Conclusions Based on the entire record in this matter, it is concluded that the evidence supports or meets each of the criteria listed in section 19o.005(1)(e), F.S. That all statements contained within the Petition as corrected at the hearing are true and correct. That the creation of the District is consistent with all applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan, the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as amended, and the City of Rockledge Comprehensive Plan. That the area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. That the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. That the community development services and facilities of the District will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. That the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX APPENDIX A PETITIONER'S WITNESSES John R. Maloy The Viera Company 1802 South Fiske Boulevard Rockledge, Florida 32955 Fred Greene Gee & Jenson One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Jack F. Glatting Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin 33 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 507 North New York Avenue Suite 301 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Gary L. Moyer 10300 Northwest Eleventh Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33065 APPENDIX B LIST OF EXHIBITS AT HEARING Exhibit Description Composite exhibit of notice Petition to Establish the Viera East Community Development District as filed, with the exhibits: District Location Map Metes & Bounds Description Documentation of Ownership Map of Existing Uses Land Use Plan Existing Drainage Basins and Outfall Canals Estimated Infrastructure Cost Brevard County Comprehensive Plan City of Rockledge Comprehensive Plan Economic Impact Statement Designation of Agent Receipts for filing fee from City of Rockledge and Brevard County DRI Development Order for the Viera East Project -- Brevard County DRI Development Order for the Viera East Project -- City' of Rockledge Approved Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Viera East DRI APPENDIX C MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC John Fleming 944 Bridle Lane Rockledge, Florida Lee Wenner 1060 Matador Drive Rockledge, Florida Robert Preston 939 Bridle Place Rockledge, Florida Al Miller 26 South Hardee Circle Rockledge, Florida Janice Peterson 975 Beechfern Lane Rockledge, Florida APPENDIX D VIERA EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHAPTER 42 - VIERA EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42 - Creation. 42 - Boundary. 42 - Supervisors 42 - Creation. The Viera East Community Development district is hereby created. 42 - Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: PARCEL 1 All of Section 27 and portions of Sections 22, 26, 28, 33, 34 and 35, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, and portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11, Township 26 South, Range 36 East, all in Brevard County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southeast corner of said Section 10 and run N00058'45"W along the East line of said Section 10, for a distance of 50.04 feet to the North right of way line of Wickham Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the following described parcel; thence S86240'00"W along said North right of bay line of Wickham Road 1,791.05 feet; thence continue along said North right of way line S89231'32"W for 1,232.48 feet to the East line of Official Records Book 876, Page 569 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N14232'54"W along said East line for 766.98 feet to the North line of said Official Records Book 876, page 569; thence S75227'06"W along said North line for a distance of 768.49 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95; thence N26201'27"W along said Easterly right of way line for a distance of 745.31 feet; thence N14232'54"W along said Easterly right of way line for a distance, of 2,308.02 feet; thence N60244'50"E for 346.47 feet; thence N37249'35"E for 170.97 feet; thence N52208'55"E for 84.63 feet; thence N75227'05"E for 550.00 feet; thence N77247'23"E for 75.00 feet; thence S83203'16"E for 75.00 feet; thence S83200'14"E for 410.74 feet; thence N06259'46"E for 104.22 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North, having a radius of 813.27 feet and to which a radial line bears S01209'22"W; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve for 328.78 feet, through a central angle of 23209'46 to the point of tangency; thence N67259'36"E for 243.76 feet to a point lying 30.00 feet West of the Westerly right of way line of Murrell Road, (a 120.00 foot wide right of way), as described in Official Records Book 2953, Page 2101 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence Northerly and 30.00 filet West of 25 said Westerly right of way line the following seven (7) courses: (1) thence N22000'24"W for 742.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East and having a radius of 1,235.92 feet; (2) thence Northerly along the. arc of said curve for 582.56 feet, through a central angle of 27200-24 to the point of tangency; (3) thence N05200'00"E for 468.53 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 1,055.92 feet; (4) thence Northerly along the arc of said curve for 497.59 feet, through a central angle of 27200'00" to the point of tangency; (5) thence N22200'00"W for 1,399.77 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,235.92 feet; (6) thence Northerly along the arc of said curve for 593.20 feet, through a central angle of 27230'00 to the point of tangency; (7) thence N05236'00"E along said line lying 30.00 feet West of the Westerly right of way line of Murrell Road and its Northerly extension thereof, said line being the Westerly right of way line of proposed Murrell Road (150.00 foot wide right of way) for a distance of 1,365.19 feet; thence run N84230'00"W for 600.00 feet, to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 640.00 feet and a central angle of 48208'20"; thence run Southwesterly, along said curve, an arc distance of 537.72 feet; thence run N42238'20"W, a distance of 493.95 feet; thence run N14233'28"W, a distance of 580.00 feet; thence S75226'32"W for a distance of 1437.64 feet to said Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95; thence N14232'54"W along said Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95 for a distance of 8,929.18 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 5,879.65 feet; thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve and said Easterly right of way line, for a distance of 2,592.25 feet, through a central angle of 24223'02" to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East; thence N89234'55"E along said North line 2,011.71 feet to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28; thence N89235'49"E along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28 for a distance of 2,649.14 feet to the Southwest corner of, said Section 22; thence N89244'33"E along the South line of said Section 22, for a distance of 4,533.48 feet to the West line of lands described in Official Records Book 2237, Page 2896 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N00215'56"W along said West line of Official Records Book 2237, Page 2896 for a distance of 1,969.91 feet to the South right of way line of Barnes Boulevard; thence S89247'58"E along said South right of bay line of Barnes Boulevard for a distance of 800.00 feet to the East line of said Section 22; thence S00215'56"E along said East line of Section 22, for a distance of 1,963.51 feet to the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said corner also being the Northeast corner of Section 27, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence S00221'41"E along the East line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 27, for a distance of 2,659.87 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 27; thence 26 S00240'49"W along the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 27, for a distance of 2,181.04 feet; thence S38250'18"E for 1,283.83 feet; thence South for 1,950.00 feet; thence S40214'11"E for 170.29 feet; thence South for 1,020.00 feet; thence S40236'05"E for 322.68 feet; thence S39242'36"W for 383.47 feet; thence S01247'24"E for 160.08 feet; thence S56218'36"E for 396.61 feet; thence S60238'32"E for 91.79 feet; thence S03216'14"E for 350.57 feet; thence S40227'54"W for 467.47 feet to the South line of aforesaid Section 35, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence S88257'29"W along said South line of Section 35, for a distance of 1,034.11 feet to the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 26 South, Range 36 East; thence S01017'09"W along the East line of said Section 3, for a distance of 1,245.78 feet to the Northeast corner of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 1, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 92 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence S88235'03"W along the North line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 1, and along the North line of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D. PHASE 1, UNIT 2, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 36 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, for 2,634.30 feet; thence S88228'04"W along the North line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 2, and along the North lines of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 1, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Pages 31 and 32 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida and INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 3, as recorded in Plat Book 35, Page 91 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, for a distance of 883.63 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Murrell Road, as recorded in Official Records Book 2953, Page 2101 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence for the following seven (7) courses along said Easterly right of way line: (1) S05230'00"W for 785.19 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,085.92 feet; (2) thence Southerly 521.20 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 27230'00" to the point of tangency; (3) thence S22200'00"E for 1,399.77 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 1,205.92 feet; (4) thence Southerly 568.28 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 27200'00" to the point of tangency; (5) thence S05200'00"W for 468.53 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,085.92 feet; (6) thence Southerly 511.85 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 27200'24" to the point of tangency; (7) thence S22200'24"E for 592.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 50.00 feet; thence Southeasterly 78.54 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 90200'00" to the point of tangency; thence N67259'36"E for 423.19 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the South, having a radius of 960.00 feet; thence Easterly 318.71 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 19201'19 to the point of 27 tangency; thence N87200'55"E for 221.13 feet; thence N02259'05"W for 692.95 feet to the South line of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 4, as recorded in Plat Book 35, Pages 65 thru 67 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N86030'29"E along said South line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 4, for a distance of 1,620: .78 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 2; thence N01217'32"E along the West line of said Section 2, for a distance of 2,506.96 feet to the North line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence N87227'20"E along said North line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, for a distance of 1,347.22 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence S00255'23"W along said East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, for a distance of 2,563.88 feet to the Southeast corner of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2, said Southeast corner also being the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 26 South, Range 36 East; thence, S00231'25"E along the East line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, for a distance of 1,336.40 feet to the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section; 11; thence N89231'57"W along said South line 1,350.78 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, said corner being on the East line of said Section 10; thence S00258'45"E along said East line of Section 10, for a distance of 1,322.94 feet to the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10; thence continue along said East line S002058'45"E for 541.60 feet to the North line of lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence for the following eight (8) courses along the Northerly line of said lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063: (1) S87255'44"W for 650.12 feet; (2) thence S00258'45"E for 288.82 feet; (3) thence S59001'15"W for 245.81 feet; (4) thence N88024'23"W for 501.94 feet; (5) thence S59001'15"W for 503.09 feet; (6) thence S00258'45"E for 575.00 feet; (7) thence S44201'15"W for 159.04 feet; (8) thence S87255'44"W for 359.20 feet to the East right of way line of said Murrell Road; thence S12228'28"E along said East right of way line 152.51 feet to the South line of said lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063; thence N87255'44"E along said South line for 2,241.61 feet to the East line of said Section 10; thence S00258'45"E along said East line 600.08 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said lands containing 2,790.73 acres, more or less. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL 2 A parcel of land lying in Section 33, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northwest corner of Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence N89234'55"E along the North line of said Section 28, a distance of 236.62 feet to the Westerly right of way line of Interstate 95, (a 300.00 foot wide right of way), and a point of intersection with a non-tangent curve, concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 5,579.65 feet and a central angle of 26252'46"; thence Southeasterly along said Westerly right of way line and along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 2,617.62 feet, (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S27259'17"E a distance of 2,593.68 feet) to a point of tangency; thence S14232'54"E along said Westerly right of way line, a distance of 3,416.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described parcel; thence continue along said Westerly right of way line S142032'54"E, a distance of 4,994.84 feet; thence N15241'39"W a distance of 1,203.33 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 35221'15"; thence North Westerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 649.08 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; thence N51202'54"W, a ,distance' of 978.47 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 33200'00"; thence Westerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 605.86 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; thence N84202'54"W a distance of 136.38 feet; thence N88202'54"W a distance of 76.74 feet; thence N01257'06"E a distance of 247.75 feet; thence S88202'54"E a distance of 600.00 feet; thence N43230'28"E a distance of 193.49 feet; thence N21215'19"E, a distance of 750.65 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 31248'13"; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 583.89 feet to the Point of Tangency of said curve; thence N102032'54"W, a distance of 652.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, parcel contains 35.03 acres, more or less. 42 - Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Jack Maloy, Don Spotts, David Duda, Tracy Duda and Gordon P. Masterson. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor Office of Planning and Budgeting 419 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Wade L. Hopping, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether two community development district petitions should be granted: the first, a Petition to Contract Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2; and the second, a Petition to Establish Rule [sic] for Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 5.
Conclusions Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (2000), a "community development district" (CDD) is "a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law." (All of the following statutory citations are to the year 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) Sections 190.006 through 190.046 constitute the uniform general law charter of all CDDs, which can be amended only by the Florida Legislature. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems, facilities, and basic infrastructures for: water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; needed bridges and culverts; CDD roads meeting minimum county specifications, street lights, and certain mass transit facilities; investigation and remediation costs associated with cleanup of environmental contamination; conservation, mitigation, and wildlife habitat areas; and certain projects within or without the CDD pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation; fire prevention; school buildings; security; mosquito control; and waste collection and disposal. Section 190.046(1) provides for the filing of a petition for contraction of a CDD. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 190.046(1), petitions to contract a CDD by more than 250 acres "shall be considered petitions to establish a new district and shall follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005." Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that the petition to establish a CDD be filed with FLAWAC and submitted to the County. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the proposed area to be serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the proposed real property in the CDD, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option" of all of the proposed real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land-use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must also contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan (the local government comprehensive plan). District 2 and SMR have done so. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments, as well. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct an optional public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLAWAC as to the proposed property for the CDD. Manatee County has exercised this option and has adopted a resolution in support of the contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires a DOAH ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner must publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Under Section 190.005(1)(e), FLAWAC must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Factor 1 Some statements in the original petition to contract District 2 were not true and correct and had to be revised. As revised, all statements in the petition were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. All statements in the petition to establish District 5 were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 2 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5 are not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the local government comprehensive plan. There was no evidence to the contrary. (A different and more detailed review is required to determine that future development within the proposed CDDs will be consistent with all applicable laws and local ordinances and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Establishment of a CDD does not constitute and should not be construed as a development order or any other kind of approval of the development anticipated in the CDD. Such determinations are made in other proceedings.) Factor 3 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas of land within District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and within proposed District 5 are of sufficient size, are sufficiently compact, and are sufficiently contiguous for each proposed CDD to be developable as a functional, interrelated community. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 4 In these cases, the evidence was that District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are the best alternatives available for delivering community development services and facilities to the areas that will be served by those two proposed CDDs. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 5 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 6 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas to be served by District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are amenable to separate special-district government. There was no evidence to the contrary. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin McCormick Larrinaga, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Jose Luis Rodriguez, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capital, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Pioneer Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the Southeastern Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue Whether the Petition to establish the Central Viera Community Development District meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district ( "CDD" or "District") of approximately 5,731 acres located entirely within unincorporated Brevard County. The proposed District would be located generally west of I-95, south of Barnes Boulevard, north of Lake Washington, and east of the Florida Power and Light Company electrical transmission line transversing the A. Duda & Sons landholdings in Brevard County. The proposed District would be eligible to exercise all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. Currently, the lands to be included within the District are principally undeveloped, although existing development includes the Florida Marlins Spring Training Facility. Existing land uses adjacent to the proposed District include residential use east of the District, with commercial use along major roadways. Land west and south of the District is in agriculture use, and land north of the District is in agriculture and mixed uses. Existing development adjacent to the District includes the Brevard County Government Operations Center, the Space Coast Stadium, and the Brevard County School Board Complex. The future general distribution, location, and extent of the public and private land uses proposed by the Petitioner for the lands within the District have been included in an Application for Development Approval of a substantial deviation to the Viera Development of Regional Impact (DRI). All of the land within the proposed District is either currently included within the approved Viera DRI or will be included upon approval of the substantial deviation to the Viera DRI. The existing land uses within the proposed District are consistent with the adopted Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, and the land uses proposed for the District in the DRI substantial deviation are consistent with the Plan as it would be amended by a proposed Plan Amendment that has been submitted to the County for approval. The proposed development plan for the lands within the District contemplates the construction of approximately 11,954 residential units; 1,415,000 square feet of office space; 736,800 square feet of office warehouse/light industrial space; 1,685,000 square feet of retail services space; 550 hotel rooms; 4,800 movie theater seats; a 154.6-acre educational campus; 162.4 acres of institutional uses; a 148.0-acre golf course; 298.5 acres of parks and pathways; and 20.5 acres of private recreation. The following real property within the external boundaries of the proposed District is excluded from the District: a parcel known as the "Town Center"; Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital Site; Brevard County Government Operation Center; Brevard County School Board Administration Complex; Brevard South Judicial Facility; Space Coast Stadium and parking lot; Wickham Road; Lake Andrew Drive; St. Johns Street; and Stadium Parkway. This property, with the exception of the "Town Center," is excluded from the District because it is currently owned by governmental bodies. Because of the nature and scope of development and length of time necessary for its buildout, the "Town Center" parcel has also been excluded from the District. