The Issue The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as "Martin County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "1000 Friends"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of 1000 Friends includes monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the State's growth management laws. Respondent, City of Stuart (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Martin County. Respondent/Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). No evidence concerning Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., was presented. Standing. Martin County owns real property located within the jurisdiction of the City. Although Martin County is also an "adjoining local government," the evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases will produce "substantial impacts" on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within Martin County's jurisdiction. There has been a negative impact on Martin County's ad valorem tax base by the annexation of properties formerly under its jurisdiction. Those impacts, however, were caused by the annexation of the properties and not by the amendments at issue in this case. Additionally, those impacts did not cause any need for "publicly funded infrastructure." There may also be some impact as a result in the change in land use designations for some of the annexed property. Martin County's conclusion about the extent of the increase in commercial uses, however, was not supported by the evidence. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the text amendments at issue in these cases will have a negative impact on Martin County's need to provide publicly funded infrastructure. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduction of land subject to Martin County's municipal service taxing district and any resulting decrease in taxable values with the district will cause Martin County to provide additional publicly funded infrastructure. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Martin County has designated any areas "for protection or special treatment within their jurisdiction" or that there will any "substantial impact" on such areas. Martin County made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendments at issue in these cases. 1000 Friends, since its formation, has had approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Members from Martin County and the City have totaled approximately 835 and 235 persons, respectively. Martin County and City members constitute a substantial percentage of 1000 Friends' total membership. 1000 Friends' corporate purposes include the representation of its members in legal and administrative proceedings involving the Act. 1000 Friends' litigation committee specifically authorized its participation in these proceedings. The type of relief sought by 1000 Friends in these cases is the type of relief 1000 Friends is authorized to seek on behalf of its members. 1000 Friends made written comments to the City during the adoption of certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Martin County and 1000 Friends are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1000 Friends' standing is limited, however, to standing to challenge certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., failed to prove its has standing to participate in this proceeding. General Information About Martin County and the City. Martin County is a relatively small county located in the central southeast portion of Florida. Martin County is abutted on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a small portion of Okeechobee and Glades Counties, on the south by Palm Beach County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Martin County has a population of approximately 118,000 permanent residents. The population increases by 32 to 34 percent during the fall and winter. Martin County has the third highest per capita income in Florida. There are four municipalities in Martin County, including the City. The City is located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the St. Lucie River, which divides the City into two land masses. Most of the City is located south and east of the St. Lucie River. A small part of the City is located just to the north of the St. Lucie River. The north and south portions of the City are connected by the Roosevelt Bridge. The City is connected to Palm City to the west by the Palm City Bridge. The City has a population of approximately 14,000. During the day the population of the City increases significantly to an estimated population of between 25,000 and 30,000. Because of the City's relatively small population and the large influx of persons traveling to the City during the day, the City has a need for a significant amount of ad valorem taxes. More than half of the City's ad valorem property taxes comes from commercial property located in the City. In November 1996 commercial land use in the City accounted for approximately 24 percent of the City's land area. The City is the only full-service incorporated municipality in Martin County. It is the county seat for Martin County and serves as the center of legal, medical, social, commercial, and governmental activities in Martin County. The City has recently characterized itself as follows: For most of its history the character of Stuart was one of low to moderate intensity development in a waterfront community, with a small town feel. A four-story height limit and 10-unit density limit for most residential building were the two main forces that continue this character. In addition, Stuart has long been a hub for Martin County, home to many public and private institutions and businesses. As a result, the percentage of commercial, institutional, and public land in the City was higher than it would be in a city that did not serve as a hub. This role was evident in 1991, and a balance between the residential needs of the citizens of Stuart and the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary needs of those hub-related land uses seemed to drive the 1991 Future Land Use Element. It was recognized at Plan adoption that Stuart was near build-out, and barring further major annexations, would have limited vacant land remaining for new development. City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Martin County Exhibit 11 at page 33. Prior to 1997, approximately 2,800 acres of land were located within the jurisdiction of the City. Compared to the rest of Martin County, the City is relatively modest economically. Per capita income in the City is approximately 80 percent of the Martin County-wide average per capita income. Housing in the City consists of approximately 6,300 units. Two-thirds of the City's housing stock is multi-family. Approximately 92 percent of the multi-family housing stock is valued at less than $70,000.00. Approximately 69 percent of the other third of the City's housing stock, which consists of single-family housing, is valued at less than $70,000.00. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the City has been growing at a much slower rate than Martin County, neighboring counties, and the State as a whole. Between 1980 and 1990, the median value of owner-occupied housing in the City increased 56 percent while in Martin County the median value increased 112 percent, in Indian River County 69 percent, in Palm Beach County 77 percent, in St. Lucie County 66 percent, and in the State of Florida 68 percent. Because of the relatively low value of the City's housing stock, ad valorem taxes generated from housing is relatively low. The U.S. 1 Corridor. One of the main thoroughfares in Martin County is United States Highway 1, "Southeast Federal Highway" (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1"). U.S. 1 runs north-south through the City. It crosses the St. Lucie River via the Roosevelt Bridge. Land located within unincorporated Martin County along U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge almost to the St. Lucie County line is mostly developed or approved for development. Development includes major retail stores such as Target, Sports Authority, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Office Max, Marshall's, Service Merchandise, PetSmart, Home Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, and grocery stores. There are also many smaller retailers located in strip commercial shopping centers. Most of the development has been permitted during the past five to six years by Martin County. The area to the west and northwest of property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge during 1997 and 1998 includes Treasure Coast Mall, strip shopping centers, offices, restaurants, and single-family housing at a density of four to five units per acre. The area to the east and northeast of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes single-family housing at a density of four units per acre, multi- family housing, and commercial and industrial property. The area to the north of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes a development of regional impact known as "West Jensen." West Jensen runs from Jensen Beach Boulevard north to the St. Lucie County line. By 2003, when the project is projected to be fully developed, West Jensen will include 260,000 square feet of limited industrial space, 729,000 square feet of general commercial space, 23,000 square feet of limited commercial space, 235,000 square feet of office space, 200 hotel rooms, 931 residential units, and four golf courses. The area to the immediate south of the City is fully developed. Along U.S. 1 there are large shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, strip shopping centers, single-family housing of four to five units per acre, and condominiums. The Martin County Airport abuts U.S. 1 on the east. The area to the west of the City, Palm City, is fully developed. Growth of the City Through Annexation. To the extent that the City grew during the 1970's, it did so through annexation. Subsequent to the 1970's, however, the City turned from annexation and focused on redevelopment of the City's downtown area and the eastern part of the City. Between 1988 and November 1996, the City only annexed 298 acres in 30 annexations. This amounted to an increase of only 18 percent in the geographic size of the City. Subsequent to late 1995, the City shifted its policy back to annexation as a means of growth. Of the 30 annexations the City was involved in between 1988 and November 1996, 19 took place in October 1995. In approximately 1996, the City performed an analysis of its projected revenues and expenditures through the year 2003. The City projected that its revenues would be less than its expenditures. Based upon more recent projections, which take into account recent City annexations, the City has projected that its revenues and expenditures should be about the same for the next eight to nine years. The City has projected that its revenues will increase as a result of ad valorem and sales taxes and other revenues which should be generated from the newly annexed properties. During the Spring of 1997, the City received a number of requests for voluntary annexation pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. These requests were accepted by the City and the first 16 parcels were annexed in the Spring of 1997. During 1998, another 27 parcels were annexed through voluntary annexation. Between the spring of 1997, and the end of 1998 the City annexed a total of almost 1,200 acres, increasing the geographic area of the city by 48 percent. The City annexed 254.8 acres in 1997 and 934 acres in 1998. The first requests for voluntary annexations began shortly after Martin County determined that certain roads had no more capacity to sustain further growth. As a consequence of this determination, Martin County imposed a moratorium on new development that would impact U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge and the area west of the City on the other side of the Palm City Bridge. Some of the parcels annexed by the City in 1997 and 1998, could not be developed because of the transportation concurrency problem Martin County determined it had. Although there was no direct testimony from owners of parcels annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, as to the reason they sought voluntary annexation of their property by the City, it is clear that at least some of the voluntary annexations were influenced by Martin County's moratorium and the hope of property owners that the City would take sufficient actions to resolve the transportation concurrency problem on U.S. 1 to allow owners to develop their property. More significantly, the annexations were probably influenced by a perception of property owners that obtaining approval for development from Martin County was a more difficult process generally than obtaining approval through the City. During 1997, the level of service (hereinafter referred to as "LOS") standard selected by Martin County for roads under its jurisdiction was a LOS D. While the City ultimately modified its LOS for roads impacted by development of some of the parcels annexed during 1997 and 1998, the evidence failed to prove that the City's modifications were not based upon reasonable planning principles. The 1997 Small Scale Amendments. The City did not determine specifically how the 16 parcels it annexed during 1997 would impact the City of Stuart's Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") before it accepted the voluntary annexations. Pursuant to Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, the 16 parcels the City annexed in 1997 remained subject to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan") and Martin County's land development regulations until the City amended the City's Plan to incorporate the parcels into the City. In particular, the parcels remained subject to the County Plan until the City amended the City's Plan to assign appropriate land uses to the annexed parcels. Therefore, as the parcels were annexed, the City undertook efforts to amend the City's Plan to assign appropriate land use designations to the parcels. The first nine of the 16 parcels annexed by the City during 1997 took place on September 8, 1997. The parcels were annexed pursuant to the voluntary annexation procedure of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Each of the nine parcels consisted of less than ten acres of land. Simultaneously with the annexation of the parcels, the City adopted ten small scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM") of the City's Plan assigning land use designations under the City's Plan to the parcels. The small scale amendments adopted by the City on September 8, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Small Scale Amendments"), were designated Amendments 97S-1 by the Department. The Department did not, however, review the amendments because they constituted small scale amendments exempt from review by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. On October 8, 1997, Martin County filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings contending that nine of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 97-4582GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Small Scale Amendments or intervene in Case No. 97-4582GM. