The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the Appellants have standing to bring this appeal, and (2) whether the development plan application met the applicable criteria for approval under Section 30-3.46 of the City's LDC in light of the standard of review outlined in Section 30-3.57 of the City's LDC.
Findings Of Fact The Property The property consists of approximately 0.50 acres located at 422 Northwest Third Avenue, Gainesville, Florida (the Property). The Property currently has a Residential Low- Density (RL) future land use (FLU) category under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The RL FLU category includes five implementing zoning districts, and the Property is in the Residential Conservation (RC) zoning district. The Property is not located within the boundaries of the Pleasant Street Historic District. Blackwater owns the Property and submitted a minor development plan application, identified as AD-17-00143, for three buildings with six dwelling units and associated parking, stormwater facilities, and utility improvements. The three buildings have two dwelling units each, which is a use allowed by right in the RC zoning district. The use is described in Section 30-4.16 of the City's LDC as "Multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)." The Property was conveyed to Blackwater by a warranty deed recorded January 15, 2014. The warranty deed describes parcel 14518-002-000 as the east one-half of lot 7 and all of lots 8 and 9 in the south half of block 27 of "Brush's Addition to Gainesville," according to the Plat recorded in "Plat Book 'A,' Page 88 of the Public Records of Alachua County, Florida." Issues on Appeal The Appellants raised and argued four issues in this appeal. Whether the Property is a parcel or lot that can be developed under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the Property is not a "parcel" and also not a "lot" under the City's LDC. The LDC definitions are found in Section 30-2.1 of the City's LDC, which states: Parcel means a unit of land within legally established property lines. Legally established property lines means those lines created by a recorded plat, minor plat or lot split, those units of land recognized as lots formed prior to 1961 as recorded on a map kept by the building division, and those lots recognized by the county code enforcement department at the time of any annexation. Lot means a parcel of land contained within property lines of a specific area, including land within easements and building setback lines of the area, but excluding any land within street right-of-way. The Appellants contend that the Plat of Brush's Addition to Gainesville (the Plat) legally established property lines. The Appellants further contend the definitions mean that only the lots created by the Plat are parcels. In other words, the "unit of land within legally established lines" cannot consist of more than one of the originally platted lots. This is not the City's interpretation of its own LDC. The Property, as described by the warranty deed, is a parcel within the property lines first established on the Plat. As argued by the City and Blackwater during oral argument, the Appellants' interpretation is not reasonable and "could stop all multifamily development in the [C]ity." The City's interpretation of its own LDC is not clearly erroneous and has foundation in reason. Also, approval of the development plan was not an ultra vires act since the City was required to make a decision on the development plan application in accordance with the provisions of its LDC. Whether the Property meets minimum lot width standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants' second argument is that the development plan fails to meet the required minimum lot width standard under Section 30-4.17 of the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that since Lots 8 and 9 on the Plat are each 50 feet wide, then the permitted use should be "single-family," which has a minimum lot width of 35 feet. Based on the above finding, the Property is a parcel or lot that may be developed under the City's LDC. The Property's lot width is 125 feet, which meets the minimum width standard for the proposed "multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)" use. Whether the requirements for a masonry wall and Type B landscape buffer apply to the Property and the development plan. Section 30-4.8.D.2.e of the City's LDC provides: A decorative masonry wall (or equivalent material in noise attenuation and visual screening) with a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of eight feet plus a Type B landscape buffer shall separate multi- family residential development from properties designated single-family residential. The Appellants argue that the development plan should be required to meet this buffer standard because the RC zoning district is residential, and the Property abuts single-family dwellings. Under the LDC provision, the buffer is required to separate multi-family developments from properties "designated single-family residential." The City argues that designations refer to a property's FLU category as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Appellants argue that "designated single-family residential" simply refers to a single-family dwelling. Policy 4.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan describes certain FLU categories such as Single-Family (SF). Policy 4.1.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City can amend land use "designations" under certain circumstances. Policy 4.2.