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to fund the construction of a water management system, roadways, water and sewer systems; reuse facilities, and public facility landscaping. In addition, the District may fund the construction of certain recreational facilities. Once completed, some of the facilities will be owned, operated, and/or maintained by the District. Some facilities may be dedicated to other governmental entities, which will operate and maintain them. The Petitioner intends for the District to own, operate, and maintain the water management system and certain recreational facilities which may be built. The water and sewer systems will be dedicated to the City of Cocoa and Brevard County, respectively, and will be operated and maintained by these local governments. Reuse facilities will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District or other governmental entity. The Petitioner plans for the District to construct certain arterial roadways and other road improvements in phases as traffic warrants. The District will maintain roadways until they are dedicated to and accepted by Brevard County or another governmental entity, at which time the County or another governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. The Petitioner also intends that the District provide certain public facility landscaping, which will be maintained by the District or another governmental entity. The estimated cost in 1994 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $145,276,000, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2015. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary, due in part to the effects of future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest rates, and general market conditions. The Petitioner expects that the District will finance such services and improvements through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of non-ad valorem special assessments imposed on benefitted property within the District. In other cases where infrastructure provides a specific revenue source from users of those systems, bonds may be repaid with those user fees. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. Statutory Criteria for the Establishment of the District Section 190.005 (1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the Commission to consider six factors in making its determination to grant or deny the Petition to establish the District. The evidence presented on these factors is summarized in the following paragraphs. Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission. Maloy testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing, and that the only correction required was to Attachment 6. Glatting testified that a typographical error in the number of hotel rooms on the "CDD Land Uses" chart in Attachment 6 should be corrected. Instead of "300" hotel rooms, it should state "550" rooms. With the change set forth in the previous paragraph, all statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits were shown to be true and correct. Whether the creation of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Glatting reviewed the establishment of the proposed District from a planning perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes In addition, McDonald reviewed the establishment of the District from an economic perspective for consistency with the State and local comprehensive plans. Moyer reviewed the establishment of the District from a management perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, Goals 10, 16, 21, and 26 of the State Comprehensive Plan and policies supporting these goals are particularly relevant to the establishment of the District. Goals 18 and 21 and the policies supporting those goals are relevant to the establishment of the District from an economic perspective. Goal 21 is also relevant to the establishment of the District from a management perspective. Policy 13 under Goal 10, "Natural Systems and Recreational Lands," encourages the use of public and private financial resources for the development of state and local recreational opportunities. The District may, with the consent of the County, provide community recreational facilities. Goal 16, "Land Use," recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The District will have the fiscal ability and service capacity to efficiently provide an excellent quality and range of facilities and services to development in a rapidly growing area of Brevard County. Goal 18, "Public Facilities," directs the State to protect the investments in public facilities that already exist, and to plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely and efficient manner. The District will provide facilities and services in a timely and efficient manner to the area within Brevard County served by the District, allowing the County to focus its resources outside the District and thus, provide facilities and services to County residents in a timely and efficient manner. The "Governmental Efficiency" goal, Goal 21, requires that Florida governments provide the services required by the public in an economic and efficient manner. The District will have the fiscal capability to provide quality public services to those who benefit from and pay for those services. The size and configuration of the District would allow for the delivery of these facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In addition, because it is a limited-purpose local government, the District can provide focused delivery, management, and maintenance of these services more efficiently than a general- purpose government. Goal 26, "Plan Implementation," encourages the integration of systematic planning into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. The development plan for the District contemplates the delivery of improvements in coordination with the general- purpose local governments in the area. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual Public Facilities Reports with Brevard County, which the County may use and rely on in its comprehensive plan. From a planning perspective, all decisions of the District are made at board meetings which are publicly noticed and open to the public, maximizing input from landowners and residents of the District. The establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable goal or policy of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the Intergovernmental Coordination, the Capital Improvements, and the Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan relate specifically to the establishment of the District. From an economic perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the establishment of the District. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies acknowledge the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and require the County to pursue interlocal agreements to ensure a review of proposals for public facility improvements. The Petition to establish the District contemplates coordination with the general-purpose governments for the provision and maintenance of facilities and services. In addition, the District must file an annual Public Facilities Report with the County, and all District facilities will be subject to the County's comprehensive plan, building codes, and land development regulations for public facilities. The objectives and policies of the Capital Improvements Element require that the County pursue new funding sources for public improvements, and that new growth contribute its fair share of needed improvements. The District provides an alternative means of financing a fair share of the facilities and services necessary for community development. The goal of the Recreation and Open Space Element requires the County to attain public and private support for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of recreational opportunities and open space area. The proposed development plan for the land within the Central Viera CDD includes 298.5 acres of pathways and parks. The District may also, with the approval of the County, construct and maintain recreational facilities. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any of the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Greene, Glatting, McDonald, and Moyer. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 5,731 acres, located entirely within unincorporated Brevard County, and generally west of I-95, south of Barnes Boulevard, north of Lake Washington, and east of the Florida Power and Light electrical transmission line transversing the A. Duda & Sons landholdings. All of the land within the proposed District is part of a planned "new town," which is a form of development containing all types of land uses for home, work, recreational, and daily life. The land within the proposed District is either currently included within the approved Viera DRI or will be included upon approval of the substantial deviation to the DRI and is master planned to be a part of a functional interrelated community with a balanced mix of uses to support the projected population. Although some land within the external boundaries of the proposed District is excluded from the District because it is owned by governmental entities or because of the nature and scope of development and the length of time for buildout, the exclusion of this land will not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed District or otherwise interfere with the ability of the District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The 5,731-acre District is of sufficient size from a planning perspective to require all the basic facilities and services of a community. Moreover, the size and configuration of the District would accommodate the provision of the proposed facilities and services in a cost-effective manner. The District will provide its residents and landowners with the benefits of phasing of the District's services over a time frame which takes advantage of the lower cost of long-term capital, as well as providing economies of scale to absorb the annual operating costs of District administration and to efficiently apportion the costs of improvements. The proposed District is also compact in nature. The configuration of the District allows for the natural extension of infrastructure and services across the land area over time to serve the needs of the residents. The property is sufficiently contiguous when the proposed facilities and services can be designed, permitted, constructed, and maintained in a cost efficient, technically-sound manner. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous to allow for the efficient design and use of infrastructure. From engineering, planning, economics, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community. Whether the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. It is presently intended that the District will fund the construction of a water management system, roadways, water and sewer systems, reuse facilities, and public facility landscaping. It may also, with the approval of the County, construct certain recreational facilities. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated to other governmental entities to own, operate, and/or maintain. The stormwater management system and recreational facilities will be owned and maintained by the District. Certain water and sewer facilities to be constructed by the District will be dedicated to the appropriate general-purpose local government to own, operate, and maintain. In addition, reuse facilities will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District or the general- purpose local government. The District will maintain roadways until they are dedicated and accepted by Brevard County or other governmental entity, at which time the County or other governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility. The public facility landscaping to be provided by the District will also be maintained by the District or the general-purpose local government. It is expected that the District will issue bonds to finance these services and improvements. These bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of special assessments on benefitted property within the District. In cases where improvements provide a specific revenue source from uses of those systems, bonds may be repaid with such funds. Use of special assessments and user fees will ensure that those benefitting from District services help pay for those services. The following five alternatives to the proposed District for providing the necessary facilities and services were identified: (1) a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU)/municipal service benefit unit (MSBU); (2) a dependent special district; (3) the County; (4) the Developer; or (5) a homeowners' association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative is a stable provider of facilities and services and can provide a long-term perspective; and; and whether the alternative can secure long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality. Public Alternatives A MSTU/MSBU generally focuses on only one service or facility, which is not sufficient to serve the comprehensive development of a new community. It also requires County administration of the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Moreover, MSTU/MSBU debt is debt of the relevant County, and MSTU/MSBU taxes count against the County's millage cap. The County would be relieved of direct administrative duties and costs related to the provision of the proposed facilities and services if the proposed District is established. In addition, District debt does not affect the County's borrowing capacity, and District taxes do not count against the County's millage cap. Although a dependent special district may provide more than one service or facility, it would still require County involvement, and dependent special district taxes would count against the County's millage cap. Debts incurred by a dependent special district are debts of the County, as are those of the MSTU/MSBU. In contrast, debts of a CDD are not debts of the County, and CDD taxes do not affect the County millage cap. The County, as a general-purpose government, has a broad range of responsibilities to its citizens. If the County provides all of the proposed services and facilities to the area to be included with the District, this may mean that other portions of the County would not be as fully served. In contrast, the District, as a special-purpose government created solely to provide infrastructure, can offer a more focused delivery of facilities and services. It does not have the demands of general purpose local governments for such things as social services and law enforcement. Furthermore, use of the District is the best way to help assure that growth pays for itself. Those especially benefitting from the facilities and services pay their fair share of the cost, rather than spreading the entire cost over residents of the entire County. Private Alternatives The District is also superior to the Developer in the provision of long-term financing of infrastructure. Private funding is generally more difficult and expensive to secure. In contrast to the Developer, which may not be involved in the project upon completion of development, the District would be a perpetual entity. It would continue to exist to provide facilities and services of high quality in a timely and cost-effective manner, also ensuring a longer life for the facilities. The District would also be a superior alternative to a homeowners' association to secure the long-term financing for facilities. A homeowners' association generally becomes involved only after the planning and construction of improvements is complete because it cannot provide the necessary financing program. In addition, a homeowners' association is usually managed by volunteers, while the District would employ a professional manager. This professional involvement allows for the independent planning, construction, financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of facilities within the District. A homeowners' association also would not have collection and enforcement authority for defaults in assessments and charges comparable to that authorized for the District in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes Therefore, an association is a less stable long-term maintenance entity. The Viera Company has experience in working with a CDD and Company staff stated that the Viera East CDD, which provides facilities and services to the land in the Viera DRI east of I-95, has lived up to the Company's expectations and is providing necessary public services in a timely manner to the development and its residents. The Company expects that the proposed Central Viera CDD will similarly benefit landowners and residents in the years ahead, particularly as The Viera Company ceases to be the major landowner. None of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery and long-term maintenance and management of the proposed public facilities as would the District. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community services and facilities to the area. Whether the community development services and facilities of the District will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There is no planned duplication of facilities and services. There are existing trunk water mains, reuse lines, and sewer interceptors within or adjacent to the area to be included within the District which are owned by a general-purpose local government. The District will supply additional facilities and services made necessary for development that are not provided by local general-purpose governments or other governmental entities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to State or County standards and must also be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, building codes, and land development regulations. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. The area to be served by the District requires basic infrastructure for development to occur. The District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to allow infrastructure to be provided and maintained in an efficient and cost-effective manner. These services and infrastructure have been carefully planned to avoid duplication of existing local and regional facilities and services and to maximize efficiency of cost and effort to deliver such improvements. From an engineering perspective, having a separate unit of special- purpose government enhances the orderly provision of facilities and their long- term maintenance as well as the ability of the government to respond to the needs of the residents of the District. From a financial perspective, it is expected that the District will levy assessments and fees on the landowners and residents within the District who benefit from the improvements in order to fund the construction and maintenance of the improvements. The District will not be dependent on the County for funding, nor is the County liable for any obligations of the District. Therefore, it is more economically and functionally efficiently to have a separate special-district government to manage the activities related to the improvements to the land within the District. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the area to be included within the District is amenable to separate special-district government. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the establishment of the District meets all of the statutory criteria in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes The record also shows the type and scope of development that would necessitate the establishment of the District if the pending substantial deviation to the existing DRI were not approved. If the pending substantial deviation to the Viera DRI were not approved, significant development of the area within the boundaries of the proposed District that is consistent with the existing County comprehensive plan is possible and appears likely. The land within the proposed District is in an urbanizing area of Brevard County. There is a developed community, Suntree, adjacent to the proposed District on the east. The Viera East development, located on the east side of I-95, is also well underway. The existing Brevard County Governmental Operations Center, Brevard County School Board Complex, and the Space Coast Stadium, as well as the proposed judicial facility and Veterans Administration Hospital, while not within the boundaries of the proposed District, will generate the need for new development in the area. Extensive development is authorized by the existing comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan authorizes approximately 20,825 dwelling units with an assumed population of 51,022 in this area. In addition, areas within the proposed District designated as mixed-use may include commercial, professional, office, institutional, conservation, recreation, and public facility uses as well as residential use. Although the nature of the development under the existing comprehensive plan is more residential than proposed by the substantial deviation to the DRI, there would still be a need for water management, water and sewer systems, recreation and open space, and some roadway improvements and landscaping. Because these necessary facilities do not currently exist, their provision by the District would not be incompatible with existing facilities. The land is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community and is amenable to separate special-district government. In fact, if the property is developed as is allowed under the comprehensive plan, the use of the District to provide infrastructure is as important, if not more important, than if the property is developed as proposed under the substantial deviation to the DRI. The District could provide overall coordination and oversight to avoid duplication of facilities. The District would continue to be the best alternative for providing the necessary public facilities and service in an efficient, cost-effective manner. With or without the proposed amendments to the DRI and the comprehensive plan, the establishment of the District meets the statutory criteria and is necessary to ensure the timely, efficient, cost-effective, and long-term provision of infrastructure to this area. Public Comment on the Petition Public comment related to the criteria was received in the afternoon session. Mr. Mel Scott, a Planner with Brevard County, asked for clarification of the cost of infrastructure contained in Mr. Greene's testimony. Greene testified on redirect examination that the total cost of infrastructure for the development proposed under the substantial deviation to the DRI is $145,276,000. He also testified that if the DRI were not approved and development were to occur that is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan, the cost of infrastructure would be approximately 11.77 percent less or $18 million less. Greene stated that this reduction results largely from lower costs of certain road improvements that would not appear to be necessary for development under the comprehensive plan and a reduction in the size of the reuse system and the capacity needed for the wastewater treatment plant. Scott also inquired about the ability of the District to issue industrial revenue bonds. Moyer testified on redirect examination that in his experience in managing 46 CDDs, he is not aware of any of them applying for a portion of either the state or regional allocation of these bonds or receiving a legal opinion that it could issue these types of bonds. He explained that in his view there is no reason for a district, which is limited to projects for public purposes, to use industrial revenue bonds because they are primarily for private activity. Mr. Mundhenk asked that the impact of the District upon the taxpayers of the rest of the County be taken into consideration and asked for financial assurance from The Viera Company that County taxpayers would not be held responsible for any debts of the District. McDonald testified on redirect examination that the costs of the establishment of the District to Brevard County and its citizens are offset by the filing fee and other fees paid to the County. He stressed that no debt of the District can be placed on the citizens of the County. Agency Comment on the Petition The Secretary of the Commission distributed copies of the Petition to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and requested that these agencies review the Petition. By letter dated October 5, 1994, Secretary Linda Shelley of the DCA replied that, other than an inconsistency in the number of proposed hotel rooms within the District and proposed in the substantial deviation to the DRI, the DCA had no concerns regarding the proposed District. This inconsistency was due to a typographical error in Attachment 6 to the Petition and was corrected in testimony as set forth above. The ECFRPC responded to the Commission Secretary's request by letter dated December 1, 1994. First, the ECFRPC concluded that the "district and development it will support are consistent with the state and regional comprehensive plans," and that the development will be consistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as amended by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Second, the ECFRPC stated that the District is of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developed as a functional interrelated community. Specifically, the ECFRPC has no objection to the exclusion of the "Town Center properties." Third, the ECFRPC stated that the proposed District will be the best alternative for delivery of the necessary facilities and service because it "will provide the best opportunity for minimizing fiscal impacts to the public service providers." The ECFRPC specifically stated that "we support the creation of the Central Viera CDD and, in fact, would be concerned if the proposed district were not approved as it would require that these facilities be made available by other, presently unknown means." The ECFRPC found no incompatibilities of the proposed facilities and services with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The ECFRPC noted the Petition reflects that all of the landowners within the District are amenable to its creation, and that future landowners will be made aware of the existence of the District and its obligations before purchasing property within the District. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, F.A.C., impose certain specific requirements set forth below regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. A. Elements of the Petition Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains such a description. This statutory section also requires that any property within the external boundaries of the District which is to be excluded from the District be specifically described and the last known addresses of all owners of this property be listed. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 includes this information. Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the written consent to establishment of the District of the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains the written consent of A. Duda & Sons, Inc./The Viera Company; John A. Bell, Trustee, of the Trust Agreement of John A. Bell dated October 29, 1993; Becky N. Bell, Trustee, of the Trust Agreement of Becky N. Bell dated October 29, 1993; Freedom Christian Center, Inc.; Temple Israel of Brevard County, Inc.; and Marlins-Viera, the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to contain the names of the five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, who will serve on the initial Board of Supervisors. The five persons designated in the Petition are: John R. Maloy 135 Highway A1A N., #135 Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Tracy Duda 1906 Whitehall Drive Winter Park, Florida 32792 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Thomas Duda 11700 Pinewood Lakes Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33813 Stephen L. Johnson 250 South Sykes Creek Parkway #603 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition contain the proposed name for the District. The Petition proposes to establish the "Central Viera Community Development District. Section 190.005(1)(a)5, Florida Statute, requires that the Petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 shows the location of those facilities within and adjacent to the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and the estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 contains this information in a table entitled "Central Viera CDD: Estimated Infrastructure Construction Schedule and Cost". Section 190.005(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13 provides that information. The Petition contains all information required by Section 190.005(1)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement Section 190.005(1)(a)8, Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to include an economic impact statement ("EIS") which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The EIS prepared by the Petitioner is attached to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13. The Petitioner's EIS meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)1. and 120.54(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, that an EIS include an estimate of the costs and benefits of the establishment of the District to all affected agencies and persons. It concludes that the economic benefits of establishing the District exceed the economic costs to all affected agencies and persons. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens would incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District would require no subsidies from the State to fund District improvements. Benefits would include improved planning and coordination of development, as well as long- term professional management and maintenance of District facilities. Costs of the establishment and operation of the District to Brevard County and its citizens should be offset by the $15,000 filing fee and other fees paid by the Petitioner or the District. The County would not be responsible for the debt service on any bonds used to fund District improvements. Citizens of the County would receive the benefits of planned development, and the County would be relieved of the fiscal and administrative burden of providing the improvements provided by the District. The Petitioner would incur substantial costs to create the District and would pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments as the largest landowner in the District in the initial stages of development. In addition, the Petitioner would provide certain rights-of-way and easements. The Petitioner would benefit from the establishment of the District because of increased access to bond financing. Landowners within the District would pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities; however, these facilities would be required for development regardless of the existence of the District. Benefits to these landowners/consumers would include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of improvements provided by the District on a timely basis, and a share of control over decisions involving community development services and facilities. The EIS also meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)3. and 120.54(2)(c)4., Florida Statutes, that the EIS include an estimate of the impact of the proposed rule on competition, the open market for employment, and on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. The implementation of this rule is not expected to have an adverse impact on competition and is expected to have only a nominal effect on the open market for employment and small business. The EIS also meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)5., Florida Statutes, that the statement include a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of not adopting the rule. Where there are reasonable alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the rule which are not precluded by law, Sections 120.54(2)(c)6. and 120.54(2)(c)7., Florida Statutes, require than an EIS describe these alternatives and make a determination of whether any of the alternatives are less costly or less intrusive than the proposed method. Petitioner's EIS meets these requirements and concludes that none of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery, and long-term management and maintenance of the public facilities and services to be provided by the District. The District is the preferred alternative because it is a special-purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned new communities. The requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)8., Florida Statutes, that the EIS include a detailed statement of the data and methodology used in preparing the analysis is also met. The Petitioner's EIS meets all the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires that the Petitioner submit a copy of the Petition and pay a filing fee to the local general-purpose government. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Brevard County for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The notice was published in Florida Today for four consecutive Wednesdays beginning on November 9, 1994. Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Commission to cause to be published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Such notice was published on November 4, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), F.A.C., requires the Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were hand delivered to the Secretary of the Commission as required on December 2, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), F.A.C., requires the Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notices were mailed as required by the rule.
Conclusions A local public hearing in the above styled matter was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer Daniel M. Kilbride, on December 7, 1994, at the Brevard County Government Center, 2725 St. Johns Street, Building C, Second Floor "Hearing Room," Viera, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes (Florida Statutes), for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of The Viera Company ("Petitioner") to establish the Central Viera Community Development District ("District"). This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Central Viera Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Exhibit 4. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Daniel M. Kilbride Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner Henry A. Wenz (Wenz) is a resident of Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Petitioners Hart Land & Cattle Co., Inc., R. L. Hart, and Clyde E. Hart are residents of, own property in, or own or operate businesses in Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Respondent Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Respondent Volusia County, which is a charter county, is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan under Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. Volusia County is a charter county. Volusia County is located on the Atlantic Coast and is bounded by Flagler and Putnam Counties to the north, Brevard and Seminole Counties to the south, and Lake County to the west. The east boundary runs about 47 miles along the coastline, and the west boundary includes about 75 miles along the St. Johns River before running along lakes to the north and south. Volusia County contains 14 incorporated areas. Only four of these incorporated areas are in west Volusia County: DeLand, which is the County seat; Lake Helen; Orange City; and Pierson. The coastal area contains the remaining 10 incorporated areas, including the county's principal city, Daytona Beach. Public Participation By Resolution No. 86-105 adopted August 7, 1986, Volusia County established various requirements for notice and public hearings in the comprehensive planning process. Acknowledging that the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission serves as the local planning agency (LPA), pursuant to Volusia County Ordinance 80-8, as amended, Resolution No. 86- 105 directs the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department to accept, consider, preserve, and respond to written public comments. Following the adoption of Resolution No. 86-105, the LPA commenced a process designed to ensure that citizens with a wide range of interests could make substantial contributions to the comprehensive planning process. The LPA formed five citizens' committees, known as Citizen Resource Committees, to consider planning questions corresponding to each of the elements required to be included in the comprehensive plan. Each committee comprised about 20 members, and the chair of each committee was a member of the LPA. 1/ Membership of each Citizen Resource Committee was diverse. For instance, members of the land use committee included homeowners, developers, and environmentalists. The diversity of membership was the result of the LPA's efforts to solicit nominations for membership from a broad range of civic, trade, or professional associations. In all, the LPA asked 150 organizations to make nominations and 62 organizations did so. In the case of the land use committee, for example, members were nominated by, among others, such groups as the League of Women Voters, Association of Condominiums, West Volusia Home Builders Association, and Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc. Each Citizen Resource Committee met about nine times from July, 1988, to May, 1989. Prior to these series of meetings, the LPA conducted a meeting to explain the comprehensive planning process. Each meeting of the LPA or Citizen Resource Committee was open to the public and announced by news releases published in numerous local news media. During the nine months that the Citizen Resource Committees met, Volusia County amended Resolution No. 86-105 to require that all planning materials given to the Citizen Resource Committees, LPA, or County Council be available for review by the public. Adopted February 2, 1989, Resolution No. 89-27 made planning documents available for copying by the public at cost. Following the completion of the work of the Citizen Resource Committees, the LPA then conducted six public workshops between June 14 and June 27, 1989. Large display advertisements were published in local newspapers of general circulation preceding at least some of these meetings, including the June 14 and 19 meetings where it was announced that the LPA would consider certain named elements for recommendation to the County Council. The LPA ultimately recommended the draft elements to the County Council. On July 7, 1989, the County Council held its first public workshop on the proposed plan. Over the next two months, the County Council conducted nine such workshops, at least some of which were announced by large display advertisements in local newspapers of general circulation. Minutes and notes of these workshops indicate that Council members regularly solicited comments from members of the public in attendance. The County Council conducted nine public workshops or hearings from July 7, 1989, through August 29, 1989. The County Council workshops culminated in the transmittal hearing, which took place on September 7, 1989. The hearing was announced by large newspaper display advertisements that satisfied all requirements of law. After transmittal of the proposed plan and receipt of the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA, the County Council announced by large display newspaper advertisements that a hearing would be conducted on February 22, 1990, to receive public comments and adopt the comprehensive plan. The notice satisfied all requirements of law. The County Council received extensive public comments at the February 22 hearing and continued the hearing to March 8. Again receiving extensive public comment at the March 8 hearing, the County Council continued the hearing to March 15. The County Council adopted the comprehensive plan at the March 15 hearing, although Ordinance No. 90-10, which adopts the plan, indicates that the plan was adopted at a public hearing on March 10, 1990. 2/ Ordinance No. 90-10 adopts the goals, objectives, and policies, but not the supporting data and analysis. Traffic Circulation Element Data and Analysis In preparing the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE), the County first inventoried the existing road system to determine capacity, demand, and overall system performance. To assist in this effort, the County Council retained (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., which issued a report in September, 1989, analyzing the availability of transportation facilities and services to serve existing and future demands (Kimley-Horn Report). The Kimley-Horn Report serves as part of the data and analysis on which the plan was based. Beginning with 1987 conditions, Kimley-Horn noted that the County required nearly $68.2 million of road improvements to attain level of service C on all roads. 3/ To evaluate future needs, Kimley-Horn used a standard traffic forecasting formula and socio-economic data provided by the County Planning Department. After identifying numerous traffic analysis zones and validating the model for the subject forecasting purposes, Kimley-Horn ran ten model runs. In designing various network alternatives, Kimley-Horn considered level of service standards in light of factors such as the requirement of concurrency, the goal of urban in-fill, and the "[d]irect correlation between urban size and acceptance of some highway congestion as a trade off for other urban amenities and cost considerations." Kimley-Horn Report, page 17. The West Volusia Beltline would be located in southwest Volusia County between U.S. 17/92 and 1-4. Comprising several segments, the beltway's southernmost segment is from Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard. Apparently while Kimley-Horn was preparing its report, Volusia County adopted a Five-Year Road Program, which includes certain projects from a 2010 financially feasible plan for the coastal area. The Five-Year Road Program, which will cost $94.7 million for right-of-way acquisition and construction, will require $52 million from the County, or $59.3 million after taking into consideration the effect of inflation. From north to south, the Five-Year Road Program includes the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all under County jurisdiction: Kepler Road to Taylor Road (1.0 mile)--construction of two lanes; Taylor Road to State Route 472 (2.3 miles)--construction of two lanes; and State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile)--addition of two lanes to the two existing lanes. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that, during the five-year road program, the County will have revenues of only $49.2 million available for road construction without regard to inflation but assuming increases in population and tourism. The report discusses various options, such as raising impact fees, raising the share of gas taxes devoted to construction versus maintenance, and accelerating road projections to negate the effect of inflation. The County- estimated revenues are 6-17% short of estimated costs. In any event, the projected revenue shortfall during the Five-Year Road Program should have no effect on the three West Volusia Beltway projects. The Kimley-Horn Report ranks all of the five-year projects based on relative importance. All three beltway projects are in the top ten, and the cumulative construction costs expended through the first ten projects is $28.8 million, which is well within available revenues of $49.2 million. Assuming that the Five-Year Road Program is timely completed, Kimley- Horn calculated 1995 levels of service by applying County-supplied socioeconomic data to existing traffic models. The result, displayed on Figure 11 in the Kimley-Horn Report, discloses an insignificant segment of U.S. 17/92 in the downtown area at level of service F and, especially relative to east Volusia County, little system mileage at level of service E. Based on the analysis described in the preceding paragraphs, the Kimley-Horn Report concludes that county-wide roadway operating conditions in 1995 are excellent in that, out of 895.3 system miles, only 21.4 miles are predicted to operate at Level of Service F. This represents 2.39 percent of the county's system miles. In the same light, 52.86 miles fall at Level of Service E condition representing 5.9 percent of the total system miles. Overall, approximately 92 percent of the county-wide roadway system-miles is predicted to operate at Level of Service D or better in 1995. Kimley-Horn Report, pages 58-60. Table 28 of the report, which divides the County into 11 geographic areas, prioritizes road segments for construction after 1996 based on volume-to- capacity ratios projected for 1995 after completion of the base network. 4/ Table 28 projects no excessive use of segments in west Volusia County. The average volume-to-capacity ratios in west Volusia County are projected as follows: for the area north of DeLand--0.40; for the area south of DeLand--0.60; and for the area west of Deltona--0.75. Although the last area contains three segments with ratios over 0.90, the West Volusia Beltline would, in 1995, have a volume-to-capacity ratio of only 0.44. Designing a 2010 network, Kimley-Horn analyzed additional highway segments selected from a financially feasible plan and various alternatives previously considered in the report. These segments, which are listed in Table 19 of the report, exclude all of the roads contained in the Five-Year Road Program. The total cost, including right-of-way acquisition, construction, and inflation, is $1.38 billion, with the County's share at $510 million. From north to south, the 2010 network contains the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all projected to remain under County jurisdiction: State Route 44 to State Route 472 (5.6 miles)--addition of four lanes to two lanes in the existing or base network; State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile) --addition of two lanes to four lanes in the existing or base network; and Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard (3.0 miles)--construction of four lanes where none exists in the 1995 network. However, the 1995 level of service projections properly ignore those segments of the West Volusia Beltway included in the 2010 network, including the new four lanes south of Graves Avenue, because these segments are not part of the existing or base network. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that gas taxes and impact fees available to the County to fund the County's system improvements from 1996 through 2010 will total only about $278 million. Assuming that future state contributions will equal past contributions, the Kimley-Horn Report estimates that state revenues for system improvements will total about $272 million from 1996 through 2010. The total County and state contributions are projected to be about $550 million for 1996 through 2010, which would leave a projected combined state/County deficiency of $338 million. The Kimley-Horn Report recommends that the County update the TCE once the projected revenue shortfall materializes following the construction of the base network in 1995. Specific items to be considered include the adjustment of level of service standards, identification of new revenue sources, and adjustment of permitted densities and intensities in the affected areas. The Kimley-Horn Report concludes that the plan updating process should be viewed as an on- going, iterative process whereby road needs, available revenues and finally financial analysis merge... This process is designed to provide a dynamic and on-going planning tool that can be used to provide an on-going monitoring and updating program for the transportation system in Volusia County. Kimley-Horn Report, page 83. Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. Bicycles and Pedestrians TCE Objective 2.1.1 states that, prior to 1996, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient motorized transportation system." TCR Objective 2.1.2 states that, prior to 1995, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system." TCE Policies 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.2 state that, prior to October 1, 1990, the County "shall develop regulations for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians within all new development proposals" [sic]. TCE Policy 2.1.2.1 states that, prior to 1993, the County "shall coordinate with the MPO to develop a County-wide bicycle facilities plan." The Capital Improvement Program schedules all significant capital projects to be undertaken for the six years between 1990-1995. An adopted part of the plan, the Capital Improvement Program contains a summary of road projects beginning at page C-243. The table shows, by year and amount, expenditures for all capital road projects, including the above-described segments of the West Volusia Beltway without significant alterations. Also included are $1.17 million for constructing bike paths in fiscal year ending 1990 and $180,000 for constructing bike paths in the following year. Beginning in fiscal year ending 1991 and through the end of the covered period, the table shows that the County intends to spend about $370,000 annually constructing bike paths/sidewalks and, in the first two years, $860,000 in widening bike paths. 2. Level of Service Standards for Roads The objectives and policies under TCE Goal 2.2 set the level of service standards applicable to roads in the County. TCE Objective 2.2.1 states: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Volusia County shall establish peak hour level of service standards and prior to 1996, Volusia County shall achieve and maintain standards for peak hour levels of service on the thoroughfare system. TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 establish the peak hour level of service standards for state-and County-maintained roads. The level of service standards for state-maintained freeways and principal arterials, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are D and C, respectively. The level of service standards for state-maintained minor arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are E and D, respectively. TCE Policy 2.2.1.6 sets the level of service standards for County-maintained arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, at E and C, respectively. With respect to the reduced level of service standard allowed on County roads in urbanized areas, TCE Policy 2.1.1.7 explains that the County "shall expend County transportation funds in a manner which encourages compact urban development." TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 permit certain exceptions to the general level of service standards. A major exception is that the level of service standards apply only to road segments that are neither backlogged nor constrained. By means of this exception, the County distinguishes between roads operating at or above 5/ their adopted level of service standards and capable of widening, which are subject to the general level of service standards, and roads that are, at the time of plan adoption, operating below their adopted level of service standards or are incapable of widening, which are backlogged or constrained, respectively. The plan defines a backlogged road as one operating at a level of service standard below the minimum adopted by the County Council. However, a road operating below its designated level of service standard is not a backlogged road if it is a constrained facility or if it is scheduled for capacity improvements in the five-year road program of the Florida Department of Transportation or the County Council. 6/ Plan Element 20, Paragraph 14. A constrained road is one to which two or more lanes cannot be added due to physical or policy barriers. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 41. TCE Policies 2.2.1.7 through 2.2.1.9 identify backlogged road segments. TCE Policy 2.2.1.10 requires that the actual level of service standard for each identified backlogged road segment be raised by one standard by 1996. TCE Policy 2.2.1.11 requires that the level of service standards for each identified backlogged road segment attain, by 2001, the general standards set forth in TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6. For constrained roads presently at their adopted level of service standards, TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides that, barring acceptable mitigation, the County shall not allow further development after the constrained road reaches the applicable level of service standard. 3. Concurrency Requirements The introduction to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) links the concepts of level of service and concurrency. The introduction, which is not an adopted part of the plan, notes: "The existing service level was used as a benchmark for most of the proposed service level standards found in this draft [sic] element." The introduction acknowledges: Adjusting service levels [and] facility costs to projected revenue allocated to capital facilities is part of the [planning] process. If revenue allocated to pay for capital costs is insufficient, then either service levels have to be reduced or additional revenue raised or created to support the desired level of service. CIE Policy 15.1.1.3 prohibits the issuance of a development order for development that would degrade the level of service standard below the adopted standard, unless the plan specifically permits such a degradation. CIE Policy 15.3.1.1 states that the level of service standards adopted in the plan apply to all development orders issued after October 1, 1990. The issue of vested rights, which is generally reserved for land development regulations, is addressed to some degree in the plan. CIE Policy 15.1.1.7 requires orders for developments of regional impact, if issued after October 1, 1990, to be subject to the plan's concurrency requirements. CIE Policy 15.3.4.3 contemplates the reduction of level of service standards due to the effect of vested development; however, a plan amendment is required in such cases. Recognizing the importance of vested development in terms of demand on public facilities, CIE Policies 15.5.4.6, 15.5.5.1, and 15.5.5.2 require a study of reserved capacities and inventory and analysis of capacity remaining after the demands of vested development have been met. CIE Objective 15.5.1 states that the concurrency provisions adopted as part of the plan will become effective October 1, 1990. Other concurrency provisions are to be included in land development regulations. CIE Policy 15.5.1.1 identifies those facilities, including roads, for which concurrency is required. CIE Policy 15.5.1.3 states: The required facilities shall be in place and operating or estimated to be operating at a minimum service level established in this Comprehensive Plan at the time a building permit is issued, or a building permit is issued subject to the condition that the required facilities shall be in place prior to issuing of that final development order. A final development order is a building permit. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 52. CIE Policy 15.5.1.4 states that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are under construction or under contract for acquisition at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.5 adds that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are the subject of a binding contract executed for the construction or acquisition of the required facilities at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.6 states: New developments may meet the test for capacity and concurrency if they can be supported by the construction of specific facilities and the expansion of facility capacity by specific projects contained in the first year of the Capital Improvements five year schedule of programmed improvements (Capital Budget), following the issuance of a final development order. This policy shall pertain to the following facility categories: roads ... Specific conditions for the timing of private development and completion of the above facility categories shall be part of an enforceable development agreement and shall be part of the County's development review process when land uses and their densities/intensities are first proposed. Specific timing and phasing of these facilities in relationship to the issuance of building permits and other final development orders shall be delineated in [various land development regulations]. However, CIE Policy 15.5.2.2 requires: The following facilities shall be available to coincide 7/ with approval of building permits for developments that are to be built during a single phase: roads ... It shall be the intent of this policy to ensure that the above-mentioned facilities and services needed to support such development are available concurrent with impacts created by such developments... Specific timing and phasing conditions related to the above concurrency facilities shall be identified in greater detail in [various land development regulations]. Dealing with development projects designed to take place over several years, CIE Policy 15.5.2.3 provides in part: In these cases, programmed improvements from the Five Year Schedule of Improvements shall be included as part of the concurrency determination as long as their availability coincides with the impact of such a multi- year, multi-phase development. CIE Policy 15.5.2.4 addresses the situation in which necessary public or private facilities are delayed. If the delayed facility "may imperil the public health, welfare and safety," the County "may impose delay requirements on any permits it has issued so that public facility availability may be approximately concurrent with the impact of new development." Just as the backlogged and constrained roads are subject to special level of service standards, so too are they subject to special concurrency provisions. These provisions are contained in the policy cluster under CIE Objective 15.5.3. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1 describes the process by which the County will monitor levels of service on backlogged roads. The process begins with documenting as a benchmark the traffic counts on these roads prior to the adoption of the plan. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.b provides that each backlogged road "shall not be allowed to degrade its operational service standards ... by ... more than twenty (20) percent of the peak hour bench mark [traffic] counts ... " 8/ The monitoring provisions require the County to use generally accepted traffic modeling procedures to project the number of trips generated by proposed developments and the likely distribution of these trips. Regarding backlogged roads, CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.e states: The County shall not approve any additional final local development orders, (excluding vested properties) including building permits, once the percent threshold for projects within urban/urbanized area center(s) including municipalities is reached from final development orders only if such local development orders would generate trips in excess of ten/fifteen/twenty percent on a peak hour basis, unless a final development order is subject to the adoption and implementation of an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan. An Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following activities: turn lanes signalization incentives for employees to use mass transit where available van/car pooling programs staggered work hours CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.f states that the "goal" of the Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan is to achieve "100 percent mitigation of the impacts of a proposed development" and that, where applicable, the plan shall include participants besides the developer, such as "adjacent property owners, business establishments and homeowner associations." CIE Policy 15.3.4.8 states: The adopted Volusia County Five Year Road Program, reflected in the Capital Improvements Element's five year schedule of capital improvements[,] will provide the capacity necessary to relieve backlogged State roads. In the event that revenues collected from transportation (road) impact fees fall short of projections and the need arises to delay any of the identified capacity projects, Volusia County shall amend this element and the Traffic Circulation Element through coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation and performing [sic] speed delay studies to more accurately evaluate the level of service on the effected [sic] backlogged road. The County shall temporarily defer the issuance of development orders having direct impact on the facility which cannot be corrected through implementation of a Traffic Action Mitigation Plan as identified in 15.5.3.1(e) of this element, until such time that the level of service has been improved to the acceptable level. Any change in service level standards as a result of speed delay studies shall be done through a plan amendment. 9/ Awkward grammar in the first sentence of CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 precludes a finding as to what constrained facilities are addressed by this policy, but in general the policy provides that the County "may allow development to occur [on these constrained facilities] which will not increase peak hour traffic volumes by more than five or ten percent." Five-percent degradation is allowed for physically constrained state roads, and ten-percent degradation is allowed for policy constrained state roads. CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 requires the developer of the development impacting a constrained road to prepare a Traffic Analysis and implement an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, but only after an urbanized constrained state road has degraded to its minimum level of service, as set forth in the plan. At this point, "no further degradation will be permitted below the minimum approved local service levels set for constrained roads, that in 1989 were operating at or above the desired minimum service level." CIE Policy 15.5.3.2.d prohibits the County from denying a development order if the developer demonstrates a willingness to maintain service levels by entering into an enforceable development agreement including the implementation of either an Individual or Area-Wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, where the developer has demonstrated good faith to achieve 100 percent mitigation of the impact of such development. Payment of the road impact fee may not necessarily meet the 100% mitigation desired. For constrained County roads, the County "shall closely monitor" traffic volumes. Once the constrained road reaches its minimum acceptable level of service (C if nonurbanized, E if urbanized), TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides: "the County may not allow further development which cannot provide acceptable mitigative measures to the adverse traffic impacts of the proposed development." For development impacting either a backlogged or constrained road, TCE Policy 2.2.1.23 requires the developer to prepare an "Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan" covering those geographic areas specified as affected by relevant land development regulations. Other policies describe the traffic impact model in detail and procedural processes by which persons denied development orders may challenge the factual bases underlying the denial. CIE Policy 15.5.4.1 limits to two years the life of the concurrency determination for all public facilities for which concurrency is required, unless the County and applicant agree otherwise. In the latter case, however, the applicant must guarantee his financial obligations for public facilities by providing a cash escrow deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, prepayment of impact fees, prepayment of connection charges, or Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. CIE Policy 15.5.4.4.1 provides that "if concurrency and facility capacity is not available or cannot be made available through Policy 15.5.4.1(2)(a) ..., these findings shall be reasons for denial of such development orders." CIE Policies 15.5.5.7-15.5.5.9 add detailed requirements to the land development regulations concerning the concurrency management system and specifically the evaluation and monitoring necessary for the successful operation of a concurrency management system. 4. Financial Feasibility of Road Projects The final section of the CIE, although not formally adopted as part of the plan, is entitled, "An Introduction to the [CIE] Six Year Program: Fiscal Year 1989-90 to Fiscal Year 1994-95." This section begins: "The proposed [CIE]'s Five Year Program is feasible only to the extent that certain actions can be implemented prior to October 1, 1990." These actions include the following: approval of the one cent optional sales tax by May, 1990; increase of road impact fees to cover an estimated $6 million shortfall; and restriction of the funding of road safety and other road projects to sources other than existing gas tax revenues, such as the one cent optional sales tax, increased ad valorem taxes, or other sources. The introduction to the CIE concedes that the one cent optional sales tax is a key future revenue source to pay for improvements for facilities that either have no dedicated revenue source or that have revenue sources that have been used in the past but are no longer adequate to maintain or improve service levels into the future. Clearly without the One Cent Optional Sales Tax, the amount of Capital Improvements will have to be reduced in half. This will have severe impacts on service levels for ... roads ... The introduction reasons that ad valorem property taxes should not be used extensively for financing much of the required facilities because ad valorem taxes are needed to operate the newly constructed facilities and the seasonal population does not pay its fair share of the cost of facilities when they are financed by ad valorem taxes. Although not adopted as part of the plan, the data and analysis supporting the CIE contain useful background information concerning financial feasibility. Table 15-15 indicates that the County's share of the optional one cent sales tax would have been $81.3 million for the six-year period, 1990-95. Table 15-16 shows, for the same period, that capital road projects constitute about 24% of all capital expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program begins with a budget message from the County manager. Stressing the importance of the one cent optional sales tax, the message concludes that the only other viable Source of funding the County's infrastructure needs is the ad valorem tax. The total cost of road projects for 1990-96 is $122.6 million. Capital Improvement Program, page C-246. Of this sum, the local option sales tax was Projected to Provide $35.6 million. Id. During the same period, the County's capital expenditures are Projected to total $417.8 million. Capital Improvement Program, page B-2. Of this total, $249 million was Projected to be spent on facilities for which concurrency is required. Id. CIE Objective 15.3.1 places roads as the highest priority among all other facilities. The objectives and policies under CIE Goal 15.4 describe the funding Sources for capital projects. These Sources include user fees, impact fees, broad-based revenue sources, and debt Proceeds. Among user fees, CIE Policy 15.4.1.9 allocates the gas tax between maintenance and construction expenditures. CIE Policy 15.4.1.10 extends all gas taxes under the County's control to 2010. CIE Policy 15.4.1.11 directs the County to use "to the maximum extent possible" all other road user fees, such as toll roads, utility taxes, and special assessments. Addressing impact fees for roads, Objective 15.4.2 provides: Future development shall bear their fair share (a pro rata share) of not less than seventy (70%) percent of road facility costs including [right-of-way] as a result of their development in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards and other measurable objective standards. CIE Policy 15.4.2.6 requires the County to "verify that the impact fees are sufficient to cover the pro rata share of improvement costs necessitated by new development." CIE Objective 15.4.3 promises that the County will "rely primarily on the broadest revenue bases as possible for the funding of Capital facilities." CIE Policy 15.4.3.2 reserves the one cent optional sales tax for facilities for which no dedicated revenue sources exist. CIE Policy 15.4.3.3 restricts the County from using increases in the ad valorem tax millage rate for purposes other than operating costs associated with future additional capital facilities, unless other sources of funding are not available. CIE Policy 15.4.3.5 considers the alternatives if the one cent optional sales tax were not approved by the voters. In such a case, the County shall consider, among other measures, increasing the ad valorem tax millage rate to fund public facilities for which concurrency is required, creating special taxing districts, reducing service levels, increasing yet-to-be specified new revenue sources, and selectively using Community Development Districts. 