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with Sections 163.3187(c)(1)(c) [sic] and 163.3187(c)(3)(c) [sic], Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. In two instances, the Kornbluh and Luce properties, the City's land use designations were virtually the same as Martin County's. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the parcels by the City: Kornbluh property (Parcel 1) This parcel consists of 1.4 acres. In the County, approximately half of the parcel was designated commercial/residential (COR), and the other half commercial. The parcel is surrounded by commercial land use to the north, south, east and west, and a portion of the western boundary abuts existing developed low density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1482-97. There is no substantive difference between the County's land use designation for the Kornbluh property and the City's land use designation. The same types of uses are permitted in both, such as gas stations, restaurants, bars, professional offices, veterinary offices, and other retail and commercial uses. 1st Christian Church property This parcel consists of approximately 2.8 acres and has an existing church on the property. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential. The property abuts some commercial property, some vacant property that was low density residential in the County but which has been changed to neighborhood special district in the City, a mobile home park, and some vacant land designated a medium density residential. Because the land has an existing church on the property, the City determined that institutional was a more appropriate land use designation. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance giving the property a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1494-97. City Cemetery property (Parcel 7) This parcel consists of 2.06 acres. Part of the property is used as a cemetery and the other part is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial general. The City has given that part of the property that is used as a cemetery a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1501.97 and the vacant part a designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1502.97. The City Cemetery property is at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Monterey Road which is one of the most developed intersections in all of Martin County. The property is surrounded by commercial development and also a mobile home park. Luce property (Parcel 8) This parcel consists of approximately 4 acres. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506-97. There is no difference between the City's and County's land use designation. The City considered a commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Luce property based on the existing use of the property and the surrounding land uses. Specifically, half of the property is currently used as a produce market and the property abuts commercial land use to the north and to the west. To the east, it abuts the old City landfill which is currently closed and to the south it abuts the Martin County jail. Mush property (Parcel 9A) This parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1509-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Mush property because it is fully developed as a contractor's showcase office. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. The City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. The County's industrial designation allows both industrial types of uses and commercial uses, such as a gas stations, professional offices, retail buildings, etc. The City's land use designation of commercial does not allow industrial uses. Treasure Coast Auction House property (Parcel 9B) This parcel consists of approximately 5½ acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1512-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Treasure Coast Auction House property because it is fully developed as a Scotty's store. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. As explained above in the findings of fact regarding the Mush property (9-A), the City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. Hospice property (Parcel 10) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres. In the County, the land use designation was half low density residential and half commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1515-97. The Hospice property is developed as a hospice facility and the owners have plans to expand the facility. The property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane facility which will become a four-lane facility. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Bailey property (Parcel 11) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant. In the County, the land use designations was half low density residential and half commercial limited. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1519-97. The Bailey property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane road which will become a four-lane road. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Since it is a commercial corridor, the City considered the commercial designation on the property to be more appropriate than low density residential. Armellini property (Parcel 12) This parcel consists of approximately 1.2 acres. In the County, the land use designation was industrial and the City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1522-97. The Armellini property is on the corner of U.S. 1 and Indian Street and is in close proximity to other commercial development. The types of uses permitted by the City's commercial category is similar to the types of uses allowed by the County's industrial category, such as gas stations, office buildings, restaurants, and bars. The 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the Future Land Use Element Amendment. On December 7, 1997, the City adopted an amendment to the text of the Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") of the City's Plan. This amendment added a new land use designation to the City's Plan: "Neighborhood/Special District." The amendment also added goals, objectives, and policies concerning the new land use category. The newly created Neighborhood/Special District allows mixed land uses, including neighborhood commercial, office, residential, and recreational. Mixed residential and non- residential uses either in the same building or on the same site are required for a Neighborhood/Special District. A Neighborhood/Special District must have at least 30 percent residential uses and at least ten percent non-residential (excluding recreational) uses. Parking must be clustered in separate pockets rather than located in one expanse, and pedestrian interconnections must be used. On December 8, 1997, the City annexed seven parcels of property by voluntary annexation. On the same date the City adopted nine FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the annexed property consistent with the City's Plan. Each of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments applied consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The nine large scale amendments to the FLUM and the FLUE amendment adopted by the City in December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Large Scale Amendments and the "FLUE Amendment," respectively), were designated Amendment 97-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment. In a Statement of Intent issued February 9, 1998, the Department found the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance." The Department's determination was based upon its conclusion that the new land use category and existing non-residential land use categories applied in the 1997 Large Scale Amendments lacked a density/intensity standard. On February 17, 1998, the Department filed a Petition of the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-0794GM. Martin County was granted leave to intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM by Order Granting Intervention entered March 11, 1998. Martin County challenged the FLUE Amendment and the 1997 Large Scale Amendments. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They can not be reasonably implemented; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They fail to establish intensities of use; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; and They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Large Scale Amendments or the FLUE Amendment. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Hendry property (Parcel 3) This parcel consists of approximately 7½ acres. The property contains an existing fully developed office warehouse, and in the County the land use designation was commercial general. The parcel abuts commercial property to the north, south, and west, and to the east it abuts a mobile home park as well as a conservation easement within a walled, gated residential development. Because the existing use was a warehouse, the City determined that a more appropriate land use designation would be industrial and suggested this land use to the owner. The City adopted the industrial land use designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1488-97. With regard to the Hendry property, there is no difference between the County's land use designation of commercial and the City's land use designation of industrial. The existing office warehouse on the property is permitted both in the County's commercial designation. Millenium property (Parcel 4) This parcel consists of approximately 24½ acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1491-97. There is no difference between the County's commercial land use designation and the City's commercial land use designation. Wacha property (Parcel 6) This parcel consists of approximately 47 acres. In the County, the land use designation was part mobile home, part low density, part medium density, and part industrial. The owner of the property approached the City with the idea of building a mixed use village on the property. The City was supportive of this idea and worked with the Treasure Coast Regional Council to develop a new land use category, neighborhood special district, as well as refine the site plan to create the mixed use village concept. The neighborhood special district land use category was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 1498-97. Part of the property that was originally designated industrial in the County was designated commercial in the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 1497-97. The neighborhood special district land use category will allow the Wacha property to be developed as a traditional neighborhood development project. The proposed development will include a town square area with shops and restaurants on the ground floor, apartments on the second floor, and parking behind the buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. The development also includes a home office district where people can live and work in the same building. The development also proposes a single family residential neighborhood clustered around a common green with garages to the rear, and the building set with front porches on the street. The City and County's land use designation for the Wacha property differ significantly. The City's land use designation requires a mix of uses, with not less than 30% residential and not less than 10% commercial or non-residential development within a given property. The County's land use designations are exclusive, so that each specific property can only be used for mobile home park or light industrial or medium density residential or low density residential. The County would not permit a mixed use development on this property. The Wacha property is part of the City's Community Redevelopment Area. The City determined that the neighborhood special district land use designation would further the intent and purpose behind the Community Redevelopment Area which is to encourage redevelopment of blighted areas. Dubner North property (Parcel 13), Republic Industries property (Parcel 14), Dubner South property (Parcel 15) The Dubner North parcel consists of approximately 48 acres, the Republic Industries property consists of approximately 11½ acres, and the Dubner South property consists of approximately 56 acres. In the County, the land use designation for each of the properties was industrial. The City has given the Dubner North property a land use designation of part commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1525-97 and part industrial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1526-97, the Republic Industries property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1529-97, and the Dubner South property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1532-97. The Dubner North, Republic Industries, and the Dubner South properties are bound by the railroad tracks to the east. To the north, south, and west, the properties are surrounded by either County industrial or commercial future land uses or City commercial land uses. The Remedial Amendments. Subsequent to the opening of Case No. 98-0794GM, the Department and the City entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes. Martin County declined to enter into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City agreed to adopt remedial amendments which included text descriptions of various land use categories, including the Neighborhood/Special Districts category, and a table setting for residential densities and commercial intensities for land use categories created in the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted remedial amendments consistent with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Remedial Amendments"). The Remedial Amendments were adopted by Ordinance No. 1646-98. The Remedial Amendments, designated Amendment 98-R1 by the Department, were determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. Upon the adoption of the Remedial Amendments and the determination that the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance," the parties in Case No. 98-0794GM were realigned as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1, Florida Statutes, to reflect that Martin County was challenging the Department's conclusion that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments, were "in compliance." Martin County also filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the Department's determination that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance." That Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-5501GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the Remedial Amendments. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-5501GM. I. The 1998 Large Scale Amendments. Between April 13, 1998, and June 22, 1998, the City annexed 16 large parcels through voluntary annexation. