether an area is visually pleasing. The character of the Bay Point community is that of a stable, low-rise, low density, residential resort community. The buildings in Bay Point consist of individual homes and small villa or townhouse-type buildings clustered on parcels. There are no high-rise buildings in the community or beachfront property. The evidence clearly supports a finding that Bay Point is a predominately neighborhood residential community. Petitioner proposes to construct on Parcels F and 12 three separate high-rise buildings. The outer buildings are six stories at their exteriors, with step increases to ten stories at the interiors. The center building will be eleven stories at the outer edges, with a step up to twelve stories at the peak. The construction of these high-rise condominiums will be in stark contrast to, and out of harmony with, the existing low-rise, low-bulk structures which surround the proposed project and will dramatically change the low-rise, neighborhood character of Bay Point. Thus, the proposed condominiums are not consistent with Objective 8.5 in that they do not preserve the character of the existing residential development within Bay Point. Policy 8.5.1 of the Housing Element requires compatibility between types of residential structures. The Policy also requires that specific criteria be included in the County's Land Use Code "for the preservation and protection of residential areas." It further provides that these standards should ensure that "compatibility between types of residential buildings" will be maintained, and that "residential areas will be used primarily for residential purposes." As of the date of hearing, however, no standards had been adopted, although the County is now in the process of developing such criteria. Until specific criteria are adopted and included in the Land Use Code, Petitioner contends that the Policy cannot be relied upon by Intervenors. If this proposition were true, however, no existing project could be measured for compatibility, and the Policy would be meaningless. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that in the absence of specific standards in the Land Use Code, it is appropriate to rely upon standards used by land use professionals for determining compatibility between types of residential buildings. Indeed, every land planning expert who testified at hearing agreed that a consistency determination should be made based on the guidance provided in the Objectives and Policies of the Plan. The County has addressed the subject of compatibility in Objective 3.9 and Policy 3.9.1 of the Future Land Use Element. The former provision provides that "[a]ll proposed land uses shall be compatible with adjacent conforming land uses," while the latter provision defines "compatibility" to mean "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The evidence establishes that land use planners view compatibility as meaning the relationship between buildings, uses, and activities to one another. Factors to be used in making this determination are density, building height, scale and mass, lot configuration, and building orientation. Other factors used in this determination include established development patterns, expectations that arise from established development patterns, character of the neighborhood, and stability of the neighborhood. The evidence supports a finding that the development pattern in Bay Point, the expectations of Intervenors and the community based on that development pattern, and the atypical height and mass of Petitioner's project render the proposed project incompatible with Bay Point and thus inconsistent with Objective 8.5.1 of the Plan. In making this finding, the undersigned has found that Petitioner's compatibility analysis is too narrow in scope and ignores the reality that Petitioner proposes to develop three high-rise buildings, grouped together in one location, in an established, predominately low-rise residential community. Objective 8.9 of the Housing Element requires that any project in the County "[p]rotect residential property values and ensure that each homeowner has the opportunity for quiet use and enjoyment of their residence." Thus, in order to be consistent with the Plan, Petitioner must demonstrate that its project will not impact the residential property values in Bay Point in a negative manner. To demonstrate consistency with the foregoing Objective, Petitioner's expert opined that the proposed project would infuse new capital and value into the Bay Point area thereby increasing property values. However, Petitioner's market study (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) is flawed in several respects. For example, it incorrectly defines the Bay Point neighborhood as including an intensely developed Gulf front tourist district along Thomas Drive and the east end of Highway 98 in Panama City, within a three to six mile southern radius of Bay Point, and which includes high-rise condominiums, motels, and commercial uses that are dependent on the tourist industry. The study also concludes, erroneously, that most of the condominium units in Bay Point are utilized as second homes and rental properties by absentee owners. Finally, the study uses two "comparable" projects on which to base a market analysis, one in Destin and the other in Seascape. Neither property is really comparable since both are located on the Gulf of Mexico in neighboring Walton County. The more credible evidence establishes that the threat of development of high-rise buildings on Parcels F and 12 has caused a decline in residential property values in Bay Point. Further, if the NOPC is approved, the property values will continue to decline. This decline has been exacerbated by the loss of the Bay Point community center and tennis courts, which were previously located on the lots in question. Given these considerations, it is found that the NOPC is inconsistent with Housing Element Objective 8.9, in that the NOPC does not protect property values within the community. Intervenors further contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with various Objectives and Policies in the Stormwater Management Element since the NOPC does not contain a detailed stormwater plan for the proposed project. These Objectives and Policies are designed to reduce and eliminate flooding, protect surface waters from contamination and sedimentation caused by the stormwater, and prevent future problems by regulating development. This contention has been rejected since the specific requirements for the stormwater system necessary to serve Parcels F and 12 are not properly addressed in the DRI process, but rather will be considered by the County at the time the actual construction documents for these parcels are submitted for review and permitting. Finally, Intervenors assert that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1, which designates criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development. No credible evidence was presented on this issue, and therefore the contention has been rejected. All other matters raised by Intervenors have likewise been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a NOPC on the ground that it is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.4.5, Housing Element Objective 8.5, Housing Element Policy 8.5.1, and Housing Element Objective 8.9 of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 11th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Michael S. Burke, Esquire Burke & Blue 221 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-3128 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Offices of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6214 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Amundsen and Gilroy, P.A. Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Raquel Rodriguez, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