10/ Relevant Provisions of the Regional Plan Policy 64.1 of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) provides: Local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation will set appropriate minimum levels of service for components of the regional roadway system under their respective jurisdictions. The ... Regional Planning Council will assist these bodies in developing their service standards, with the following level of service standards being used as guidelines in the determination of levels of service for individual components of the regional roadway system: In rural areas (Level of Service "C") * * * In urban fringe, urban residential areas, and outlying business districts (Level of Service "D") * * * In central business districts (Level of Service "E") * * * The minimum levels of service determinations will be based on the following criteria: Regional level of service guidelines: Existing conditions of each roadway: Planned programmed roadway improvements: Financial constraints: and Local Comprehensive Plans, and adopted DRI or other development orders. Level of service E on roads of the State Highway System are subject to the agreement of the local government, regional planning council, Florida Department of Transportation, and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Regional Plan Policy 64.5 provides: Access to minor arterials, major arterials and expressways shall be limited in order to maximize their traffic-carrying capacity and safety ... Regional Plan Policy 64.8 states: The principle of equitable cost participation shall be used as a guide in development approval decisions, including allocation of costs among private parties benefiting from or creating the need for transportation improvements, with consideration being given to: New development being required to pay its fair share as a condition for development approval, unless sufficient funds are available from other sources; Existing unmet needs being identified, to include the nature of the need and estimated cost of fulfillment; and Existing land uses and activities which benefit from better access being required to participate in the cost of the roadway improvement or new construction which results in the improved access in the form of user fees or special assessments. Provisions being made in local development orders to include the mitigation of adverse impacts on the state highway system. Regional Plan Policy 64.6 requires that traffic signalization, roadway signage, and operational capacities be designed "to optimize traffic flow and enhance the levels of service throughout the regional roadway network. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.5 provides in relevant part: Local governments are requested to undertake the following actions: Evaluate the feasibility and practicality of enacting ordinances capable of assessing existing landowners a proportionate share of costs associated with the elimination of unmet needs based on the provision of enhanced level of service benefits accruing from roadway improvements or new construction projects. Enact impact fee ordinances which are designed to cover the fair share cost of roadway improvements on local and state roadways except for that portion of deficient capacity already existing. Seek public review and comment on all new roadway construction proposals and widening projects. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.6 requests Metropolitan Planning Organizations to take certain actions and is thus irrelevant to the present case. Capital Improvements Element The financial feasibility of the entire plan, which is challenged by Petitioners Hart, has been considered to some extent in the findings concerning roads. These findings involve not only the financial feasibility of the Capital Improvement Program for roads, but the overall financial feasibility of the plan. As explained in the corresponding section of the Conclusions of Law, the optional one cent sales tax may be considered to a greater extent in determining the financial feasibility of the entire plan than it may be considered in the availability of scheduled capital projects in making concurrency determinations. The Capital Improvement Program, which schedules capital improvements for the six year period from 1990-1995, identifies, as noted above, $417.8 million in capital expenditures. Although the sources of funding are not collected in a single table like expenditures are, revenues are identified in numerous tables covering each of the numerous categories of public expenditures. In each case, revenues match expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program does not address alternative revenue sources to the optional one cent sales tax. However, CIE 15.4.3.5 describes revenue alternatives to the optional one cent sales tax. Future Land Use and Conservation Elements Data and Analysis The data and analysis accompanying the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) contain population tables prepared by the County, U.S Census, and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. The population projection for 2000, which is 506,000 persons, is the high-range projection prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Support Document #1-1, page 14. Among the factors considered in the land use suitability analysis are the type of soil, presence of wetland vegetation, and nature of the floodplain if the land is located in the 100-year floodplain. Support Document #1-5, page Analysis of these factors is incorporated into a suitability rating system, which is then projected onto maps. Id. The land use suitability analysis contains an extensive inventory of native habitats, soils, and existing land uses by region. The suitability rating system factors in other items such as the availability of central water and sewer and the presence of historic resources. Support Document #1-6 describes the process by which future uses are allocated to the land. Taking the projected population of the unincorporated part of the County, the analysis first allocates the population among six geographic planning areas. Determining the number of dwelling units needed to accommodate the projected population, the analysis generates data indicating the additional acreage required, by the end of the planning timeframe, to accommodate expected residential and nonresidential uses. A growth factor of 30% is then added to the residential and commercial categories due to high growth rates expected from the County's proximity to Disneyworld and the proposed Spaceport. Support Document 1-7 describes the process by which the land uses necessary to accommodate the previously described growth are designated on the future land use maps. Data and analysis supporting the future land use designations for forestry, agriculture, and environmental uses are found in Support Document #12- 1, which accompanies the Conservation Element. Based upon considerable data concerning wildlife and native habitats, the analysis concludes that "there are broad expanses of ecologically interconnected lands." Id. at page 12R-50. The analysis recommends that the plan establish a land use category within which urban development would be discouraged... Because growth should be directed towards those lands best able to accommodate future development, marginally suited lands for development should be placed in a Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA), as should interconnecting environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant lands. This would include ... inland swamp systems, riverine and estuarine flood plains, critical wildlife habitats, and endangered, rare or threatened ecosystems." The recommendation for the establishment of Natural Resource Management Areas (NRMA) explains further: The area within the NRMA should be divided into districts of special use, promoting activities which are compatible with natural resource protection. Among these divisions should be one which affords a degree of protection to natural systems which would assure their continued, uninterrupted preservation. Although several thousand acres of these lands are in public ownership, there is not enough public funds to purchase all the environmentally sensitive lands in the County, and therefore requires land use controls to ensure an adequate degree of ecological integrity. Because a major component of the value of natural communities is the ecological interrelationships with other natural communities, a highly effective way to protect ecological functions would be to form a natural areas network, or corridors. Land which falls within this network, referred to as Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC's), would be restricted to land use activities which inflict extremely small long term impacts on ecological functions, primarily a type of large lot conservation residential and passive types of agriculture, particularly silviculture. The corridors should include protected systems of wetlands, conservation lands and, where possible, rare and threatened upland communities such as mesic hammocks and longleaf pine-oaks. Because silviculture is the predominant use on the relic marine terraces, and that this use appears to be the most suitable for the terraces given the natural constraints of the land, a forestry district should be established within the NRMA. The intent of the forestry district would be to promote silvicultural pursuits and to keep this a predominant use on the relic terraces. This should be part of the NRMA because silvicultural activities typically have the least impact on natural resources other than public ownership, and thus should be encouraged on private landholdings. Other types of agricultural uses should be allowed in the forestry district to provide a certain amount of flexibility, but silviculture should be the predominant use. * * * Established agricultural areas which occur within the NRMA, particularly around Samsula should be considered an agricultural enclave within the NRMA, and should have the appropriate agricultural land use classifications. The enclave should allow room for a limited amount of agricultural growth. Id. at pages 12B-51 and 12B-52. Although the analysis concedes that the data are unavailable by which to map the vegetative communities at a sufficiently high level of detail, the mapping was scheduled to be completed by March, 1990. In the meantime, maps contained in the Support Document indicate generally the location of important vegetative communities, partly because of extensive reliance upon NASA infrared maps of wetlands and vegetation. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Various goals, objectives, and policies are relevant to Petitioners Hart's challenge to the relationship between the forestry, agricultural, and environmental designations and the operative provisions of the plan. Conservation Element Objective 12.2.1 is to "provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Toward that end, Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 provides that "[e]xisting, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning." These units are NRMA's. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 identifies specific areas to be included in NRMA. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to: promote land use activities compatible with the intentions of the NRMA through the establishment of special use areas, the boundaries of which to be determined by resource data including: ecological community mapping as stated in Policy 12.2.2.1, USGS Topographic maps; National Wetland Inventory maps; Florida Natural Area Inventory records; available wildlife data; and site specific field information if available. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC) and Forestry areas within NRMA's. The policy identifies these two designations as follows: ESC's shall include significant interconnected natural systems of environmentally sensitive lands, connected to and including conservation areas where possible. Land use activities shall be limited to conservation, silviculture utilizing Best Management Practices, and large residential lots with limits on land clearance. Proposed roads which encroach within ESC's shall minimize adverse impacts by: aligning the routes at the least sensitive areas (e.g., narrowest width of wetlands); requiring sufficiently sized bridging and culverts over wetlands to allow non-interrupted water flow and wildlife access; and posting low speed limits and/or caution signs. A forestry category shall be established which shall promote the continued and expanded use of silviculture in Volusia County. Because the mixed use concept is an integral component of forest management, the standards of this category shall not interfere with this practice, so long as silviculture remains the dominant use and best management practices are followed. The Future Land Use Categories, which are adopted as part of the plan, describe in more detail the ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture designations. Most significantly, the Future Land Use Categories set residential densities at one unit per 25 acres for the ESC designation, an average of one unit per 20 acres for the Forestry designation (but one unit per five acres may be permitted), and one unit per ten acres for the Agriculture designation. FLUE, pages 1-2 to 1-6. The general designation of NRMA's is intended to carry out FLUE Objective 1.2.1, which requires FLUE designations to "reflect the inherent capabilities and limitations of the existing natural features of the land." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 requires that, during the development review process, the County shall consider the site's topography, vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood hazard, and soils, as well as the location of the 100-year floodplain. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.3 states that "lands most suited for silviculture activities shall be [designated] under the Forest Resource subcategory of NRMA." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.4 limits the extent of intensive agriculture in any NRMA. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.5 restricts residential development in any Forest Resource area to one unit per five acres. FLUE Coal 1.4 is to "ensure that agricultural and silvicultural lands are protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses and remain a vital element of the County's economy." FLUE Policy 1.4.1.1B provides that urban growth is to be directed away from Agriculture areas. Miscellaneous Findings Petitioners Hart own 11/ 1000-1500 acres at County Road 415 and State Road 44 in the vicinity of Samsula (Samsula Land). They also own 2000-2500 acres just west of Edgewater, south of State Route 44, and mostly east of I-95, which is known as the Charles Sibbald Grant (Sibbald Land). About 500-700 acres of the Sibbald Land lie west of I-95. About three miles south of the Sibbald Land, Petitioners Hart own 6000-8000 acres that is divided almost equally by I- 95 and is known as the John Lowe Grant (Lowe Land). It is not possible to cross I-95 where it divides the land. The Sibbald Land and Lowe Land have no improved roads or other public facilities. Petitioners Hart acquired all of the land for investment purposes. The Samsula Land is mostly undeveloped and used largely for cattle and possibly timbering. The Sibbald Land is a contiguous block of land that has not been subdivided. Hart Land & Cattle Co. acquired the land in the early 1970's. Timber has been harvested on the smaller section of this land west of I-95. The trees have been harvested for about 50 years. Back in the 1940's, a turpentine business was operated on the land. Petitioners Hart have also mined shell for road bases and red sand for asphalt from the Sibbald Land. Petitioners Hart acquired the Lowe Land in 1980 or 1981. Consisting of numerous noncontiguous lots, the Lowe Land is part of a 14,000-acre subdivision known as Cape Atlantic Estates, which was subdivided into 6000-7000 parcels in the late 1960's. Cattle are kept on the northeast corner of the Lowe Land. The Lowe Land has contained improved pastureland for almost 70 years. The record provides no basis for findings of the extent to which land owned by Petitioners Hart is subject to the ESC, Forestry, and Agricultural designations; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have been denied proposed uses of their land; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have exhausted County administrative remedies, such as requesting field surveys, to obtain available relief from the impact of the NRMA designations; or other matters relevant to the taking claims of Petitioners Hart. However, the evidence fails to establish that Petitioners Hart have been denied all economically reasonable uses of their entire property or any individual parcel. Ultimate Findings of Fact Traffic Circulation Element 1. Data and Analysis The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis accompanying the TCE inadequately addresses existing levels of service and present and future system needs, as well as the need for new and expanded facilities. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis inadequately addresses projected levels of service based on future land uses and the relevant plans of other jurisdictions. The evidence is clear that the West Volusia Beltway is feasible, given the funding priorities assigned to its various projects in the plan. There is substantial evidence to support the transportation data and modeling on which the road networks are based. There is no significant evidence that the projected levels of service for any road segments are inaccurate due to an unjustifiable reliance on the traffic to be borne by the West Volusia Beltway or for any other reason. Petitioner Wenz alleged that TCE Policy 2.2.1.6, which establishes a level of service standard of E for County-maintained roads in urbanized areas, was internally inconsistent with the introductory language of the CIE concerning the use of existing level of service standards as benchmarks for most of the proposed level of service standards set forth in the plan. This allegation has been treated as raising the issue of supporting data and analysis. 12/ For roads, the analysis begins with the existing levels of service and then, as indicating in the introduction, adjusts service levels to correspond to projected revenues. If the use of the word "benchmark" were to imply an unvarying standard, then the sentence would impose upon the planning effort an unrealistic and, in the case of the County's urban containment strategy, unworkable limitation. Operative plan provisions should not be rejected because of lack of support from incompetent analysis. 2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible in terms of scheduled road projects. Roads receive the highest priority for capital spending in the County. Although the optional one cents sales tax required a referendum, the plan adequately identifies other potential sources of revenue to fund needed road improvements. The unavailability of the optional one cent sales tax means the loss of $35.6 million for road projects over the six-year period covered by the Capital Improvement Program. Representing about 29% of the road budget for these six years, the optional one cent sales tax can be replaced by other funds. Total capital spending over this period is projected at $417.8 million, of which $249 million is projected for facilities for which concurrency is required. The evidence does not establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the shortfall of $35.6 million, under these facts, renders the plan financially unfeasible as to roads. As the plan acknowledges, another factor supporting the financial feasibility of the plan as to roads is the concurrency provisions. 13/ The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to create a monitoring system to enable the County to determine whether it is adhering to the adopted level of service standards and whether public facilities are available. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to require development agreements to ensure that required facilities will be in place when the impacts of development occur. During periods of revenue shortfalls, timely concurrency determinations supported by an effective monitoring system and understandable level of service standards may help preserve financial feasibility. A concurrency management system breaks the cycle by which the impacts of development outpace the ability of a local government to finance needed infrastructure. To prevent the accumulation of infrastructure deficits, such as backlogged roads, a concurrency management system limits development whose impacts exceed the available capacity of facilities for which concurrency is required. In the absence of funding from the developer or a third party, a financially strapped local government no longer permits the proposed development and thus does not increase the backlog of needed public facilities. The portion of Petitioner Wenz's challenge to provisions governing development agreements also raises the issue of concurrency determinations, at least in the situation where the developer, rather than the County, is providing the required facilities. As to development agreements, CIE Policies 15.5.1.6 and 15.5.3.2.d provide for the use of enforceable development agreements to provide required facilities. CIE Policies 15.5.1.1 et seq. establish generally applicable concurrency requirements that adequately correspond, for the purpose of resolving the present claims, to the concurrency criteria in Rule 9J-5.0055. The concurrency determinations for developments impacting backlogged and constrained roads reflect a strategy of adjusting level of service standards, subject to clear standards and specific time limits, to provide time to eliminate deficiencies that have accumulated over the years. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that this strategy, when used in development agreements, precludes effective concurrency determinations or, when considered in light of the financial feasibility of road projects, renders the plan financially unsound. 3. Consistency with Regional Plan The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the Regional Plan. Most importantly, the plan's level of service standards are consistent with those contained in Regional Plan Policy 64.1, and the plan's sources of revenue are consistent with the principle of equitable cost participation in Regional Plan Policy 64.8. To the extent that the remaining Regional Plan provisions cited by Petitioner Wenz contain criteria against which the plan may be measured, no evidence suggests the existence of any inconsistencies. Capital Improvements Element The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible. Future Land Use Element 1. Data and Analysis 120. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the data and analysis fail to include a land use suitability analysis or that they fail to support, such as through the absence of accurate population projections, the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture. To the contrary, the land use suitability analysis is thorough, and the omission of these NRMA designations or equivalent conservation designations would itself have been unsupported by the data and analysis. 2. Maps and Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture, or any other designations contained on the future land use maps, are inconsistent with the operative provisions of the plan. Again, to the contrary, these NRMA designations graphically depict the text of relevant goals, objectives, and policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the petitions of all Petitioners. ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On August 20, 1975, the Appellant, MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc., developer, filed an Application for Development Approval for Development of Regional Impact (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. A copy of that application as amended was attached as Exhibit "B" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. The Exhibit "B" has two parts, the initial part consisting of the Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and the latter part consisting of addendum one. The submission of the application to the two Regional Planning Councils was necessitated by the fact that the property covered by the application lies in both Alachua and Marion Counties, which counties are within the jurisdictional areas of the North Central Regional Planning Council and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, respectively. Following the preliminary review by the Withlacoochee Planning Council, the Council, by letter of September 25, 1975, notified Marion County, by and through Mr. John Hastings, Zoning Director, Marion County Zoning and Building Department, that the Planning Council was ready to proceed with the formal review of the application and further advising that public hearing dates should be scheduled to comply with the requirements of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes). A copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit "C" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On October 7, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County (hereinafter referred to as "Alachua County") scheduled a public hearing on the application before the County Commission to be held at 4:30 P.M. on December 9, 1975, in the Alachua County Courthouse, Gainesville, Florida. The Appellants were given notice of the public hearing by a copy of the letter of October 8, 1975, from Howard Weston, County Administrator to Alachua County, a copy of that letter appearing as Exhibit "D" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On October 14, 1975, the Appellee scheduled public hearings on the application before the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held at 4:00 P.M. on January 5, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, and before the Board of County Commissioners at 9:00 A.M. on January 21, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida. Notification to the Appellants of these public hearings was given by letter of October 15, 1975 from Ronald H. Miller, Marion County Planner, a copy of that letter being Exhibit "E" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On November 6, 1975, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council prepared, adopted and sent to Alachua County their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "F" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On November 13, 1975, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, meeting in full session, prepared, adopted and sent to Marion County, their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "G" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On December 9, 1975 Alachua County held a public hearing on the Appellants' application and that public hearing was continued on January 6, 1976. On December 24, 1975 the Marion County Planning Department prepared and sent to Marion County their considerations and recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. The recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department were based in part on comments provided by the Marion County Engineer and the Environmental Health Division of the Marion County Health Department. A copy of these considerations and recommendations was attached as Exhibit "H" to the Appellants' petition and is made apart of the record herein. On January 5, 1976, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public Hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on January 12, 1976. At the conclusion of the public hearing, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to the Appellants' application and after having considered the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Appellants' application subject to the conditions previously recommended by the Withlacoochee Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department, and subject to certain other conditions. Copies of the minutes of the special meeting of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 5, 1976 and January 12, 1976 were attached as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" respectively to the Appellants' petition and are made a part of the record herein. On January 6, 1976, Mr. Al Lewis, Director of the Department of Planning, Alachua County, prepared and sent to Alachua County, by and through Mr. Howard Weston, County Administrator, his recommendation regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "K" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On that same date, Alachua County, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to Appellants' application, and after having considered the recommendations of the Alachua County Department of Planning, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, issued a development order approving Appellants' application subject to certain conditions. A copy of said development order was attached as Exhibit "L" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On January 21, 1976, the Appellee, Marion County, held a public hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the record of those hearings have been transcribed and made a part of the record herein. After the January 21, 1976 meeting before the Marion County Board of County Commissioners in which discussion was entered into on the recommendations arising from the Withlacoochee Planning Council meeting on November 13, 1975 and the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department of December 24, 1975, the Appellants in the person of their attorney, Stephen A. Scott, and the architect for the Appellants, David Reaves, submitted two letters dated February 4, 1976, which set forth the position of the Appellants on the aforementioned recommendations of the Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department. Copies of these letters of February 4, 1976 have been filed with the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and are made a part of the record herein. On February 13, 1976 the Marion County Plat Committee prepared and sent to Marion County suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions to the approval of Appellants' application. A copy of these suggested working changes is attached hereto as Exhibit "M" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. In response to the February 13, 1976 Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications applicable to the application dated February 13, 1976, the Appellants' attorney, Stephen A. Scott filed a letter of February 18, 1976. This letter is filed in the case by permission of the Hearing Officer and is made a part of the record herein. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 18, 1976, Marion County adopted a resolution denying approval of Appellants' application. A copy of said resolution was attached as Exhibit "A" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. In the course of the DRI process, not all aspects of the application, Exhibit "B", were disputed by the various planning agencies, the Appellee and the Intervenor. Moreover, Alachua County, Florida has given its approval and any reference to action before that governmental body is for the limited purposes of describing the Marion County, Florida application. Therefore, the discussion of the facts will be in terms of those facts which were disputed and not those facts in support of the application which are not in dispute. The points of contention between the parties are primarily discussed in the Exhibit "B", Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and its addendum; Exhibit "G", the recommendations of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council of November 13, 1975; Exhibit "H", the Marion County Planning Department, Statement of considerations and recommendation; Exhibit "J", the minutes of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Department meeting, January 12, 1976; the letters of February 4, 1976, from the representatives of the Appellant, David Reaves and the Appellants' attorney Stephen A. Scott; Exhibit "M", the Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications, dated February 13, 1976; the discussion of the aforementioned document in the course of the public hearings of January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the Exhibit "A", Resolution and Development Order of the Marion County Board of County Commissioners. The proposed development is a horse ownership oriented community located 12 miles south of Gainesville, Florida and 18 miles north of Ocala, Florida and it encompasses an area of approximately 5 square miles (3200 acres). The statement of market study is found on page 87 of Exhibit "B". This project is located on the border of Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida. One sixth of this area lies within Alachua County and the remaining area in Marion County. The highway system as shown in map "J" of Exhibit "B". The project has five developmental phases as described in the Exhibit "B" and within those developmental phases are planned construction of midrise, townhouse, patiohouse, and single family dwellings for a total population build out in all phases of approximately 8,234 residents. This project also anticipates lodges to be built in the various phases to accommodate additional average yearly population of 1,200 persons. Its estimated that visitors will total 834 at the completion of all phases, for a total of 10,000 plus persons within the development at the end of the final phase. Further discussion of these statistics may be found on page 15 of Exhibit "B". At present the area is primarily agricultural and is zoned as such. Within the immediate vicinity of the project are the towns of Micanopy and Mcintosh and the community of Evinston. These communities together with the population immediately outside these towns would total approximately 2,500 people. Consequently, the area can best be described as rural, as opposed to the suburban nature of the proposed development. The difference in character in the locale as it presently exists and as is proposed by the development plan is the principal point of contention between the appellants on the one side, and the Appellee and Intervenor on the other. It is the suggestion of the Appellants that the project can be developed and carry with it a suburban nature without being inconsistent with or destroying the rural character of the surrounding towns and unincorporated areas. On the other hand the Appellee and Intervenor suggest that to allow this project would destroy the rural lifestyle of the area. The transcript of the proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners, Marion County, Florida held on January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976, and February 18, 1976 developes in detail the opposing points of view on the issue of the compatibility of the development with the present surroundings. Considering the distance between the proposed development and the larger communities in the areas to wit, Gainesville and Ocala, the rural nature of the land at present and the fact that this development would be potentially the third largest community in the Alachua County and Marion County area, the development does not appear to be compatible with its surroundings. The Appellant has proposed a private roads community, and this concept is contrary to the express policy of Marion County, Florida. Prohibition to this form of private roads is set forth in subsection 2A.13 of the Public Works Manual, Marion County, Florida. There is concern by the Appellee on the question of access of the public through the private road system, in that it would create a necessity the public to go around the entire development. However, at present there are public roads serving the area and it is not contemplated that future public roads will go through the project. The Appellee is also concerned with maintenance of speed limits on private property and resubdivision of the parcel of land in the future where private roads have been allowed. The restriction against private roads has been waived in Marion County in the past and could be waived in this instance if a private road network or a combination of private and public road network were built in the development. The Appellee would require that the network be built to Marion County Specifications, and the Appellant agrees. There are proposed to be built two bridges. One bridge across Interstate-75 incident to the last phase of the project and other bridge across SE-10, County Line Road. The Appellee would require conceptual approval of these matters by the permitting agencies going into the project, and the bridges would be constructed at the developers' expense prior to the development phase effected by the bridges. Other roads affected by the project are State Road 320 and Hickman Road which are in the southern part of the project. If these roads were utilized, access for emergency, police, fire and other needs of similar nature would have to be worked out. In connection with the question of access, the developer had initially proposed that the project be a gated community with private security patrols within the community. In view of the considerable debate in the course of the proceedings about this technique of a gated community and private security patrol, the developer has indicated a willingness to forgo the utilization of perimeter walls or fencing and private security patrols or entrance guards. As mentioned before, the land selected for development is presently zoned agricultural and to achieve the purposes of the project the zoning would have to be changed to a type of residential zoning. As a part of the zoning consideration, the Appellee has asked that the Appellant submit a master plan in conjunction with or as a part of the zoning change. The conditions of the master plan are as set forth in pages 6 - 9 of the December 24, 1975 report which is Exhibit "H". The Appellants' specific response to the question of the master plan as it relates to matters of zoning is found in the February 4, 1976 letter of attorney Stephen A. Scott. In summary, the developer is concerned with the wording of some of the provisions of the December 24, 1975 report, Exhibit "H", and with the repetitious aspects of the master plan, in view of the fact that the questions have been addressed through the DRI. The letter also indicates a reluctance to divulge detailed financial information about the developer. There are certain aspects about the development proposal which contemplate the sponsorship by a homeowners association. Among these aspects are security patrol, fire protection, sewage treatment, recreational facilities, maintenance of recreational facilities, water treatment and service, and eventual health care. These items are in addition to the construction and maintenance of private roads, to include storm drainage. The Appellee has requested that the developer in detail the intricacies of the homeowners association and the method by which it may accomplish the aforementioned goals. Again this discussion is found in pages 6 - 9 of the Exhibit "H". The related matters of health care in the initial 4 stages and long term treatment at the point of final build out must be accomplished by coordination with emergency transportation to the hospitals in the Gainesville and Ocala area. The health care facilities are shown on map "I" to the Exhibit "B". At some point in time, it is the feeling of the Appellants that a fulltime physician will establish a clinic due to the number of persons in the development community, without the need for any subsidy by the developer. Medical evacuation seems to be suggested as a function of the homeowners association, in the latter phases. The appellant and appellee acknowledged that the acreage for a landfill site for solid waste disposal would be off the grounds of the project. This would need to be within a five mile travelling of distance to satisfy the Appellee and to meet the requirements of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. The acreage necessary would be 35 acres. The resolution of the question of location was not resolved between the parties; however, it seems that some plan by which the developer purchased a site either by having that site selected by the Appellee and then purchasing the site or paying a fixed sum of money to the County for such a purpose is indicated. The unresolved issues pertain to the purchase of the equipment necessary and the arrangement for the maintenance of the site location. In the past in Marion County, this type of landfill has been maintained as a part of commercial contracts for collection and disposal of solid waste1 and nothing suggests that this could not be achieved in this instance. The soil description and analysis is found beginning on page 32 of Exhibit "B" and within maps E, F, and G of Exhibit "B". An examination of the report shows that much of the soil is Blichton-Kendrick Association which has slow permeability. Other places are Bayboro-Placid Association which is low wet lands that have interspersed with them really poorly drained deep sands. Within this overall network it is intended that a sewage plant be placed, which treats the sewage and utilizes the activated sludge method with some form of additional treatment for spray irrigation of the remaining effluent. The site location and details of the treatment plan will be approved by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. There are 243 ranches and ranchettes which are intended for septic tank utilization and individual wells for water supply. Discussion of these matters is found on pages 93 through 96 of Exhibit "B". Storm water disposal, in consideration of the 100 year flood elevations are found on pages 97 through 101, and map "G" of Exhibit "B". Some special problems that have occurred in the past pertain to the question of storm water disposal. The Old Field Pond area has had flooding. Flooding has occurred across SE-10 over U.S. 441 and into the adjacent land owner's property. Moreover, the Fire Tower Road which is in the area of SE-10 has flooded and one requirement would be consideration of those property owners who utilize SE-10 as an alternate route to the so called Fire Tower Road in times of flooding. As shown in the map on page 34 of Exhibit "B" there are a number of recharge wells in the active Old Field Pond area. It is the feeling of the Appellee through its staff reports, i.e., the Withlacoochee Planning Council report of November 13, 1975 and the agreement of other staff agencies that these recharge wells should be plugged to avoid the problem of liquid waste going directly back into the Floridian Aquifer, which flows under the property. The developer feels that this should only be done after testing. Discussion was also entered into about the coordination of sewage treatment and water supply needs with the surrounding communities of Mcintosh and Micanopy. The provision for electric power is discussed by letters from the Florida Power Corporation and Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. found on pages 112 and 113 of Exhibit "B". There is concern that due to prior power shortages in the immediate service area, that further service obligations would diminish the quality of the electric service. This indication runs contrary to the comments within the letters of the two utility companies and it has been suggested that greatly increased needs would promote more efficient electric service. This latter argument, does not address the conditions in the early phases of development. A matter of much discussion was the need for schools, fire protection and police protection. If the private security and fire service concept is rejected, there is no indication whether these needs could be met by the Appellee, although tax revenues would be generated to assist in responding to those needs. On the former question of schools, there has been preliminary contact by the developers agent in considering regional schools, since the project lies within two counties, but that contact has been very limited. The question of site location for a school to service this community and surrounding communities and the sharing of the costs of such implementation is also in the preliminary stages. Therefore, matters concerning the school system are yet to be resolved. The project contemplates a number of recreational areas, lodges and stores. The lodges and stores would be open to the public, but the recreational facilities are primarily designed for the residents. The discussion of the recreational areas within the project brings to light the question of the possible service community which would grow out of the development. It has been estimated by the Appellant that 807 persons in terms of average annual construction employment will be needed for the five phases of the development. Discussion of these aspects of the project begins on page 82 of Exhibit "B". Based upon this projection, the possibility exists that some satellite community would form in the immediate vicinity of the project site, in view of the distances between the project site and the towns of Ocala and Gainesville. None of the surrounding communities, nor the developer have specifically addressed the deployment of the so called satellite community, in terms of housing, essential services and recreation. Another consideration which is in dispute is the archaeological significance of the project land and the necessary steps to preserve these archaeological finds. A discussion of the archaeology of this site is found on pages 59 through 80 of Exhibit "B". The dispute arises over the necessary steps to the preservation of the archaeologically significant sites, with the Appellee suggesting compliance with the recommendation of the archaeologist's report in Exhibit "B" and the Appellants desiring to make a site by site isolation of the significant archaeological finds and subsequent preservation of those sites at the point of development encounter. Another similar issue is game preservation. There is evidence that the Florida Panther has passed through the development area since tracks were found on the western part of the proposed development. In addition, the Florida Sandhill Crane and Wood Ibis have been sited at Tuscaeilla Lake, on the wet prairie just south of that body of water at the northwest pond. Further discussion of these endangered species and other species of wildlife is found on pages 56 and 57 of the Exhibit "B". A statement by a witness of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was to the effect that the Florida Panther will not stay in the area which is developed to the extent proposed herein. Finally, consideration was given to the question of the sequence of permitting within the five phases of the proposed project. The Appellee has expressed a desire to withhold local permits until federal and state permits were given, which would have an effect on how local permits would be granted. The Appellants are concerned that these local permits in the initial phases, not be held up while waiting for federal or state permits which would pertain to a latter phase. This is a particular concern in view of the fact that the stated five year build out of the project does not seem to be realistic and the actual build out will be between ten and twenty years from the point of any DRI permitting. The requirement for obtaining federal and state permits prior to the local permits at the commencement of each phase and obtaining a general statement of commitment by the federal and state systems in the later phases, was discussed as a solution in the bridge over Interstate-75 and would seem an appropriate solution to other issues similarly in dispute.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact filed with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council on August 20, 1975 for preliminary review be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, Florida 32602 MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc. 1550 Madruga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ernest Tew, as Trustee Suite B-1 901 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Jackson E. Sullivan Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council 3500 Northeast Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 4 Ocala, Florida 32670 R. Stephen Ryder, Esquire Marion County Attorney Board of County Commissioners of Marion County Post Office Box 81 Ocala, Florida 32670 Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Robert L. Shevin Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Bruce Smathers Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Philip F. Ashler State Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Louis Hubener, Esquire 660 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Counsel for the Division of State Planning Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission c/o Secretary of the Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ATTENTION: David V. Kerns, Esquire Robert T. Roess, President Florida Investors Mortgage Corp Post Office Box 639 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Vice Chairman, Simonton-Tuscawilla Concerned Citizens