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted 33 FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the newly annexed parcels consistent with the City's Plan. Eleven of the FLUM amendments were small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Small Scale Amendments). The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were not reviewed by the Department even though they were submitted to the Department with the other 22 FLUM amendments. The parcels to which the other 22 FLUM amendments related consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The 22 large scale amendments adopted on August 24, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Large Scale Amendments), were designated Amendment 98-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found them "in compliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends filed separate Petitions for Formal Hearing with the Department challenging the determination that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were "in compliance." The Petitions filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petitions were designated Case Nos. 98- 5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 1000 Friends alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because they were adopted without intergovernmental coordination. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Pulte Homes property (Parcel F3), Vista A property (Parcel F5), Gibson property (Parcel F6), and Debartolo property (Parcel F24) The Pulte Homes parcel consists of approximately 312 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of conservation, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549- 97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97. The Vista A parcel consists of approximately 9 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial/office/residential (COR) and high density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1546-97. The Vista B parcel consists of approximately 44 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and the City has given it a land use designation of low density residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1553- 97. The Gibson parcel consists of approximately 100 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density and commercial general. That part of the property that was designated commercial in the County was given a commercial land use designation in the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 1557-97. That part of the property that was designated low density residential in the County was given a combination of low density residential and conservation (Ordinance No. 1558-97), and multi-family residential (Ordinance No. 1559-97) pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549-97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97 in the City. The Debartolo parcel originally consisted of 205.90 acres. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed by the City to cure the defects found by the circuit court. The County's land use designation was a mixture of low, medium and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of part neighborhood special district pursuant to Ordinance No. 1618-97, part low density residential and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1620-97, and part multi-family and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1622-97. These five parcels (Pulte, Vista A, Vista B, Gibson, and Debartolo) contain a series of wetlands that form a slough that drains through Arant's swamp, or Haney Creek, and into the St. Lucie River. In terms of long- range planning, the City believed it best to implement a series of greenways and flow-ways to interconnect those wetlands and preserve areas to help clean up a non-point source pollution problem that was occurring in the St. Lucie River. Thus, recommending an appropriate land use designation for these properties, the City considered the pattern of wetlands in the area that form the slough and proposed a conservation land use designation for parts of some of the properties. In addition, the City received a grant from the Florida Communities Trust to purchase 84 acres of Arant's swamp or Haney Creek. This area is south of the five properties described above. The 84 acres form a flow- way for all of the water flow that comes from north to south and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. The City is proposing to construct a greenway which would connect the wetlands in the five properties described above so that water can flow unimpeded into Arant's swamp and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. Those connections would be accomplished at site planning and connected under roadways with staged culverts so animals can travel along the sides and water can flow through the middle. Comparing the City and County's land use designations for these five parcels, the land use designations adopted by the City are more appropriate than the County's land use designations and will result in a better use of the properties. For instance, by changing some of the land uses from low density residential in the County to conservation in the City, the environmentally sensitive areas will be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, by changing the County's high density residential use for the Pulte Homes property to neighborhood special district in the City, the development will require a mix of uses including some commercial which will be interconnected in a pedestrian fashion to the existing single family home development which lies to the east. This will lessen the need for additional vehicular trips and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Stewart property (Parcel F11), Madyda property (Parcel F12), First Eastern Residential property (Parcel F13), First Eastern property (Parcel F14), and SK Partner's I property (Parcel F15) The Stewart parcel (F11) consists of approximately 15 acres of land and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was a mix of low and medium density residential, and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designations of multi-family residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1576-97. The Madyda parcel (F12) consists of approximately 6½ acres. The County's land use designation was a mix of medium density residential and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1579-97. The First Eastern Residential parcel (F13) consists of 50 acres and is a fully developed low income housing project. The County's land use designation was medium density and low density residential. The City has given it a designation of multi-family pursuant to Ordinance No. 1582-97. The First Eastern parcel (F14) consists of 32.20 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designation was a mixture of Commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1585-97. The SK Partners I parcel (F15) consists of 18.94 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designations was commercial general. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1588-97. There is no difference between the City's and the County's land use designations. Sunbelt Partners/Stetson property (Parcel F17), Sunbelt Partners property (Parcel F18), SK Partners II property (Parcel F190) The Sunbelt/Stetson parcel (F17) consists of approximately 25½ acres, the Sunbelt Partners parcel (F18) consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and the SK Partners II parcel (F19) consists of approximately 38 acres. All three parcels are vacant. The City's original annexation of the Sunbelt Partners/Stetson parcels was invalidated by the circuit court. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed. The County's land use designation for the three parcels was primarily commercial, with a small amount of commercial/office/ residential. The City's gave all three parcels a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1615-97, 1612-97, and 1609-97. There is no real difference between the County's and the City's land use designations. Dubner East property (Parcel F22), Sellian property (Parcel F22), Dubner West property (Parcel F23) The Dubner East parcel consists of approximately 11.5 acres, the Sellian parcel (F22) consists of approximately 4 acres, and the Dubner West (F23) consists of approximately 10 acres. Dubner East is vacant, the Sellian property is developed as an office building and indoor assembly, and the Dubner West property is partially developed as an office building. The County's land use designation for each of the parcels was industrial. The City has given each a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1600-97, 1603-97, and 1606-97. The three properties abut County industrial land uses, although for the most part, the properties are developed as commercial uses. The properties also abut City commercial land uses. The City's land use designation is more restrictive than the County's because the County industrial allows both industrial and commercial uses while the City's commercial designation allows only commercial uses. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report Amendments. Consistent with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the City conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, including suggested amendments to the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Small Scale Amendments, the City adopted amendments to all elements of the City's Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "EAR Amendments") based upon the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The EAR Amendments include density and intensity standards adopted as part of the Remedial Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise the schedule for capital improvements and establish new concurrency requirements as part of the Capital Improvements Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments set out the steps the City will take to coordinate the City's Plan and its implementation with other agencies and entities as part of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise LOS standards for transportation in the Transportation Element of the City's Plan The EAR Amendments were reviewed by the Department simultaneously with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found to be "in compliance." The EAR Amendments were designated Amendment 98-ER1 by the Department. The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were also submitted to the Department with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the EAR Amendments but were ultimately withdrawn by the City at the request of the Department. Martin County and 1000 Friends also challenged the EAR Amendments in their Petitions challenging the 1998 Large Scale Amendments filed in Case Nos. 98-5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the EAR Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Martin County did not allege which specific elements of the City's Plan amended by the EAR Amendments were being challenged in its Petition. It merely alleged that "Stuart's comprehensive plan amendments" are not in compliance. In the Joint Proposed Order filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends, specific portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Policies A1.13 through A1.23, Policy A2.4, Policy A7.3, Objective 8, and Policies A8.1 through A8.11), the FLUE (Policies B1.2 through B1.4), and the Capital Improvements Element (the selection of LOS E) are cited. The specific objective and policies cited in the Joint Order are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Additionally, the Future Annexation Map adopted as part of the EAR Amendments by the City is cited in the Joint Proposed Order. The Future Annexation Map includes 8,000 additional acres which are projected to be annexed into the City by the year 2015. 1000 Friends' challenge to the EAR Amendments is limited to a challenge to the City's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Data and Analysis. At the time that all of the amendments at issue in this proceeding were adopted there was more than adequate data and analysis to support all of the amendments. The data and analysis relied upon by the City in adopting the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments was professionally acceptable. The testimony of Martin County's expert planner concerning data and analysis was not persuasive. That testimony was not based upon a complete review of the data and analysis relied upon by the City and the Department. The evidence presented by Martin County concerning data and analysis focused largely on the fact that the property to which the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments related had been annexed before the accumulation of all the data and analysis relied upon in support of the amendments. That evidence was irrelevant because the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder do not govern annexations; they govern plan amendments and require that the data and analysis be available at the time a plan amendment is adopted and not at the time of annexation. Data and analysis were required for the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, not to support the need for the annexed property, but to support the City's choice of land use classifications assigned to the annexed property. There were ample data and analysis to support the City's choices. Once the properties at issue in this proceeding were annexed consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, the City began the process of considering the amendments to the City's Plan necessary to accommodate the annexations and bring them under the City's Plan. While the evidence did prove that the City now has approximately 33 years of commercial property to meet the needs of the City during the 20 years of the City's Plan, there is no requirement in the Act or the implementing rules that a need for annexed property be present before annexation occurs. The commercial property located in the City as a result of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments is not significantly different from the amount of commercial property which existed prior to the amendments. Most of the annexed property was designated commercial or industrial by the County Plan. Industrial uses under the County Plan include many of the same uses of commercial property under the City Plan. Under these circumstances, the City made the most reasonable planning decision by classifying the annexed property consistent with surrounding land uses and Martin County's prior land use designation of land use for the property. The City completed a needs analysis as part of its review and revision of the City's Plan through the EAR Amendments. That analysis was based upon data available at the time of the EAR Amendments. The data was also available at the time the 1997 Small Scale Amendments, the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, and the Remedial Amendments were adopted. The City's needs analysis included an allocation of land uses to the land use categories designated in the City's Plan. Although the allocation of land resulted in an allocation of more commercial land than may be required during the life of the City's Plan, the evidence failed to prove that such a surplus results in any under allocation of land to other classifications. Approximately 150 acres of the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 were re-designated commercial by the City. Eighteen of those acres have already been developed, leaving an additional 132 acres of commercial land in the City. The evidence failed to prove that this increase of acreage is significant. Evidence presented by Martin County as to the increase in commercial property was not persuasive. In actuality, the increase in property designated commercial as a result of City's