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City shall adopt regulations that separate uses with performance measures, such as "buffering of adjacent uses by landscape." Based on the language of the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable interpretation that use of the term "designated" refers to the FLU category. The Property and the abutting single-family dwellings have the same FLU category designation of RL. Thus, the masonry wall and Type B buffer requirements of Section 30-4.8 of the City's LDC do not apply to this development plan. Whether the Property's development plan meets applicable parking standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces, and it only provides nine parking spaces, which does not meet the parking standards of Sections 30- 7.2 and 30-7.5 of the City's LDC. In addition, the Appellants argue that the parking must be paved because the City's LDC only allows gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Under Section 30-7.5 of the City's LDC, the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces. The development plan provides nine parking spaces on the Property and four on-street spaces approved by the City, for a total of 13 parking spaces. The nine parking spaces on the Property satisfy the requirement of allowing gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Standing Appellants Vanessa Burt and Suzi Rumsey are the only residents who own property within 400 feet of the Property. Appellants Jason Atkins-Tuffs and Lauren Atkins are recent new home buyers in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Mr. Atkins-Tuffs is concerned that the development plan would not be a "good fit for our growing historic downtown family neighborhood." Appellant Dotty Faibisy is an almost 20-year resident and is concerned that the development plan "is a poor fit for the Historic Pleasant Street Neighborhood." Appellants John Rehfuss and Caroline Rehfuss are residents since 2013 in the Pleasant Street Historic District and are concerned that the development plan "is going to be a poor fit, both aesthetically and functionally, for our neighborhood." Appellant Tan Silva is a 23-year resident, who lives outside of but "on the edge" of the Pleasant Street Historic District and feels that compatible development should be maintained. Appellant Furman Wallace is an 84-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. He is concerned with the character and type of buildings in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Appellant Thomas Hawkins was a 12-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood and is currently building a new home in the neighborhood. Mr. Hawkins is concerned that the development plan does "not compliment the neighborhood's historic architecture" and is not consistent with the City's LDC requirements.
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Amendment 10-01A to the Bay County Comprehensive Plan (“the Plan Amendment”), adopted by Ordinance 10-22, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and, at the time of the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). Bay County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Petitioner Diane Brown resides and owns property in Bay County, but not in the Sand Hills STZ. Petitioner submitted comments to Bay County during the time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendment. Intervenor Cedar Creek is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 1,007 acres of land within the Sand Hills STZ. Intervenor submitted comments to Bay County during the time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendment. The Sand Hills STZ The Sand Hills STZ is one of three Rural Community STZs in Bay County. The Sand Hills STZ has a number of platted and unplatted subdivisions that were created before the adoption of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. Within the Sand Hills STZ is a police station, a fire station, and a public school for Pre- Kindergarten through 12th grade. Residences and businesses in the Sand Hills STZ are on private wells and septic tanks. The public school is on central sewer and water. Existing land uses within the Sand Hills STZ include Agriculture, Public/Institutional, Conservation/Preservation, General Commercial, and Rural Residential. Lands designated Agriculture can be developed at one dwelling unit on ten acres ("1 du/10 ac"). Lands designated Rural Residential can be developed at 1 du/3 ac on unpaved roads and 1 du/ac on paved roads. This leads to some semantic confusion. Densities of 1 du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac are rural densities, but a density of 1 du/ac is a suburban density. That means the Rural Residential land use designation allows for densities that are suburban in character and the rural community STZs are not altogether rural. Abutting the Sand Hills STZ on the north is Washington County. To the south are areas designated Agriculture/ Timberland. The community of Southport is located about five miles to the south. West of the Sand Hills STZ is the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport and other lands subject to the West Bay Area Sector Plan. East of the Sand Hills STZ is Deer Point Lake/Reservoir, the County’s primary source of drinking water. Also to the east are 8,500 acres of land owned by the Northwest Florida Water Management District that are designated Conservation/Recreation. The Sand Hills region is hydrogeologically sensitive because of significant recharge which occurs throughout the region via ground and surface waters to Deer Point Lake/Reservoir. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment creates a new Policy 3.4.10 to guide development in the Sand Hills STZ. The Policy begins: The Sand Hills Area is an established and continually evolving community with unique character and environmental assets that warrant a special planning approach to ensure the preservation and protection of its distinctive qualities. Due to its beautiful natural landscapes, picturesque areas, and its strategic location east of the West Bay Area Sector Plan (Centered around the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport) and nearby transportation corridors--State Road 77, County Road 388, and State Road 20, development and growth will continue to occur in the Sand Hills Community. The Sand Hills Rural Community Special Treatment Zone is an overlay area that has been established to maintain the area's character while protecting its significant natural resources and advancing Bay County's Wide Open Spaces strategy (Map 3.7). The Sand Hills Rural Community Special Treatment Zone encourages efficient development and infill within an area that has the