The Issue The question in this case is whether GDC should be authorized to go forward with development of some 2,000 acres, a portion of the Myakka Estates project it has planned for North Port in south Sarasota County, and, if so, on what terms. In the prehearing order dated February 8, 1980, the legal issue was stated broadly as "whether the proposed development [Phase I] comports with the standards of Chapter 380, Florida Statues (1979), as set forth in Section 380.06(8) and (11), Florida Statutes (1979) [now 380.06(11) and (13), Florida Statues (Supp. 1980)]." An important question is what legal effect the Master Development Order should be given in the present case. In the same prehearing order, factual issues were stated to include whether the "location . . . [and] approval of the proposed land sales development is consistent with the report and recommendation of the SWFRPC in light of the State, County, and North Port comprehensive plans"; whether "the proposed development will, individually and in combination with approved development, overburden the public school system . . . . overburden the public roads . . . [or] create a negative economic impact upon county and municipal governments"; and whether "GDC has provided for sufficient potable water."
Findings Of Fact GDC proposes to develop 8,135 acres in North Port in Sarasota County, just north of the Charlotte County line, as a new community, to be called Myakka Estates. Phase I, the group of three units slated for development next after the "vested portion" of the project, is designed to occupy a 2,016.56-acre tract within the larger parcel, west of and well upland from the Myakka River, and approximately four miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. PRESENT CONDITION OF LAND The highest elevation on Phase I is 13 feet above mean sea level. About three quarters of Phase I is covered with slash pine, southern pine, and saw palmetto. Pasture lands, about seven percent of the Phase I tract, are covered with grasses, sedges, other herbaceous plants, and only occasional trees. Freshwater marsh ponds and other marshy areas are distributed more or less evenly over the property in a karstic gestalt, except that an uninterrupted stretch of marsh along the western boundary marks the eastern edge of the northern reaches of Ainger Creek, which further downstream flows across the southwest tip of the property. in the wet areas, limnophilous vegetation, including sportios bakeri, cyperus spp., cladium mariscoides, rhychospora ap., hypericum aspalathoides, xyris iridefolia, eriocaulon decangulare, eleocharis equistoides, pontederia cordota, bacopa caroliniana, and hydrocotyle umbellata, predominates. Opossums, eastern moles, raccoons, otters, and bobcats have been spotted on the Phase I property. Among other mammals whose range includes the Phase I property are shrews, bats, black bear, longtail weasel, mink, Florida panther (Burt and Grossenheider) skunks, gray fox, mountain lion, squirrels, southeastern pocket gophers, rats, mice, rabbits, whitetail deer, and armadillo. People have seen eastern rattlesnakes, pygmy rattlesnakes, water moccasins, eastern garter snakes, yellow rat snakes, anolis carolinensis (a lizard), snapping turtles, common musk turtles, box turtles, gopher tortoises, spiny softshell turtles, bull frogs, leopard frogs, cricket frogs, green tree frogs, and American toads on the Phase I property. There is reason to believe that numerous other snakes, frogs and lizards inhabit the property. On high ground in the Phase I property, people have seen turkey vultures, black vultures, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, kestrels, bobwhites, turkeys, mourning doves, ground doves, flickers, red-billed woodpeckers, eastern kingbirds, blue jays, Carolina wrens, mockingbirds, catbirds, robins, loggerhead shrikes, meadowlarks, red-wings, boat-tailed grackles, cardinals, Florida sandhill cranes, and bank swallows. On westland portions of Phase I, people have seen pied-billed grebes, anhingas, great blue herons, American egrets, ivory egrets, Louisiana herons, little blue herons, green herons, least bitterns, wood storks, white ibis, red-winged blackbirds, purple grackles, killdeer, southern bald eagles, and limpkins. Limpkins, wood storkes, southern bald eagles, and Florida sandhill cranes are endangered species. Various fishes live in waters on the Phase I property, including lake chumbuckers, golden shiners, yellow bullheads, flagfish, golden topminnows, four different killifishes, mosquito fish, sailfin mollies, warmouths, bluegills, and three kinds of sunfish. The common prawn the Florida crayfish, and the neritina reclivata also inhabit one or more water bodies on the Phase I tract. Insect populations are relatively low because of the abundance of piscine insectivores. Before GDC acquired the property, men dug ditches which connect several ponds and cause stormwater to drain through them into Ainger Creek which empties into Lemon Bay. Drainage into the ponds and connecting ditches is by sheet flow. Cow dung in the pastures is concentrated around certain ponds, where cattle drink; and may account for some of the nonhuman fecal coliform bacteria that are to be found in Lemon Bay. Part of the Phase I property drains by sheet flow into the Myakka River. The topsoil is sandy on the Phase I tract. In the vicinity of Ainger Creek, Pompano find sand and Keri find sand predominate. These sands, Delray fine sand and Plummer fine sand, are found in most of the low-lying areas on the property. Leon fine sand covers most of the high ground. There is a strip of Immokalee fine sand along the northern border of the Phase I tract other than as pasture or for tree farming would be energy intensive. One expert proposed hydroponic cultivation. ANNEXATION GDC acquired the Myakka Estates property from a rancher in 1970 or 1971, then took steps to cause the parcel to be annexed by the City of North Port, within the municipal boundaries of which other substantial GDC development was already located. The annexation took place notwithstanding the absence of any bridge or road connecting the Myakka Estates parcel to the rest of North Port. These two parts of the City of North Port touch at a corner but are not otherwise contiguous. Some 100,000 lots have been platted in North Port east of the Myakka river; over 90,000 were still vacant at the time of the hearing. At 68 square miles, North Port, with a population of five to eight thousand, is second in land area only to the consolidated City of Jacksonville, the municipality with the largest land area in the state. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS By ordinance of the City of North Port, the entire Myakka Estate parcel is zoned agricultural and has been at all pertinent times. On September 9, 1974, however, North Port entered the Master Development Order authorizing development of all "non-vested" portions of Myakka Estates. In consideration of the Division of State Planning's forbearance from taking an appeal of the Master Development Order to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, GDC agreed to submit "supplemental Applications for Development Approval as a condition to development of specific increments of the master residential plan," GDC Exhibit No. 12, a requirement also imposed by the Master Order itself. North Port has a subdivision ordinance with which, according to the uncontroverted evidence, the proposed Phase I development is in compliance. In June of 1979, North Port adopted a Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, GDC Exhibit Nos. 23 and 91, in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979). Because of the pendency of the present proceedings, the SWFRPC and the DCA objected to inclusion of Phase I in the North Port plan. As a result of the objections, the plan makes little reference to Phase I although it notes that planning for Phase I "was conducted in conformance with present standards and was recently approved by the [North Port] Planning Commission and City Commission [apparently by adoption of the Development Order challenged in these proceedings]." GDC Exhibit No. 91, at 28. Stated as an objective of North Port's Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, at p. 22, is To encourage growth that is relatively contiguous to the existing developed area and encompasses within the 25-year period the area bounded on the north by McCarthy Boulevard and Snover Waterway, on the east by Blue Ridge Waterway, and on the south and west by the city limits. GDC Exhibit No. 91. Other stated objectives are to "encourage consistency with and between Florida's Growth Management and Land Development Elements" and Sarasota County's Land Use Plan. It was uncontroverted that plans by General Development Utilities to furnish water and sewer service to Phase I are in conformity with provisions of the North Port plan on those subjects. Sarasota County has never adopted a comprehensive plan in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979), but the county does have the Land Use Plan, GDC Exhibit No. 93, referred to in the North Port plan. The Sarasota County Land Use Plan map designates the unincorporated area adjacent to Myakka Estates as appropriate for agriculture. The county has zoned the area along South River Road (formerly State Road 777), immediately adjacent to Myakka Estates, "QUE-1", Open Use, Estate, one dwelling unit per five acres, and the area further west "OUR", Open Use, Rural, one dwelling unit per ten acres. According to a map that is part of the Sarasota County Land Use Plan, Myakka Estates falls in the "low density residential" category, 1.1 to 4.5 units per acre. By its terms, however, this plan applies only to unincorporated areas of Sarasota County. The portion of the Phase I property lying in the easterly half of Section 33, Township 40 South, Range 20 East is within the jurisdiction of the Englewood Water District, which was created by Chapter 59-931, Laws of Florida. At the time of the final hearing, the whole area of EWD was on septic tanks and EWD's water lines did not reach Section 33. Some 166 lots are planned for the portion of Phase I over which EWD has jurisdiction. EWD has a policy of not permitting other water systems within the area served by the district. Its current regulations containing specifications for water and sewer mains and the like were adopted on June 19, 1980. The Florida State Comprehensive Plan, GDS Exhibit No. 92, is an internally inconsistent compilation of "goals", "objectives", and "policies". It was adopted by executive order and approved by the Florida Legislature in 1978. In their proposed recommended orders, the parties identified the following items as being in controversy: Ensure that the expansion of public facilities for economic development is in accordance with local government comprehensive plans and the State Comprehensive Plan. Consider the projected availability of energy when making economic development decisions. Physical, natural, economic, and human resources should be managed and developed in ways that avoid unnecessary long-term energy- intensive investments. Incorporate energy as a major consideration into the planning and decision-making processes of state, regional, and local governments. Encourage land use patterns that by design, size, and location minimize long-term energy commitments to construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement. Encourage a careful, ongoing evaluation of governmental expenditures and revenues in light of future uncertainties about energy supplies and related economic implications. To ensure the orderly long-range social, economic, and physical growth of the state. Identify the costs and benefits of growth to local and state governments and explore methods for allocating these costs to the citizens equitably. Housing should be produced in a mix of types, sizes, and prices that is based on local and regional need and that is consistent with the state's growth policy. Land use and development should proceed in an orderly manner that produces an economically efficient and personally satisfying residential environment with with minimal waste of our land resources. The provision of public facilities, utilities, open space, transportation, and other services that are required to support present and projected housing and community development needs should be ensured. Develop environmentally responsive land planning methods that reduce the stress that new develop- ments place on their communities' energy needs, water needs, sewage treatment facilities, transportation, flood control systems, and social, and educational services, and thus reduce the overall taxes and cost of the services needed to satisfy these demands. Consider energy implications in the review of applications for developments having regional impact (DRI). Land development should be managed in a manner consistent with the values and needs of the citizens of the state and with the concept of private property rights. Agricultural lands, especially those most seriously threatened, should be maintained and preserved for the production of food and fiber products. Influence the timing, distribution, type, density, scale, and design of development by coordinating land development proposals in state and local comprehensive plans and public investment programs in order to ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, services, and other resources. Allocate an equitable share of the cost of expanding public facilities to the newly served residents. Base land development decisions on quantita- tive knowledge of the short- and long-term capabilities of the hydrologic units to provide adequate supplies of water. Coordinate land use planning and water management to ensure the long-range maintenance and enhancement of water quantity and quality. Accommodate new development by using water from the local hydrologic basins rather than through surface water transfer between hydrologic basins. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge of groundwater, and prevention of saltwater movements inland through coastal canals. Maintain groundwater levels to insure that water levels are not drawn to such a degree that sustained yield is adversely affected or that natural resource degradation takes place. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the maintenance of a sufficient amount of groundwater in coastal aquifers to prevent intrusion through regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge, and sufficient controls on coastal canals. Protect and maintain groundwater supplies and aquifer recharge areas through water- and land- management practices and, where necessary, through regulation of development activities. Allow alteration of groundwater movements within or between aquifers only where it can be shown that such alterations are not harmful to surface and groundwater resources. Develop minimum service standards for utility systems. Encourage the provision and maintenance of adequate utility systems in already developed areas. In areas where utility systems are over- burdened, manage growth while remedial measures are expedited to restore utility systems to a condition of adequacy. Encourage the effective use of utility systems, energy, land, and finite resources by evaluating and revising, if necessary, laws and regulations that may bar innovative development patterns, designs, and materials. Although authorized to do so by statute, Section 380.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), the Administration Commission has not adopted guidelines and standards for developments of regional impact by administrative rule. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT After development, water would cover 59.41 acres of Phase I and mostly low lying "open space/green belts" would account for another 504.69 acres. An additional 143.32 acres are planned for recreational uses. Roads and utility easements would account for 398.54 acres. GDC has agreed to construct a municipal services building in the vested portion of Myakka Estates, on a parcel across the street from Phase I. In Phase I, GDC plans to set aside 20.06 acres for an elementary school and 6.97 acres for neighborhood retail outlets. GDC has announced its intention to donate the school site to the Sarasota County School Board. Other school sites have been set aside within Myakka Estates. A large commercial area on a major arterial road is planned for the vested portion and a golf course and other recreational facilities, as well as an industrial site, are planned for later phases of development. Over a 33-year period, GDC plans to build 1,056 multifamily units on 92.61 acres and expects 2,859 single family detached houses to be built, by GDC and other contractors, on lots averaging approximately a quarter of an acre and aggregating 790.06 acres. The average envisioned for Phase I is 1.94 dwelling units per acre as compared to 2.33 dwelling units per acre for Myakka Estates as a whole. In the vested portion of Myakka estates and in the contiguous area to the south GDC is developing "multiple cores". Similarly, two distinct neighborhoods are contemplated in Phase I. GDC plans to build multifamily housing complexes in the neighborhood "cores" to be surrounded by single family detached houses, with vacant lots in between these neighborhood centers. GDC hopes to sell 1,927 unimproved lots in Phase I on an installment basis. Typically the purchaser would undertake to make installment payments over a ten-year period and GDC would agree to construct central water and sewer distribution systems and to pave access roads by the end of the period. A purchaser would be permitted to make prepayment but GDC would only be obligated to convey the lot at the end of the agreed term. GDC plans it so that installment payments will provide GDC enough money to install water and sewer systems and pave roads before GDC is obligated to convey the improved lots. All expenses of hocking up to the water or sewer system, including extending mains, where necessary, are to be borne by the purchaser. the purchaser must secure a building permit before GDC becomes obligated to furnish water. In the event GDC is unable to perform, however, the contract requires the purchaser to choose between accepting a refund of the purchase price and exchanging the lot for another lot. Under certain circumstances the lot owner is allowed a credit against purchase of a home from GDC in addition to the equity in the lot. In 1979, three quarters of the houses GDC sold were sold to lot owners who exercised their option to exchange the equity in houses in a core area, and 99 percent of the houses GDC sold in North Port were located in "core areas". At the time of the hearing, there were already hundreds of thousands of unimproved lots in Lee, Charlotte, and south Sarasota Counties and hundreds of miles of little used roads providing access to the lots. AIR POLLUTION The uncontroverted evidence was that air pollution anticipated as a result of the proposed development, chiefly from automobile exhaust, would not violate state or federal air quality standards. STORMWATER The planned stormwater drainage system has been designed to retain one inch of runoff before discharge from the Phase I property and to prevent flooding of the portions of the property slated for development during storms of up to 25 years return frequency and 24-hour duration. Stormwater in the Ainger Creek watershed will drain from roads and lawns into front- and sideyard swales, to broader, shallow, grassy collector swales, through a series of shallow ponds (with a maximum depth of six feet) equipped with control structures and into Ainger Creek in which GDC has already constructed a weir with a flap gate. Some stormwater will percolate through the sandy soils into the groundwater and, except under the most extreme conditions, groundwater will reach Ainger Creek only after most pollutants have been precipitated or filtered out biologically. Water in the Myakka River watershed will reach the river by sheet flow which, depending on conditions, will also be diminished by percolation and purified by precipitation and biological filtration. Under extremely wet conditions, water entering the Myakka River and Lemon Bay from Ainger Creek will contain pollutants normally associated with residential development, mostly high concentrations of nutrients and small concentrations of heavy metals. GDC's employee's testimony that water entering Lemon Bay will be of a higher quality after development than at present, although uncontroverted, is rejected as incredible, although it could conceivably hold true under mild meteorological conditions. Ainger Creek's flood plain extends east from the thalweg some distance into the Phase I property. See GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72. On preliminary flood insurance rate maps, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified special flood hazard zones along the creek which include 169 acres in proposed Unit 5 in which a minimum elevation of ten feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-9) and 263 acres in Sections 26, 33, and 34 in which a minimum elevation of 11 feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-10). The lowest street elevation proposed for the A-10 zone is seven feet. GDC normally adds two to two-and-a- half feet of fill to existing grade before erecting houses, but can add more. The weir across Ainger Creek and the proposed control structures where water outfalls into swales allow the retention upstream of water which otherwise might have flowed into Lemon Bay. Water retained on the Phase I property and elsewhere upstream can percolate through the topsoil and replenish the groundwaters. The weir on Ainger Creek acts as a barrier against the movement of salt water upstream. For both of these reasons, the proposed drainage system should decrease any danger of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers in the area. In the event substantial amounts of salt water (or some pollutant) are introduced into Ainger Creek upstream of the weir, the weir is designed to permit the Creek to be flushed. ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR Except in the core areas, where GDC plans to market improved real estate, contractors other than GDC would have an opportunity to bid on construction contracts for new houses, a decade or so after installment land sales proposed for Phase I begin. Even before construction of housing, roads would have to be paved, water and sewer pipes would have to be laid, and other utilities would have to be installed. Thousands of people living on the new unpopulated Phase I property would mean additional jobs in the private and public sectors. Since there are already more than 641,000 vacant subdivision lots in the Charlotte Harbor area, however, the region is presumably in little danger of losing out on additional population for want of land developments. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Using census and other population data and reviewing GDC's sales records in other land developments, J. Thomas Campbell, a GDC employee, has projected a 47-year development or build-out schedule for Myakka Estates, forecasting, among other things, how rapidly housing units will be built in Phase I. Taking the build-out schedule as a given, Paul G. Van Buskirk, a GDC consultant, assumed an average household size increasing linearly through time and projected population growth in Phase I year by year for 33 years. Mr. Van Buskirk made assumptions about average household size, the proportion of population over age 65, and the proportion of population of school age, only after examining data of this kind from ten other communities housing mainly retired persons, which he thought would be comparable. He distributed school children among elementary, middle, and high schools on the hypothesis that the proportion would be the same as obtained in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. In 1975, Mr. Van Buskirk projected streams of revenue and expenditure for local governments attributable to Phase I, forecasting a surplus for North port, Sarasota County, and the Sarasota County School District (School District). He assumed the value of an average house to be $40,000 in 1975 dollars, that market value would be the same as assessed value, and that then current mileages would remain constant. He also projected, in 1975, a tax base in North Port of $119,000,000 in 1979, in 1979 dollars. In fact, North Port's 1979 tax base was $122,000,000. In 1975, he projected a surplus for North Port in 1979 of $905,000 in 1979 dollars ($662,000 in 1975 dollars). In 1979, the surplus was, in fact, slightly more than $700,000. The difference between the projected surplus and the actual surplus is attributable to North Port's decision to retain the same level of services it had in 1975 while lowering the ad valorem tax rate. In his 1975 calculations, Mr. Van Buskirk made no attempt to reduce later years' dollar figures to then present values. In response to criticism by Dr. Fishkind, Sarasota County's economist, Mr. Van Buskirk reduced revenues and expenditures he had projected to present values, by assuming a discount rate of 7.5 percent. This discount rate was chosen to represent the cost of money obtainable by selling tax exempt bonds. At the same time, he posited a ten percent return compounded annually on projected surpluses. After this revision, as before, he forecast a favorable fiscal impact on North Port, Sarasota County, and the School District. CITY OF NORTH PORT The weight of the evidence showed that the fiscal impact of development of Phase I on the City of North Port would probably be favorable. Mr. Van Buskirk's model predicted fiscal developments in North Port with impressive accuracy. The large surpluses projected for the early years of development could not be counted on, however, because they would add to the already existing surplus ($8,000,000 in June of 1980) and to political pressures to lower taxes in such circumstances. North Port's recent reduction in millage, in the face of a growing surplus, evidences a predictably recurring tendency. Even though Phase I is ten miles from the center of North Port, the municipal services building GDC has agreed to build should make this distance a relatively insignificant factor in delivering some municipal services, according to Dr. Fishkind. Volume X, pp. 113-114. SARASOTA COUNTY In projecting what expenditures Sarasota County would make, if Phase I is developed according to schedule, Dr. Fishkind subtracted water and sewer costs but no others from per capita base-year figures to arrive at a per capita figure of $137.02 in 1975 dollars, to which he added special costs projected by Sheriff Hardcastle for law enforcement and Mr. Longworth for roads. Because all three of these figures are significant overstatements, Dr. Fishkind overstated expenditures significantly when he calculated Phase I's negative fiscal impact on Sarasota County over the course of the development as $8,100,000 in 1979 dollars. Dr. Fishkind also failed to include surpluses that would be furnished to county government early on in the development. Mr. Van Buskirk's base year per capital figure is a closer approximation of per capita costs that would be fairly attributable to residents of Phase I, but road and law enforcement costs are probably understated. No increase in real sots is projected and the combined effect of using a 100 percent assessment ratio and ignoring costs of sales is to overstate tax revenues. When Mr. Van Buskirk assumed a 79 percent assessment ratio and an average house value of $35,000 in 1975 dollars, he still projected a $449,000 positive fiscal impact on Sarasota County from development of Phase I. That calculation also included the ten percent interest compounded annually imputed to surpluses, however, without any showing that surpluses from Phase I would be invested rather than expended for some other county purpose, making simple discounting appropriate. Although the evidence is far from clear, it suggests, on balance, that the fiscal impact of Phase I on Sarasota County would be negative. CHARLOTTE COUNTY Charlotte County's public roads, recreation facilities, and schools would be used by the residents of Phase I, if all goes as planned, and Charlotte County would not have the offsetting benefit of ad valorem taxes from Phase I, although it would receive certain offsetting benefits on account of additional students under the current intergovernmental agreements. Phase I's development would have a negative fiscal impact on Charlotte County and the Charlotte County School District. SCHOOL DISTRICT Phase I is some five miles from Englewood Elementary School, ten miles from Venice Gardens Elementary and five to seven miles from Lemon Bay Junior- Senior High School in Charlotte County which accepts students from Sarasota County under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement. These schools are presently operating at or above capacity. Under current conditions, a major development anywhere in Sarasota County would be a burden to the school system. A survey of the school district's capital requirements for the next five years suggests some $67,445,817 will be needed for new construction. Of this, Sarasota County expects to receive $15,797,414 from State sources. Phase I is not expected to house any school children in the next five years, however. In the tenth year of development, the projection is that 489 elementary students, 245 junior high students, and 244 senior high students would live in Phase I, necessitating the construction of at least the first "phase" of an elementary school. Exclusive of site acquisition costs, an elementary school costs about $4,000,000; a junior high school costs about $19,000,000; and a senior high school costs about $18,000,000. If development of Phase I occurs at or above the rate projected by GDC, the net fiscal impact on the School District would probably be negative, but if development lags significantly behind predictions, as Dr. Fishkind testified was likely, the additional years of tax revenues before Phase I places major demands on the school system could well result in a positive fiscal impact on the School District from development of Phase I. POTABLE WATER General Development Utilities (GDU), a subsidiary of GDC, has a franchise from North Port to furnish water within the city limits, including Myakka Estates, except in the portion of Section 33 where EWD has jurisdiction. GDU is a private, not a public, utility, but its use of ground and surface waters renders the water used unavailable to another utility. At an existing water treatment facility on Myakkahatchee Creek, in North Port, about ten miles from Phase I, GDU treats 4.2 million gallons of water a day (mgd), but could treat 8 mgd. GUD also operates a water treatment complex in Fort Ogden on the Peace River, six or seven miles downstream from Arcadia. At the time of the hearing, GDU had the ability to pump 1.5 mgd from the Peace River complex to North Port and Myakka Estates. The Peace River facility includes a raw-water intake structure, a reservoir, and a treatment plant. It has a capacity of 6 mgd although some of its components have larger capacities. The intake structure and 36-inch transmission lines can handle 30 mgd and the filter units have a capacity of 15 mgd. The reservoir covers some 90 acres and has a capacity of 800,000,000 gallons. In all, GDU has reserved 1,000 acres for use as a reservoir, although the need for such a large reservoir is not anticipated even by the year 2050. GUD does not plan to expand the existing reservoir for another ten years. Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has permitted GDU to withdraw up to an average of 5 mgd from the Peach River not to exceed five percent of the day's flow. At Arcadia, the Peace River's daily flow varies seasonally from 32 mgd to ten billion gallons per day. Except for 36 days a year (on the average), 5 mgd is less than 5.7 percent of the low flow of the Peace River. GDU can fill its reservoir by diverting water from the Peace River at times of high flow, so as to get the best water quality, and cause the least proportional diminution of the river's flow. GDU plans to withdraw an average of 13 mgd from the Peace River when capacity of the facility at Fort Ogden reaches 30 mgd. This is approximately 1.5 percent of the Peace River's approximately 800 mgd average flow at Arcadia. Some of the diverted water will never reach Charlotte Harbor because of evaporation at various points. Other water transported to Myakka Estates from the Peace River, whether treated at Fort Ogden or at North Port, would be used for irrigation, and some of this water would drain into Lemon Bay by Ainger Creek and never reach Charlotte Harbor. Most of the water diverted into the Peace River reservoir will eventually make its way through homes in GDC developments into wastewater plants, from there into the groundwater, and ultimately into Charlotte Harbor. Even when water from the Peace River reaches Charlotte Harbor by this route, however, there will ordinarily have been an interbasin transfer. The quality of water in the Peace River is good. If it were necessary to augment river water at the Peace River plant, well water from aquifers in the vicinity would be available. Because this well water is brackish, however, it would be blended with the river water to produce a mixture low enough in chlorides to be potable. Surface water from Myakkahatchee Creek and Snover Waterway could also be transported to the Peace River reservoir, at a rate of 13.5 mgd. Myakkahatchee Creek discharges 20 billion gallons of water into Charlotte Harbor annually. Treating water at the Peace River facility requires about two kilowatts per 1,000 gallons of water. Brackish water is available from well fields in the vicinity of Myakka Estates property, but treating brackish water by reverse osmosis requires about 11 kilowatts per hour. Phase I would, of course, add to future demand for potable water. SEWERAGE By ordinance, North Port requires that new homes be equipped with 3.5- gallon flush toilets instead of the standard 5-gallon models. Since 40 percent of the water used in the average household goes through the toilet, this is an important water conservation measure. GDU plans to provide a sewer system for the whole of Myakka Estates including initially an activated sludge sewer plant with a rated capacity of 250,000 gallons a day to be located on a 40-acre parcel reserved for that purpose. Effluent from the plant would be discharged into a polishing pond then sprayed over soil planted with vegetation to take up nitrogen and phosphorus, through which it would percolate into the groundwater. Once the Myakka Estates plant reached capacity, sewerage would be transported to Gulf Cove in Port Charlotte, six miles from the Phase I property, where an existing plant with a capacity of 333,000 gallons a day now processes 100,000 gallons a day. At the Gulf Cove plant site, GDU has 163 acres available for plant expansion. SOLID WASTE Solid waste from Phase I would be taken to the existing North Port landfill some nine miles distant, as long as that could be used. A second layer of solid waste was being laid down there at the time of the hearing. Monitoring wells had been dug to detect leachates leaving the landfill. A 90-acre site for a new landfill to serve all of North Port has been chosen within the 100-year flood plan of the Myakka River. GDC has agreed to construct the new landfill and lease it to North Port for operation by the city. The use of solid waste for energy production is not feasible, unless quantities on the order of 200 tons a day are available. Part or all of Charlotte County produces about 100 tons a day of solid waste. Per capita, people produce about 5.5 pounds per day of solid waste. LAW ENFORCEMENT Because of the location proposed for Myakka Estates, traffic from Phase I to the already developed center of North port will travel outside the city limits for part of the trip. Travelers from Phase I bound for the commercial district in North Port will pass through unincorporated Sarasota County, except those taking the longer route through Charlotte County. Travel from Phase I to any other municipality in Sarasota County would require passing through unincorporated Sarasota County. At the time of the hearing, the nearest substation of the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office was approximately 30 miles from the Phase I property. At some point, as Myakka Estates becomes populated, depending upon traffic patterns, the Sheriff would create a new Sheriff's patrol zone at a cost of $180,000 (1980 dollars), if present policy on these matters holds. Not all of this amount could fairly be attributed to development of Phase I, although the costs of the proposed development (including Phase I) to the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office would be significantly greater than the costs would be if the same population moved into the area contiguous to the existing center of North Port. North Port plans to furnish primary police protection within its city limits, staffing and equipping the 2,400 square feet municipal services center GDC has agreed to build in the vested portion of Myakka Estates. City prisoners are housed in the county jail, however, and the sheriff's office serves civil process in North Port. In residential land developments in the Charlotte Harbor area, where the roads have typically been laid out rectilinearly, a problem in the interval between road building and construction of housing has been the use of roads as airstrips by smugglers and as drag strips by racing enthusiasts. TRANSPORTATION Within Phase I, streets are to be laid out curvilinearly. Minor collectors are to feed major collectors which are to feed minor arterials which are to feed major arterials, with limited access to larger roads. Three and one-half miles of bicycle paths are planned. No mass transit system is contemplated for Phase I nor would Phase I be able to accommodate a right-of-way for a mass transit facility. There is no mass transit system in Port Charlotte or North Port. The viability of Phase I depends on continued mass ownership and operation of automobiles. U.S. Highway 41, a four-lane divided arterial, runs east and west north of the Myakka Estates property, then through the southwestern corner of the main part of North Port. When I-75 is finished, development may be skewed in its direction, drastically affecting traffic patterns; I-75 is slated to pass north of the property in two or three years. intersecting U.S. Highway 41, running south then southwest to the west of the Myakka Estates property, is South River Road (State Road 777), a two-lane arterial that ends in Englewood and currently handles about 2,000 trips daily. It will require four-laning when the number of daily trips reaches 10,000. South of the property in Charlotte County, another two-lane arterial, State Road 776 runs east-west, dead ending into State Road 771 which crosses the Myakka River at El Jobean and proceeds northeast to Murdock, where it intersects U.S. Highway 41, south of the main area of North Port. GDC has agreed to pave a two-lane road from the vested portion of the Myakka Estates property through Phase I to South River Road (State Road 777). by this route, a trip from the middle of Phase I to the commercial area in North Port would involve a trip of about ten miles. The distance from the middle of Phase I to the nearest post office, which is in Englewood, is approximately 6.5 miles; to Gulf Cove, approximately six miles; to Murdock, approximately 11.5 miles; to a shopping district in Venice, approximately 14.5 miles; and to the nearest hospital, in Venice, approximately 16.5 miles. Sarasota is about 30 miles north and Ft. Myers is some 40 miles distant in the other direction. It is to Sarasota and Ft. Myers that new inhabitants of Myakka Estates would be obliged to travel for concerts, plays, art galleries, and the like. Thee are commercial airports in Ft. Myers and Sarasota. GDC's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel south to points in Charlotte County because of anticipated development there. Sarasota County's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel to points in Sarasota County based on ratios of already developed commercial acreage and on an apparently inadvertent chronological mismatching of projected retail and total employment figures: for Venice in Sarasota County year 2000 projections were used while 1990 projections were used for competing areas to the east of Myakka Estates. Development of Phase I would have a substantial and costly impact on public roads in the vicinity. Both new construction and improvement of existing roads would be required, although mainly in rural areas. At least by the time Myakka Estates is fully populated, South River Road, State Road 776, and State Road 771, including the bridge across the Myakka River would have to be four- laned. While the direction of future traffic is disputed, the prospect of thousands of automobiles operating in the area as a result of a fully populated Phase I is very clear. It is impossible to say with certainty which road would have to be widened in which year or what share of the cost should be attributed to Phase I as distinguished from the rest of Myakka Estates and other development in the area, but the eventual impact of Phase I would require expenditures of millions of dollars for public roads. Sarasota County has identified road improvements it needs to make before the year 2000, without taking Myakka Estates into account, and puts their cost at $387,000,000, which is $110,000,000 more than is projected to be available. EMPLOYMENT ACCESSIBILITY Most of the people expected to live in the Phase I development are retired persons who would not be regularly travelling to and from a place of employment. Very few employment opportunities in retail sales and professional offices are forecast for Phase I. The vested portion of Myakka Estates is projected to have significantly more opportunities of this kind. In the beginning, most persons seeking employment would have to travel at least as far as Englewood. At build-out, a later phase of Myakka Estates may afford industrial employment opportunities. SWFRPC REPORT The Master ADA was filed with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, rather than with SWFRPC, because Sarasota County was part of the Tampa Bay Region at the time. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council recommended granting the Master ADA on conditions which were subsequently incorporated into the Master Development Order. The Phase I ADA was filed with the SWFRPC. In May of 1975, the SWFRPC issued its report recommending against approval of the Phase I ADA on various grounds, including the physical separation of the proposed development from presently developed areas and necessary services; the existing abundance of vacant platted lots and miles of deserved paved streets in the Charlotte Harbor area; creation of a need for an urban water supply, schools, police, and emergency medical facilities and services far from the areas where the affected local governments have planned to provide such facilities and services; and the adverse fiscal impact of the proposed development on local governments. The report was received in evidence to show what North Port reviewed before entering its development order but it was not offered as proof of the SWFRPC assertions in it.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a development order granting GDC's Phase I ADA on such conditions as the Commission shall deem appropriate, including all the conditions contained in the Development Order entered by North Port and the following additional conditions: That GDC sell no lots in the special flood hazard zones as indicated on HUD's preliminary flood insurance rate maps, GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72. That GDC sell no lots within EWD's jurisdiction until and unless EWD shall agree to such a sale in writing. That GDC unconditionally deed to the Sarasota County School District the elementary school site planned for Phase I together with the 50 lots nearest to the site. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Parker D. Thomson, Esquire Kenneth W. Lipman, Esquire and Douglas M. Halsey, Esquire 1300 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 C. Laurence Keesey Department of Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David E. Bruner, Esquire 581 Springline Drive Naples, Florida 33940 Richard E. Nelson, Esquire and Richard L. Smith, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 Robert A. Dickinson, Esquire 70 South Indiana Avenue Englewood, Florida 33533 John W. Field Englewood Community Organizations 227 Bahia Vista Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Wayne Allen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Mayor Margaret Gentle City of North Port North Port, Florida 33595 Allen J. Levin 209 Conway Boulevard Northeast Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Robert Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Chambers 6970 Manasota Key Road Englewood, Florida 33533
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Myakka Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