annexations amounts to approximately 48 acres. There were a total of 35 parcels designated commercial by the City, including the 1998 Small Scale Amendments. Most of those parcels were already developed in whole or in part with commercial, commercial-like, or industrial land uses. The uses of property classified industrial are also substantially similar to the uses allowed for commercial to result in little discernable effect on the supply of commercial property in the City. The only vacant parcels assigned a land use designation of commercial by the City that were not classified commercial or industrial by Martin County were referred to at hearing as parcels 1, 11 F4, F7, F12, and F14. Parcel 1 consisted of 1.4 acres. Approximately half of parcel 1 was designated commercial and the other half was designated commercial/office/residential. At most, this amounts to an increase of .7 acres of commercial. Parcel 11 consists of ten acres, parcel F4 consists of nine acres, parcel F7 consists of 5.06 acres, parcel F12 consists of 6.67 acres, and parcel F14 consists of 32.20 acres. Half of parcel F14 was classified as commercial by Martin County. The evidence also proved that the possible intensity of use for the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, when compared with the possible intensity of use under the County Plan is less under the City's land use classifications. Martin County's expert testimony concerning increases in intensity was not credible. That testimony was based upon small scale parcels 5, 10, and 11, and large scale parcels 6, F6, and F24. Parcel 5 is already developed as 1st Christian. Parcel 10 is partially developed and the testimony concerning Martin County's land use designation for the property was incorrect. For parcel 6, the Wacha property, the testimony by the Martin County expert concerning Martin County's land use designation for part of the property was incorrect. The portion of the property designated commercial by the City was classified as industrial by Martin County. For parcel F6, the Gibson property, only a fourth of the property was designated multi-family. The rest of the property was given a land use designation that is the same or less intense then that allowed by the County. For parcel F24, the Debartolo property, Martin County's land use designation was a combination of low, medium, and high density residential and not just low density residential as testified by Martin County's expert witness. Most of the property was low density residential under the County's Plan and remained low density residential under the City's Plan. The calculations concerning the increase in intensity of use made by Martin County's expert witness were flawed and not credible, as explained in findings of fact 123 through 125. Martin County's assertion that the Remedial Amendments are not supported by data and analysis because of the increase in intensity of commercial property is rejected. In addition to the question of data and analysis to support the land use classifications assigned to the annexed property by the City, Martin County has suggested that there is insufficient data and analysis concerning how public facilities will be provided to the annexed property. The evidence failed to support this assertion. At the time of the 1997 and 1998 Small and Large Scale Amendments the City did not perform a concurrency analysis. Concurrency analyses are required at the time of site plan review or other application for another development permit. Therefore, neither the Act nor the City's Plan required a concurrency analysis. A transportation analysis involves transportation planning for an extended period of time and not planning for individual parcels. Capital facilities and available capacity for a five-year period are looked at in a transportation analysis. Concurrency analyses, on the other hand, are performed on individual parcels of property at the time of proposed development of those parcels. Neither a transportation analysis nor a concurrency analysis is required when a local government designates a general land use classification for a parcel of property. Martin County has asserted that the City's decision to adopt a LOS E and to "maintain" the actual existing LOS for two segments of U.S. 1 and State Roads 707 and 714, both of which are projected to have LOS F within the next five years in light of the moratorium it has imposed on development along U.S. 1 supports its argument that the FLUM amendments are not supported by data and analysis. They assert that evidence presented by the City's expert transportation engineer cannot be considered data and analysis because it was prepared after the FLUM amendments. This assertion is rejected. While the analysis may not have been available, the data was. More importantly, the testimony of the City's expert engineer may be relied upon to refute Martin County's assertion that there existed a transportation concurrency problem at the time the FLUM amendments were adopted. Martin County based its conclusion on an outdated Florida Department of Transportation table adopted as part of the County's Plan. That table lacked a footnote that cautioned against anything other than very general reliance on the table. Martin County's assertions concerning transportation concurrency were also refuted by the more accurate analysis performed by the City's expert engineer. Based upon his analysis, which was unrefuted by credible evidence, there is in fact no LOS deficiency not addressed by the City's Plan. The difference between the LOS adopted by the City and Martin County's LOS is not significant. The reports of the City's expert transportation engineer were sufficient data and analysis to support the EAR Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Transportation Elements. The LOS selected by the City, LOS E, is the most efficient use of the City's arterial roadways under current conditions. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis to support Policy A1.1 of the FLUE. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis concerning the effectiveness of existing intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Intergovernmental Coordination. In May 1997, the City notified Martin County that it was considering a series of voluntary annexation requests it had received. The City and Martin County have entered into formal and informal agreements dealing with the provision of a number of services, including water and sewer, emergency rescue, solid waste, and law enforcement. Impact fees are dealt with by interlocal agreement pursuant to which the City collects impact fees for library services, regional parks, and county roads on behalf of the Martin County. Following the City's notification to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests it had received, City staff and the Director of Public Works for Martin County met to discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the annexed areas. An agreement was reached between the City and Martin County as to which entity would be responsible for water and sewer services to each parcel to be annexed. Discussions between City and Martin County staff concerning responsibility for maintenance of roads were also held, including discussions at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee was established to provide for intergovernmental coordination in Martin County. Issues concerning road maintenance were resolved. Beginning essentially at the time of the notice to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests the City had received, Martin County attempted to prevent the annexations. Although Martin County cooperated to resolve some of the problems that resulted from the annexations, Martin County prepared an emergency agenda item directing staff to evaluate the annexations and seek ways of preventing the annexations. Martin County staff reports concerning the proposed annexations indicated few problems that would result from the annexations. The reports were submitted to the City by Martin County. Martin County indicated, however, that it would be conducting further analysis on potential traffic impacts. Martin subsequently reported to the City that it had further concerns and would be attending a City scheduled workshop to be held in July 1997. No one from Martin County attended the workshop held in July or the workshop held by the City in September 1997. City staff reviewed all of Martin County's comments, notified the City Commission of the comments, and took the comments into consideration in making recommendations concerning the annexations and amendments to the City's Plan to the City. On September 16, 1997, the City notified Martin County of further requests for voluntary annexation. City staff thereafter attempted to schedule meetings with Martin County staff to discuss these annexations. Additional discussions were held with Martin County concerning utilities. These discussions resulted in agreements concerning the provision of utilities to the annexed parcels. Discussions concerning stormwater were also held between the City and Martin County. Transportation issues were discussed at Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Martin County wrote letters to the City and made oral comments concerning the FLUM Amendments. Martin County raised concerns over urban sprawl, concurrency, and intergovernmental coordination. Martin County also filed challenges to the City's annexations resulting in a number of civil actions between the City and Martin County. As a result of these actions and Martin County's attempts to prevent the annexations, relations between City and Martin County staff became strained. It became increasingly difficult for staff to work together to resolve common issues. In November 1997 Martin County sent a letter to the City expressing concerns over the late 1997 annexations involving urban sprawl and transportation concurrency. These comments were considered by the City. Martin County staff attended an August 1998 meeting at which the City adopted the FLUM Amendments relating to the late 1997 annexations. These comments were considered by the City. While the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the FLUM amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the diametrically opposing positions of the two governments concerning the annexations which gave rise to the amendments at issue in these cases, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County could have resolved the issues between the City and Martin County. Prior to adopting the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the City's planning consultant reviewed the FLUM amendments that had already been adopted, the EAR Amendments, and the additional FLUM amendments the City was considering. The consult obtained data from Martin County concerning population and traffic. Efforts to obtain information from Martin County, however, were by this time difficult. The City even had to result to a public records request from Martin County to obtain some information. Again, while the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the state of deterioration of the relationship between the City and Martin County by the time these amendments were considered and adopted by the City, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County would have resulted in any improvement in the EAR Amendments or the 1998 Large Scale Amendments. In addition to the fact that the intergovernmental coordination between the City and Martin County under the circumstances of this matter was adequate, any lack of coordination did not result in any substantial issues concerning the amendments to the City's Plan not being resolved. The evidence in these cases has not supported Martin County's or 1000 Friends' alleged deficiencies with the amendments. Evidence concerning intergovernmental coordination or the lack thereof before and during annexation of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments in these case relate was irrelevant. Nothing in the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder requires intergovernmental coordination on annexations. The City adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element as part of the EAR Amendments. The Element includes policies which relate to procedures for dealing with coordination concerning the development of the annexed areas. Those policies are quoted in the City's Proposed Order at finding of fact 149 and are incorporated herein by reference. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element adopted by the City does not meet the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. It does, however, meet the requirements of Sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (10)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.015, Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, must be met by local governments no later than December 31, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, the Department adopted Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, providing, in part, that the City submit an intergovernmental coordination element in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, no later than June 1, 1997, and that the element be adopted no later than December 31, 1997. In a publication of the Department called the Summer 1998 Community Planning publication, the Department informed the City to ignore Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, and submit its intergovernmental coordination element no later than December 31, 1999. The City complied with this direction from the Department. The Department did not repeal Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code. Although Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to comply with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, earlier than December 31, 1999, the City has not opted to do so. Internal Inconsistency. Goal A of the FLUE provides that the City will "[m]aintain and enhance its small town waterfront character." Although the City has increased its size by 48 percent, it has not increased its "waterfront." None of the amendments to the FLUM at issue in these cases involve property located on the City's waterfront. The evidence also failed to prove that a 48 percent increase in the size of the City in and of itself is contrary to the City's small town character. Finally, the impact on the City's character is a result, not of the designation of land use categories for the annexed property, but from the annexation itself. Although annexation is the catalyst for the amendments being challenged in this proceeding, the fact of the annexation cannot be the issue. Policy A.3.2 of the FLUE provides that the City should "direct development to areas already served by adequate government utilities, services and schools . . . ." While some of the roads serving many of the annexed parcels were determined to be over-utilized, that over-utilization was based upon Martin County's LOS. Based upon the City's newly established LOS E, there are adequate road services for the annexed properties. The delivery of other utilities, services, and schools to the annexed properties has been coordinated between the City and Martin County or those services are already being provided. Objective B.3 of the FLUE provides that the City will discourage urban sprawl and continuous linear development along major roadways in order to achieve a compact urban form. While the annexed parcels are located along U.S. 1, their designated land uses pursuant to the amendments at issue are essentially consistent with their present uses or designated land uses. Little change in the form of development of the annexed parcels will occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the FLUM amendments do not increase linear development. Rather, they recognize it. As discussed, infra, the annexed properties do not constitute urban sprawl. As amended by the EAR Amendments, Objective B.1 of the FLUE provides that the City will "[d]iscourage urban sprawl by planning for urban infill and redevelopment of lands located within Stuart." The FLUM amendments constitute urban infill and are consistent with Objective B.1 as amended by the EAR Amendments. Objective B.3 of the FLUE requires a commitment of the City to the promotion of patterns of land use that are compatible and convenient to residents, businesses, and visitors, and the avoidance of the wasteful use of land. The evidence failed to prove that the FLUM amendments are inconsistent with this objective. Again, there is little difference in the uses of the property which is the subject of the FLUM amendments before and after their annexation. Policy A.8 of the Infrastructure Element of the City's Plan requires that the City will maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl through its annexation policy. Policy A.3.3, Objectives A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.9, and Policy A8.1 also provide similar guidance to the City. As discussed, infra, the FLUM amendments do not fail to discourage urban sprawl. The FLUM amendments also are not inconsistent with these provisions to the extent that they require the City to maximize the use of existing services. Policy A1.1 of the Housing Element of the City's Plan provides that the City must designate adequate residential land to accommodate projected need for housing. The most up to date analysis of existing population data suggests that there is adequate housing to meet the City's need for housing through the year 2015. The evidence failed to prove that anything about the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with this policy. The evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan. The consistency of the foregoing goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan were the only ones specifically addressed in the Joint Proposed Order. The City also addressed the consistency of a number of other goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan. Those findings of fact (182-190, 193-195, 197, and 200-204) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Urban Sprawl. The areas annexed by the City, while including some vacant land, are not located in a rural or predominately rural area. Instead, the annexed parcels are all located in an area designated in the County's Plan as the "Primary Urban Service Area." An independent evaluation of the properties confirms their urban location. The indicators of urban sprawl listed in Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to the annexed parcels when considered "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality." The testimony of Martin County's witnesses concerning the "linear pattern" of development evidenced by the annexed parcels failed to take into account the character of surrounding and abutting, unincorporated properties and the location of all the parcels within the "Primary Urban Service Area" established in the County's Plan. Testimony offered by Martin County concerning urban sprawl was also not credible because Martin County's expert witness did not complete the land use analysis of Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), Florida Administrative Code, because she failed to evaluate local conditions and development controls. Natural Resources. The evidence did not prove that any of the amendments at issue in these case fail to adequately protect natural resources. Availability of Infrastructure. As explained, supra, the City and Martin County coordinated the continued provision of most public utilities and services to the annexed parcels. Continued water, sewer, emergency rescue, law enforcement, and solid waste disposal services for the annexed parcels were all coordinated between the City and Martin County. Water and sewer services and recreational facility needs were analyzed by the City and found to be adequate. The evidence failed to prove that any necessary infrastructure is not available or will not be provided by the City. The Future Annexation Map. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report included a Map of Future Annexation. The Map of Future Annexation identified a small area south of the City for future annexation over the next ten years. The areas actually annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 involve a more extensive area than that identified on the Map of Future Annexation. The areas identified on the Map of Future Annexation were areas which the City believed it would likely desire to annex and did not take into account voluntary annexation. The Map of Future Annexation was not intended to exclude such voluntary annexations. The EAR Amendments also include a Future Annexation Area Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA Map"). The FAA Map identifies approximately 8,000 additional acres of land which the City may consider annexing through the year 2015. The FAA Map is not, however, intended to represent an area which the City intends to pursue for annexation. It simply identifies the maximum area within which the City intends to consider annexation. It is, in effect, intended as a limitation on annexations that the City would pursue. The evidence failed to prove that the FAA Map is not a reasonable boundary for the possible expansion of the City through the year 2015 by annexation. The State and Regional Plans. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast was not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., as a party. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Paul R. Bradshaw, P.A. 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333 Gary K. Oldehoff, Esquire Martin County Attorney 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Terrell Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Yeline Goin, Esquire 902-A North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Carl Coffin, Esquire City of Stuart 121 South West Flagler Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tim B. Wright, Esquire Louis E. Lozeau, Jr., Esquire Warner, Fox, Seeley, Dungey and Sweet, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 6 Stuart, Florida 34995 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioner, William B. Hunt, owns property and resides within the County. Petitioner also submitted written comments to the County during the public hearing held on April 7, 1994, concerning the adoption of an amendment to the County's comprehensive plan. Therefore, he is an affected person within the meaning of the law and has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute In July 1991, the County initially transmitted its proposed comprehensive land use plan to the DCA. The DCA issued an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report for the County's plan on October 18, 1991. The County issued a response to the DCA's ORC report and adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. In April 1992, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the comprehensive plan not in compliance. In an attempt to bring the County's plan into compliance, the DCA and County entered into a settlement agreement in March 1993. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was supposed to adopt certain remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan. In August 1993, the County adopted remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan. In October 1993, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the remedial amendments not in compliance. In another attempt to bring the County's plan into compliance, the DCA and County entered into another settlement agreement in February 1994, and into an addendum thereto in April 1994. Pursuant to this agreement, the County adopted the agreed-upon remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 94-12 on April 7, 1994. On May 30, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find the County's comprehensive plan and remedial amendments in compliance. On June 18, 1994, petitioner filed a petition to intervene with the Division of Administrative Hearings seeking to challenge the newly amended plan. After being advised that the petition was filed in the wrong forum, and that he incorrectly sought to intervene rather than to initiate a new proceeding, on December 13, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for an administrative hearing with the DCA. In his lengthy petition, which contains allegations running some fifty-four pages in length, petitioner has challenged the County's plan, as amended, in numerous respects. In his proposed order, however, petitioner has summarized his complaints into the following categories: (a) "many" of the plan objectives are not "specific or measurable," (b) "many" policies in the plan are not "adequate," (c) "many" of the required objectives and policies are not found within a particular element, (d) "many" policies in the plan defer implementation to the land development regulations, or to other kinds of regulations, that are to be adopted after the plan is adopted, (e) "publications" adopted by reference in the plan "have not been adequately cited," (f) "the plan does not control growth," and it "designates an over- allocation of land that can be developed at non-rural densities and intensities," (g) the plan violates the concurrency provision on State Road 200, and (h) the plan fails to include an analysis of projected mass transit level of service and system needs. Is the Plan, as Amended, in Compliance? Generally In attempting to prove the allegations in his petition, petitioner offered only the testimony of a DCA land use planning manager and the County's acting planning director, both of whom concluded that the plan, as amended, was in compliance. Because both witnesses generally refuted all allegations raised in the petition, and they disagreed with the theories advanced by petitioner through his direct examination, the record in this case clearly supports a finding that the plan, as amended, is in compliance. Notwithstanding this state of the record, the undersigned will address in general terms the broad issues raised in the petition, namely, the adequacy of the plan's supporting data and analysis, the adequacy of the goals, objectives and policies, the plan's internal consistency, and the plan's consistency with the state comprehensive plan. In addition, the undersigned will address the more specific objections raised by petitioner in his proposed recommended order. Adequate data and analyses Petitioner has alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because ten elements were not supported by adequate data and analyses, as required by Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. However, petitioner either abandoned these allegations or failed to prove them to the exclusion of fair debate. Goals, objectives and policies Petitioner further alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because a number of the goals, objectives and policies (GOPs) contained in the various elements were inadequate in that they did not meet some of the requirements for GOPs in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. However, petitioner either abandoned these allegations or failed to prove them to the exclusion of fair debate. Internal consistency of plan Petitioner next alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because the internal consistency requirements in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, had not been met. Based on the findings of fact above, however, it is clear that the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County's plan contained GOPs that were in conflict with each other, thereby rendering the plan internally inconsistent. Consistency with state comprehensive plan Petitioner has also alleged that the County's plan, as amended, is not in compliance because it is not compatible with, and does not further, a number of goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan, which are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the County's plan, as amended, is not compatible with, and does not further, the State Comprehensive Plan. Other objections Petitioner has alleged in his proposed recommended order that some of the objectives and policies used by the County do not conform to the definition of those terms in Rule 9J-5.003, Florida Administrative Code. However, the evidence established that those definitions are not mandatory, they merely provide clarification for the local government, and the local government is free to use other definitions in its plan so long as they generally conform with the codified definition. Since the challenged objectives and policies generally conform with the above rule, and they provide the means for their achievement, they are found to be in compliance. Petitioner also alleges that some elements in the plan lack certain policies and objectives required by chapter 9J-5 and thus are deficient. The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that each of the challenged elements was adequate in terms of containing the necessary policies and objectives, and thus the requirements of chapter 9J-5 have been satisfied. Petitioner next alleges that many of the policies in the plan defer implementation to the land development regulations (LDRs) or other regulations that will not be adopted until after this plan becomes effective. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, however, some of the policies do not defer to the LDRs. In cases where they do, the LDRs must still be adopted in accordance with strict time limitations established by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and thus the necessary guidance in the plan is not lacking. Petitioner further contends that "publications" adopted by reference in the plan "have not been adequately cited." He specifically refers to policy 1.5 of the Traffic Circulation Element which adopts by reference, and without specific citation to a page number, a manual entitled Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation. Through testimony of witness Manning, however, it was established that it is impractical and unnecessary for the local government to cite specific page numbers of the manual in the plan itself. Indeed, reference to the title of the manual is sufficient. Therefore, those provisions of the plan which incorporate by reference other publications without detailed citations are found to be in compliance. Petitioner has also complained that the plan does not control growth, and it over allocates land to non-rural purposes. In this regard, the County's future allocation of land use was made through the use of a multiplier, which is a planning technique for assessing future land use needs. This technique, and the accompanying calculations, were not shown to be unreasonable or to produce inappropriate results. It was further established that, in making its projections, the County exceeded the requirements of chapter 163. Indeed, in the words of a DCA planner, the County made one of the "most honest assessments of development of any plan in the state." Petitioner next asserts that policy 2.1 of the Traffic Circulation Element allows a 20 percent degradation to the existing level of service for two segments on State Road 200, and thus it "violates the concurrency provision of the act and Rule 9J-5." While the level of service for roads must be consistent with Department of Transportation standards to the maximum extent possible, if it cannot meet them, the local government may show justification for deviation from those standards. In this case, the County presented justification for deviating from those standards by 20 percent on State Road 200 as authorized by Rules 9J-5.0055(1)(d) and 9J-5.007(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the questioned policy is deemed to be in compliance. Finally, petitioner alleges that the plan fails to include an analysis of projected mass transit level of service and system needs. Admittedly, such an analysis is not found in the plan. However, this is because the County does not operate a public mass transit system. In circumstances such as these, the County is required by chapter 163 to have a mass transit element in its plan, but it is not required to adopt an objective on this subject. Therefore, the absence of such an analysis does not render the plan not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Marion County's comprehensive plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 94-12, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-7071GM Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4a.-4c. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 4d. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 4e. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 4f. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 4g. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 7-9. Covered in conclusions of law. Respondents: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Hunt 3531 S. E. 30th Terrace Ocala, Florida 34471 Gordon B. Johnston, Esquire 601 S. E. 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Sumter County comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 adopted on September 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94-6 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth and James E. Boyd, own property and reside within the northern part of unincorporated Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group while Boyd serves as its treasurer. By stipulation of the parties, petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (Villages), is a Florida corporation and the owner and developer of the Tri-County Villages development of regional impact, which is the subject property of this proceeding. Villages submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. Tri-County Villages To place this dispute in proper perspective, it is necessary to trace the history of the development which has occurred in and around the subject property. As noted earlier, intervenor is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. The Challenged Amendment On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. The Tri-County Villages DRI and ADA and plan amendment are related in that Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes, requires that the local government's review of the DRI and corresponding comprehensive plan amendment be initiated and concluded at the same time. In the instant case, the Tri-County Villages ADA served as much of the background data and analysis for the plan amendment. The Tri-County Villages DRI also served as the sector plan for the area covered by the amendment. In addition to the voluminous data and analysis included in the Tri- County Villages ADA, the plan amendment also included detailed data and analysis. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related issues, an analysis of environmental considerations, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis collectively demonstrated that the urban development proposed by the amendment was appropriate for the designated area. C. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? In their proposed recommended order, petitioners summarize their objections to the plan amendment as follows: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands, (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl, (c) the future land use map is internally inconsistent, (d) there is no demonstrated need for 1,960 acres of PUD land use, (e) PUD is not a valid land use category, (f) the amendment does not ensure adequate fire and emergency medical services, (g) the County failed to coordinate with the local school board, (h) there is no reasonable protection from flooding, (i) the amendment does not provide adequate parks and recreational facilities, (j) affordable housing needs are not met, and there is no requirement that the developer install water and sewer facilities at its own expense. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 1,960 acres of agricultural land will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by FLUE objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insures retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas," the cited rule considers this failure to be a prime indicator that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, FLUE objective 1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The plans, FLUE data and analysis demonstrate that one of the best areas for urban development in the County is the northeast portion of the County which covers the agricultural lands in the plan amendment. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the urban infrastructure currently in place. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD and Tri- County Villages amended development order sector plan will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. In view of the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land. Urban sprawl In the same vein, petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because of the conversion of 1,960 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, and which have allegedly been violated. They also point to the fact that large portions of the existing development have not been sold or built out, only 2 percent of the 1,960 acres will be devoted to commercial land use, the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural area, it must score approximately 50 points based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD failed to score 50 points, it was deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. The plan amendment scored 130 points, well in excess of the 50 point threshold. In addition to satisfying FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with FLUM maps VII-18A and VII-18C, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the FLUE data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18A demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations for urban development. Similarly, Map VII-18C indicates that the land has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. In fact, portions of land covered by the plan amendment are already within an established urban expansion area which is the OBGW DRI. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category and sector plan concept adopted by the plan amendment are planning methods specifically recognized and encouraged by prior DCA policy as reflected in the DCA's Technical Memo Special Edition 4-4 and the urban sprawl provisions incorporated into Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 18, 1994, as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that mixed use development and sector planning . . . will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Given the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. The consistency of the future land Petitioners next argue in general terms that the FLUM does not "reflect policies which call for maintaining agricultural lands, discouraging urban sprawl, promoting land use compatibility, protection from flooding, providing for adequate public recreation facilities, and other objectives," and thus it is internally inconsistent. The FLUM series in the plan as well as the FLUM series as amended by the plan amendment is a pictorial representation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUM is internally inconsistent as alleged in their petition. Demonstrated need Petitioners next allege that the plan amendment "is premature in time and fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege that the FLUM "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. In addition, the DCA may not choose one methodology over another. At hearing, petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended that other factors such as mortality rates and resale figures should have been used in calculating the multiplier. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments report. That report recommended that the County provide an analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population during the planning time frame (the year 2014) established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan. Based on historic data, the County calculated a multiplier which depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately 87 percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In actuality, a 1.87 multiplier is not really the most accurate depiction of the allocation of residential land county-wide because the population for OBGW and the other PUD in the County was not included in the calculation. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, the County added to the equation the projected population for OBGW and the PUD. The resulting revised multiplier equalled 1.46. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 1.88. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Moreover, petitioners' methodology was unacceptable because it did not project its population over the correct planning horizon. Petitioners failed to consider the 2014 planning horizon established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan which controls the development of land covered by the plan amendment. Instead, petitioners multiplier incorrectly used the 2001 planning horizon established by the plan. In addressing the need for additional residential allocation, the amount of residential land allocated must be a reflection of the population expected through the end of the Tri-County Villages sector plan 2014 planning horizon. The type of development contemplated by the plan amendment and the additional population has not previously occurred in the County. Since development of OBGW commenced in 1992, the building permits issued in the County have increased by 94 percent. Much of this increase can be attributed to OBGW. The number of yearly certificates of occupancy for OBGW has stayed relatively constant and is expected to remain constant throughout the planning horizon. Intervenor's marketing scheme for OBGW seeks to attract retirees predominately from the northeastern part of the United States. The residents are not generally County residents prior to moving to Tri-County Villages. This same marketing scheme will be used for the future development of the Tri-County Villages. Thus, the future Tri-County Villages residents are not expected to be from the County. Tri-County Villages is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Because this new population is a reality which was not comtemplated by the plan, and the plan does not have an excess of allocated residential land, the need for the increased residential densities has been demonstrated. Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was premature or not based on a demonstrated need. PUD as a land use category Because a planned unit development (PUD) is not "recognized" as a land use category in Rule 9J-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, petitioners contend that the use of that category in the plan amendment renders it not in compliance. For purposes of its compliance review, the DCA used the version of chapter 9J-5 which was in effect at the time of the submittal of the plan amendment. Then existing Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on March 23, 1994, established the generalized land uses which must be shown on the Existing Land Use Map (ELUM). Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that these same generalized land uses must be depicted on the FLUM as well. While it is true that PUD is not one of the generalized land uses listed in chapter 9J-5, the two rules cited above both allow a local government to depict other land use categories on the ELUM and FLUM. Because the plan references PUD as a mixed land use category, the County has properly depicted that category on both the ELUM and FLUM. Petitioners have failed to show that PUD as a mixed land use category is not recognized under the rules in existence when the plan amendment was reviewed. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged that the County has "not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses." They point to the fact that the area adjacent to and near the development is a "friendly rural community," and they allege that the development will harm this wholesome atmosphere. The plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and DRI Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Tri-County Villages development will provide approximately 1,100 acres of open space. Much of this open space will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. Another mechanism which ensures compatibility is the phased method of development proposed for the project. Under the phasing approach, only contiguous portions of the property will be developed at any given time during the planning period. In addition, existing agricultural uses on the property will continue until such time as the proposed development reaches that property. Given these considerations, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent land uses. Levels of service In their amended petition, petitioners assert that the plan amendment is in violation of FLUE objective 7.1.6 and FLUE policy 7.1.6.1, objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J- 5.011(2)2., 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., and 9J-5.016(3)(a) and (b)4., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, all pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services and flooding. Policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element adopts a recreational facility level of service for such facilities as softball fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, boat ramps and the like. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure that the availability of these facilities is addressed during the concurrency review process and not at the compliance review stage. In other words, when a proposed development reaches the stage of requesting a building permit, the County may require as a condition of the issuance of that building permit that a developer provide a certain facility. In this regard, it is noted that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that any development comply with concurrency requirements while the Tri-County DRI Amended Development Order requires that the developer provide for adequate public facilities. Both the plan amendment and the development authorized therein generally address the recreational level of service. However, if no additional facilities are constructed in the future, the plan amendment does not provide adequate baseball fields, softball fields, boat ramps or handball courts consistent with policy 1.1.1. In addressing these potential deficiencies, intervenor represented to the County that as a retirement community, the development would not generate a demand for these types of facilities. That is to say, the retiree population inhabiting the development would be less likely to participate in activities such as baseball or softball. The population would, however, generate a need for other recreational facilities such as golf courses, swimming pools, shuffleboard courts and bocci ball facilities, all of which the development has a surplus. In response to this concern, the County concluded that it was not appropriate to require the construction of certain facilities when the project would not generate a need for them. The County indicated that, during the plan evaluation and appraisal stage required in 1998, an amendment to the plan would be transmitted which would revise the plan to take into account such situations. If such an amendment is not adopted, intervenor will need to provide additional facilities necessary to meet concurrency requirements. There is no established level of service in the plan for fire protection or emergency medical services. Intervenor has, however, addressed these services in the Amended Development Order for the development. As reflected in that order, intervenor donated a five-acre parcel and constructed a fire station adjacent to the development. The station may also be used to house emergency medical services, if needed, although an existing emergency medical service provider is located in close proximity. Intervenor also donated to the County $80,000 for the purchase of fire fighting equipment, and each household pays the County a $30 annual fee for fire protection. Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services have been addressed. The plan establishes no level of service standard for schools. Because the development is a retirement community, children under age 19 are prohibited. As a consequence, it was determined that impacts to school facilities would be minimal. Intervenor contacted and advised the school board of its retirement community development plans and projected student impacts. In response, the school board concluded that minimal impact was expected as a result of the development. To the extent that the development in the future allows school age children to reside therein, the Amended Development Order specifically calls for a substantial deviation determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, to evaluate the potential impacts to school facilities. As a result of further review, intervenor may be required to provide additional school facilities. The plan establishes a level of service for stormwater drainage in terms of quantity and quality. Based on flooding which has occurred in the existing OBGW development, petitioners suggest that flooding will occur in the development proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. While such flooding has occurred in the OBGW development, there is no evidence that the flooding was caused by a reduction or violation of the stormwater drainage level of service. Indeed, the evidence shows that the flooding was caused by an unusually heavy period of rainfall in combination with debris clogging the inlets of the stormwater system. The actual stormwater system for OBGW, which was reviewed and approved in the OBGW DRI review process, was designed for and required to meet the plan's drainage level of service. As a concurrency matter, any system designed for the future development contemplated in the plan amendment will also be required to meet the stormwater drainage level of service. Accordingly, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment violates the plan's level of services standard for stormwater drainage. Affordable housing Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment "fails to provide for affordable housing as required by Objective 3.5 of the Housing Element of the (plan)" in violation of various rules and the state comprehensive plan. The rule alleged to have been violated requires a local government to analyze the affordable housing stock within the local government. The local government must then adopt comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies which establish programs to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the present and future residents. Housing Element objective 3.5 and the implementing policies which follow provide one of the mechanisms, coordination with the private sector, which the County uses to address the provision of affordable housing countywide. The provisions of objective 3.5 and the implementing policies place no specific requirements on the private sector. These plan provisions only require that, in addressing the provision of affordable housing, the County work with the private sector. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, neither the plan provisions nor chapter 9J-5 require the plan amendment to address the affordable housing deficiencies countywide. As a DRI requirement, however, the plan amendment does address the provision of affordable housing. A detailed housing analysis was provided in the Tri-County Villages ADA. The analysis included a review of the affordable housing stock pursuant to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's housing demand, supply and need methodology. The analysis further concluded that after phase 3, additional affordable housing may be necessary. To address this deficiency, the ADA for the development requires intervenor to reanalyze the available affordable housing consistent with objective 3.5 of the Housing Element. Thus, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to provide affordable housing. i. Infrastructure funding Finally, petitioners allege that the plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE policy 1.5.4. That policy provides as follows: All PUDS shall provide for central potable water and sanitary sewer facilities at the developer's expense and provide for fire hydrants and fire flow within the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standards. Intervenor has created community development districts as a mechanism to fund the development infrastructure. Intervenor is able to raise funds by the sale of bonds through these districts. The residents of the development will ultimately repay the bonds. Even so, petitioners allege that this funding mechanism is inconsistent with the cited policy because the infrastructure is not funded "at the developer's expense." The purpose and intent of the policy was to insure that the County not be obligated to fund infrastructure related to the PUD development. The developer, and ultimately the residents, of the project will fund the infrastructure through the community development districts. The County will not be obligated. This funding mechanism is consistent with policy 1.5.4. in that the County is not responsible for the funding of the PUD-related infrastructure. Accordingly, petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Sumter County's comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6974GM Petitioners: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-9. 11-14. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 19-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 22-23. Covered in procedural statement. 24-29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20. 30-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-25. 42. Rejected as being unnecessary. 43-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28-36. 78-85. Partially accepted in findings of fact 37-39. 86-95. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-42. 96-148. Partially accepted in findings of fact 43-49. 149-162. Partially accepted in findings of fact 50-53. 163-166. Partially accepted in findings of fact 54-56. Respondents/Intervenor: With certain changes, the substance of proposed findings 1-53 has been generally incorporated into this recommended order. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mr. T. D. Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 David L. Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 R. Dewey Burnsed, Esquire Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Franklin County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter authorizes the County, under certain conditions, to adopt what is known as a small scale development amendment to its comprehensive plan. At issue in this case is a small scale development amendment adopted by the County on October 3, 1996. Petitioner, St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), is a not-for-profit corporation organized for the protection and management of the Plantation Area of St. George Island. The island lies just south of Apalachicola, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus it has standing to bring this action. Intervenors, Ben Johnson and Coastal Development Consultants, Inc., are the owners of approximately 58 acres on St. George Island known as the Resort Village Property. The property is adjacent to the St. George Island Airport. A portion of intervenors' property, 9.6 acres, is the subject of the plan amendment being challenged. The nature of the dispute Intervenors' property is subject to a 1977 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order adopted by the County in 1977. The order has been amended from time to time. Among other things, the order provides conceptual approval for the development of "one or more high quality resort hotels or motels, together with such affiliated uses as may be appropriate or desirable, such as gift and tourist shops, restaurants, recreational activities and similar activities." Intervenors desire to develop the Resort Property Village consistent with the 1977 DRI order. The first part of the project consists of approximately 9.6 acres which they have designated as Phase I. The land is located within the Plantation Area of St. George Island and has a land use designation of residential. In June 1995, intervenors submitted detailed site plans for Phase I to the County. On August 1, 1995, the County conducted a public hearing to review the proposed site plans and specifications for Phase I. It adopted a motion which directed its staff "to review and perfect the plans presented, so that the Board can consider the final approval of the plan." It also directed its staff to provide advice concerning the procedure to be followed. After consulting with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended to change the land use to accommodate the commercial uses, the staff recommended that the County adopt a small scale development amendment by changing the designation on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for 9.6 acres from residential to commercial. By a 3-2 vote, on October 3, 1996, the County adopted Ordinance No. 96- 22 which changed the designation for the 9.6 acres on the FLUM from residential to commercial. Because the amendment affected ten or fewer acres, the County opted to make the change with a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. According to the site plan which accompanied a Notification of Proposed Change filed with the County on May 26, 1996, the Phase I development includes four hotels, 10,250 square feet of commercial space, 300 square feet of retail space, a beach club, a 325 seat conference center, various support and recreational facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Phase I site plan, however, does not include the three subsurface absorption beds which are required to service the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. If the absorption beds were included, they would increase the size of Phase I from 9.6 to approximately 14.6 acres. In a petition challenging the adoption of the small scale amendment, petitioner contends that, if the absorption beds are properly included in the land use amendment, the land use area would exceed ten acres and thus would require a full-scale land use amendment subject to DCA review. In response, the County and intervenors have contended that, under the current plan, there is no need to change the land use where the wastewater treatment facility will be located since such facilities are allowed in any land use category. As such, they contend there is no requirement to include such property in Ordinance 96- 22. The Wastewater Treatment Facility The proposed development will be served by a wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a permit to Resort Village Utility, Inc., a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to serve the entire 58-acre Resort Village property. The permit provides that the plant can accommodate up to, but not exceeding, 90,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The facility consists of the wastewater treatment plant, lines to the plant from the development which carry the untreated wastewater to the plant, and lines from the plant to three sub-surface absorption beds where the treated effluent is disbursed. The absorption beds required for the Phase I project wastewater treatment facility will not serve any residential customers. Rather, they will only serve Phase I and any other subsequent phases of Resort Village development, which is a commercial development. Construction must begin on the wastewater treatment plant once the flow of waste effluent reaches 7,500 gallons per day, or if the wastewater from restaurants reaches 5,000 gallons per day. The Phase I project is required to use this facility once the rate of flow of waste effluent exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. Until these thresholds are met, the project will rely temporarily on aerobic systems to handle and treat waste effluent. Under the permit issued by the DEP, the wastewater treatment facility required for Phase I consists of both a wastewater treatment plant and three absorption beds. Through expert testimony of a DEP professional engineer, it was established that the absorption beds were integral to the design and successful operation of the facility. The County and intervenors acknowledge this fact. Therefore, the "use" that is the subject of the amendment is the entire wastewater treatment facility, including the absorption beds, and "involves" some 14.6 acres. Since the plan amendment does not involve "10 or fewer acres," as required by statute, the amendment cannot qualify as a small scale development amendment and is thus not in compliance. In making these findings, the undersigned has considered a contention by the County that Policy 2.3 of the comprehensive plan sanctions its action. That policy reads as follows: Public utilities needed to provide essential service to existing and future land uses in Franklin County shall be permitted in all the land use classifications established by this plan. Public utilities includes all utilities (gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, etc.) whether publicly or privately owned. At hearing, the County planner construed the term "public utilities" as being "minor (utility) infrastructure," including wastewater treatment plants not exceeding 100,000 gallons per day. Relying on this provision, the County reasons that the proposed facility is "minor" infrastructure, since it will only have 90,000 gallons per day capacity, and thus it can be placed in a residential land use category. They go on to argue that, since no change in land use classification is needed to permit the facility, it is unnecessary to include the facility in the plan amendment. According to the County, however, the plant (but not the beds) was included only because it was easier to draw a map for the entire 9.6 acres rather than excise that portion of the land where the plant will be located. Under the same theory, the County has placed at least two existing wastewater treatment facilities in the residential land use category. Those facilities, however, predate the adoption of the comprehensive plan in April 1991, and both serve residential, as opposed to commercial, developments. Moreover, the County admitted that it lacks any "clear" policy about the meaning of "public utilities," and it has never adopted a land development regulation to implement the interpretation given at hearing. The County's position is contrary to conventional land use planning practices which define "utilities" as infrastructure such as water or electrical lines that transport a service and would, by their very nature, be required to cross different land uses. Conversely, conventional land use planning practices define "facilities" as infrastructure that performs a service, such as power plants or pumping stations. This infrastructure does not cross different land use categories. In this case, the absorption beds perform a service by further processing and treating waste effluent from Phase I. Therefore, conventional land use planning practices would logically call for the plant and related absorption beds to be classified as "public facilities" under Policy 2.2(i) of the County's comprehensive plan. That policy defines the term as including "water and sewer facilities." The classification would also be compatible with the definition of "public facilities" found in DCA Rule 9J-5.003(105), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the County and intervenors point out that the facility may not be constructed for many years, depending on the rate and amount of development that occurs in Phase I. Thus, they contend that there is no immediate requirement for the County to change the future land use designation of the property where the absorption beds will be located. But given the fact that the beds and plant are a single, interrelated system, the County cannot choose to change the land use designation for a portion of the facility while ignoring the remainder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining Ordinance No. 96-22 adopted by Franklin County on October 3, 1996, as not in compliance for failing to meet the criteria of Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Alfred O. Shuler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320-850 L. Lee Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1169 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Plan Amendment No. 04-4 adopted by Ordinance No. 647 on October 5, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Intevernor owns a 31.4-acre tract of land in Martin County several miles southwest of Jupiter, east of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, and slightly more than one mile west of U.S. Highway 1. On the southern half of the property is an existing cemetery, Riverside Memorial Park, Inc. (the Cemetery), which has been in place since 1901 and is used for interments. The northern half of the land is completely undeveloped and contains native vegetation, including sand pine scrub and pine flatwoods. (If the land use change is approved, besides continuing in-ground burials and constructing mausoleum buildings on the vacant part of the land, Intervenor apparently intends to construct a funeral home. This intended use, and the possibility of others, has triggered the filing of the challenge by Petitioner.) The Cemetery is bordered on the east by a developed residential neighborhood, Tropic Vista; on the north by a platted but largely undeveloped residential area, Hyland Terrace, and the Jonathan Dickinson State Park (State Park); and on the south by Southeast County Road, which runs along the Martin County-Palm Beach County boundary line. Another residential neighborhood lies just south of that road in Palm Beach County. The County's existing Plan was adopted in 1990. Since that time, the Cemetery has been designated on the FLUM as Institutional, Public Conservation, which is defined in Section 4.4.M.1.h.(2) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan as follows: The Public Conservation category recognizes those publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses. Only development compatible with conservation and passive recreation uses shall be permitted in the Public Conservation category. This may include access, parking, and other facilities which make possible the management of the resource and the public's enjoyment of the resources. Conservation areas include, but are not limited to, the DuPuis Preserve in south Martin County and the Savannas in north Martin County. Enviromentally sensitive lands acquired by the County shall be reclassified to the Institutional-Conservation land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. The State Park and most of the platted residential property to the north of the Cemetery (e.g., Hyland Terrace) are currently designated Public Conservation on the FLUM. The remainder of the property to the north and the neighborhoods to the east and west of the property are designated Low Density Residential on the FLUM, which allows a maximum of five dwelling units per acre. The residential property to the south in Palm Beach County is also designated Low Density Residential under that County's future land use map. By application filed with the County in September 2003, Intervenor, who purchased the Cemetery in 1997, requested that the FLUM designation on the property be changed to General Institutional. That land use category is defined in Section 4.4.M.1.h.(3) of the FLUE as follows: The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-public facilities such as, but not limited to, schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. Lands acquired by the County for General Institutional uses shall be reclassified to the Institutional- General land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. Lands or property rights acquired by the Florida Inland Navigation District as future dredge spoil management sites shall be reclassified to the Institutional-General land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. (Emphasis added) Concurrently with this change, Intervenor also requested a zoning change on the parcel from Public Service to Public Service-2 (PS-2). However, the County denied that requested change in zoning. On February 19, 2004, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Intervenor's request. On April 4, 2004, the County voted to accept the LPA's recommendation. On May 7, 2004, a transmittal package consisting of 13 amendments, including Plan Amendment No. 04- 4, was transmitted to the Department for its review. In an Objections, Recommendation, and Comments Report (ORC) issued on July 9, 2004, the Department had no objections to, or recommendations for, Plan Amendment No. 04-4 and made only the following brief comments regarding that amendment: The change would correct an inappropriate designation given the site previously and would allow the continued use of the site for cemetery use. Adjacent properties will be protected through buffering, landscaping, and screening requirements. The proposed change is being made to correct an inappropriate land use designation on a well-established existing land use. After receiving the ORC, and making changes to certain amendments (but not Plan Amendment No. 04-4) to satisfy the Department's concerns, in a report dated August 10, 2004, the County staff recommended to the County that the modified package of amendments be approved. As to Plan Amendment No. 04-4, the County staff noted that "[t]he requested land use amendment meets the criteria to correct an inappropriate land use designation." The County scheduled the package of amendments for consideration at a meeting in September 2004. Due to Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, however, the matter was rescheduled to the following month. On October 5, 2004, by a 4-1 vote, the County enacted Ordinance No. 647, which adopted, among others, Plan Amendment No. 04-4. The revised package was then forwarded to the Department for its compliance review. The data and analyses presented by the County in support of the Plan Amendment included aerial photographs and detailed site maps; a review of past changes in future land use designations in the surrounding area; information about, and analysis of, environmental considerations including soils, wetlands, overall hydrology, plant and animal species, and impact on the adjoining State Park; a capital facilities impact analysis; a transportation analysis; a concurrency analysis, including impacts on public utilities, parks and recreation facilities, and fire and public safety facilities; an evaluation of the potential for contribution to urban sprawl; and an extensive review of compatibility with numerous goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing that "the documentation of the applicant . . . [does not] support the purpose to correct an inappropriate land use designation," none of this data and analyses was factually contradicted by Petitioner. On November 29, 2004, the Department published its Notice in the Stuart News, a local newspaper of general circulation. On December 16, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in St. Lucie County and says she owns four plots within the Cemetery, filed her 19-page Petition raising a number of procedural and substantive allegations.2 At hearing, however, her testimony focused on the issues of whether Intervenor was required to secure the consent of all of the individual burial plot owners before it could file the application for a land use change; whether the plan amendment actually corrects an inappropriate land use designation, rather than being "a complex change from an actual passive land use of the historical cemetery"; whether the amendment comports with the requirements in Chapter 497, Florida Statutes, which governs funeral and cemetery services; and whether the proposed land use is compatible with the "passive" nature of the cemetery. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner did not assert that Intervenor was required to obtain the consent of all plot owners before filing its application with the County. Therefore, the issue has not been timely raised. Even it was, the issue is irrelevant to an in compliance determination, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. That is to say, while ownership may bear on the issue of standing, it is not a consideration in determining whether a land use change is in compliance. Thus, the County (or even Intervenor for that matter) can initiate a change in land use, regardless of the ownership of the affected property. Likewise, issues regarding compliance with the requirements of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, are not relevant here. Those matters should be raised with the agency responsible for administering funeral home and cemetery regulations. In the same vein, Petitioner's concern that the undeveloped portion of Intervenor's land may be used for a funeral home or another use allowed in the General Institutional category is not relevant to the issue of whether the amendment is in compliance. Compatibility concerns such as these can be addressed through relevant zoning and building code requirements and land development regulations. Finally, Petitioner has contended that the existing land use category, Institutional, Public Conservation, is appropriate for the Cemetery and that it is unnecessary to change that designation. To place this issue in proper perspective, it is necessary to go back to 1982, when the first County FLUM was adopted. At that time, there was only one institutional designation, which was assigned to all institutional property, both publicly and privately owned, including the Cemetery. When the 1990 Plan was adopted, however, the Department required that the County establish three categories of institutional property: Institutional General, Institutional Recreational, and Institutional, Public Conservation. Probably because the State Park, a County fire station, a missile tracking station, a mental health facility, and the Cemetery were all in the same area, through "oversight" the Public Conservation designation was inadvertently assigned to all of those parcels at that time, even though that designation was inappropriate for the privately-owned Cemetery. The existing designation, Institutional, Public Conservation, recognizes those "publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses." (Emphasis added) See § 4.4.M.1.h.(2). The category is specifically limited to "development compatible with conservation and passive recreation uses," such as "[e]nvironmentally sensitive lands." Id. One of its purposes is to protect natural areas, natural flora, and fauna. The new land use designation, General Institution, accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities, such as schools, government buildings, and civic centers. It also specifically includes private cemeteries. See § 4.4.M.1.h.(3). The Cemetery is not owned by any government or other public entity, but is entirely privately-owned, either by Intervenor, by a subsidiary corporate entity, or by the heirs to the deceased owners of individual cemetery plots. (Apparently, warranty deeds were given to purchasers of burial plots prior to 1985, and since that time, certificates of perpetual interment have been issued.) As such, the Cemetery appropriately falls within the General Institutional land use category. It is beyond fair debate that the land use Public Conservation land use is an inappropriate one for the Cemetery because the land use designation, by definition in the Plan, is intended only for "publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses." The Cemetery is neither publicly owned nor a conservation use of the land. It is beyond fair debate that the land use General Institutional is the only appropriate one for the Cemetery because that land use designation, by definition in the Plan, expressly provides that "private cemeteries may be allowed" in that category.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Plan Amendment No. 04-4 adopted by Ordinance No. 647 on October 5, 2004, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2005.