capacity to service future growth. Guiding principles for the Sand Hills STZ are set forth in new Policy 3.4.10: Protect important recharge areas from the effects of irresponsible development. Create a sense of place by implementing design and landscape standards. Promoting civic and community uses, and providing interconnection between uses, community parks, and open space that protect and enhance the character of the Sand Hills Community. Provide for sustainable development and environmentally responsible design. Maintain the character of the Sand Hills Rural Community while providing for neighborhood commercial, retail, office, and civic uses located within designated commercial area and corridors, appropriately scaled to meet the needs of the Sand Hills Community. Promote an integrated network of local streets, pedestrian paths, and bicycle and equestrian trails. Access management policies that promote development patterns which reduce automobile trip length. Provide for a range of housing types for all ages, incomes, and lifestyles. Provide centralized utilities for all new developments in a planned, coordinated and efficient manner. Policy 3.4.10.1 would allow properties designated Rural Residential to increase from 1 du/ac to 4 du/ac if central water and sewer are available and other conditions are met as set forth in Policy 3.4.10.4. Policy 3.4.10.2 has special conditions applicable to commercial development, such as a maximum floor area ratio of 30 percent. General Commercial land uses are only permitted in three designated "Commercial Nodes." Policy 3.4.10.3 creates special conditions applicable to agricultural uses in the Sand Hills STZ. Policy 3.4.10.4 establishes criteria for new development in the Sand Hills STZ, including the requirement for a site analysis by a licensed engineer or geologist. This requirement is imposed to protect karst features and aquifer recharge areas. This Policy also requires enhanced stormwater treatment and buffers around karst features, low impact design and landscaping standards, and open space requirements. Policy 3.4.10.5 requires the County to complete a plan by January 2012 for the expansion of water and sewer facilities into the Sand Hills STZ and to "retrofit" existing septic tanks by connecting properties to central sewer lines. New developments, regardless of density, are required to connect to central sewer lines if they are within 1,000 feet. Policy 3.4.10.6 addresses roadway access management to reduce reliance on State Road 77 and preserve levels of service. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with existing Policy 3.4.4 which states, in part, that rural community STZs are intended: to promote infill development into existing rural developed areas that will allow residents to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the designated and surrounding areas. Petitioner has a misunderstanding about Policy 3.4.4 that is the basis for several of her objections to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner focuses on the words "preserving the rural and low density land uses" and fails to see that the primary purpose of the policy is to enhance communities out in the rural areas of Bay County by encouraging the creation of a "nucleus" of mixed land uses in a compact development, while preserving the rural character of the surrounding area. Petitioner also asserts that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.4 because the policy refers to "existing" developed areas, but the Plan Amendment allows residential density increases on some lands that are currently undeveloped. Petitioner's interpretation of the wording in the policy is not the only interpretation that can be given to the words and it is not the interpretation that Bay County gives to the words. Bay County interprets existing developed areas as a general reference to the areas that are currently recognizable as the core of village-like features, rather than a finite group of parcels. Policy 3.4.4 refers to the designation of rural community STZs "consistent with the Wide Open Spaces Strategy." A 7-page document entitled "Wide Open Spaces Strategy" was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 41. It is stated in the strategy that: This policy is an attempt by the Board of County Commissioners to focus its infrastructure planning and construction efforts. In no way should this policy be construed to discourage anyone choosing to live in the rural area. Rather, the Board is establishing the parameters and expectations that should be associated with that choice. The significance of the strategy to a compliance determination is not clear. It does not appear in the Comprehensive Plan and it may not have been properly adopted by reference. See § 163.3711(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Policy 3.4.4 states that a rural community STZ is to be "designated" consistent with the strategy, but this Plan Amendment does not designate the Sand Hills STZ. There are general statements in the strategy that fail to account for more specific policies of the comprehensive plan. For example, the strategy states that the County will limit residential development in rural communities to 1 du/3 ac, even though the Comprehensive Plan clearly allows 1 du/ac on Rural Residential lands if the lands are on paved roads. Statements in the policy regarding rural services do not reflect the existing public services and utility planning in the Sand Hills STZ. These disharmonies between the Wide Open Spaces Policy and the Comprehensive Plan suggest that the strategy is a collection of general statements that are not intended to have the same force and effect as the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The record evidence is insufficient to show the intended role of the strategy in Bay County's comprehensive planning. The record evidence is insufficient to show that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the strategy. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 6.10.5 of the Conservation Element, which states: "The County will maintain rural densities and intensities of development in identified high aquifer recharge areas." The existing rural densities in the Sand Hills STZ (1 du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac) are not changed by the Plan Amendment. The existing suburban densities of 1 du/ac cannot be increased unless the parcels are connected to central water and sewer systems. Therefore, the purpose of Policy 6.10.5--to protect aquifer recharge areas--is achieved by the Plan Amendment. The stated "performance measure" for Policy 6.10.5 is the maintenance of rural designations on the FLUM. The Plan Amendment maintains rural designations on the FLUM. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 3.2.3 because it conflicts with the intent of the policy to limit the Sand Hills STZ to rural levels of service. However, Policy 3.2.3 does not prohibit the County from providing central services in the Rural STZs. The service area map for the Sand Hills STZ shows that central water and sewer services are already planned. The County already provides central sewer and water to the public school located in the Sand Hills STZ. Petitioner claims that the Plan Amendment, for the first time, allows general commercial uses within the Sand Hills STZ, but General Commercial uses were already allowed in the Sand Hills STZ. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment causes the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent with any goal, objective, or policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioner asserts that there is insufficient data and analysis to support the need for increased residential density to meet population projections for the area. A local government can accommodate more than the projected population. See § 163.3177(6)(a)4., Fla. Stat. The Plan Amendment responds to growth pressures in the Sand Hills STZ, modifies antiquated subdivisions, and furthers numerous other general and specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to promote well-designed, environmentally-protective, infrastructure-efficient, high- quality communities. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis regarding the protection of aquifer recharge areas. However, the evidence offered by Petitioner only established that she wants the Plan Amendment to be more protective. Petitioner's expert hydrogeologist, Dr. Kincaid, admitted that the County had taken "strong" and "aggressive" measures in the Plan Amendment to protect water quality, but said he wished the County had done more to address water withdrawals. There was no evidence presented indicating that there is insufficient water available to serve the Sand Hills STZ. The Northwest Florida Water Management District has exclusive authority to regulate water withdrawals in Bay County. See § 373.217(2), Fla. Stat. The Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis is the principal data and analysis that the Plan Amendment is based upon. In addition, the Plan Amendment is supported by the analysis presented at the final hearing by Dr. Kincaid and Steve Peene. Petitioner did not present data and analysis showing that the Plan Amendment would be harmful to water resources. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis regarding impacts on species and habitats. Petitioner did not explain what additional data and analysis would be required regarding species and habitat when the lands affected by the Plan Amendment are already designated for residential and commercial development. Petitioner refers to comments made by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, but those comments are also unexplained, and are hearsay. The Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the protection of natural resources, species, and habitat. The Plan Amendment does not remove any goal, objective, or policy of the Conservation Element. Petitioner did not show the Plan Amendment would be harmful to species and their habitat. A large area where septic tanks are used can be expected to be a source of groundwater contamination because a significant number of septic tanks will fail. The Plan Amendment includes a new map which depicts priority areas for retrofitting existing parcels that use private wells and septic tanks and connecting the parcels to central water and sewer lines. Petitioner contends that the mapping is not supported by data and analysis. The priority areas were selected based on development density and proximity to Deer Point Lake. Those data are sufficient to support the mapping of priority areas. Petitioner produced no contrary data and analysis. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment encourages urban sprawl, but her evidence was not persuasive. According to Petitioner's theory of sprawl, every rural town and village would be an example of sprawl because they all "leap frog" from urban areas over agricultural and rural lands. Leap frogging as an indicator of sprawl usually involves a leap from an urban area to an area of undeveloped rural lands which will be transformed into urban or suburban land uses. That is not the situation here. The Plan Amendment's application of modern planning principles to enhance the quality and functionality of an existing rural community does not indicate urban sprawl. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment triggers most of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl that are set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9., but she failed to prove the existence of any indicator. The Plan Amendment does not promote the development of a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related. It does not promote the inefficient extension of public facilities and services. It does not fail to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment constitutes a failure of Bay County to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Other Compliance Issues Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment's provisions regarding infrastructure were not shown to be financially feasible, but the record evidence shows otherwise. Bay County has water and sewer facilities with sufficient capacity to serve the Sand Hills STZ. Furthermore, the new law eliminated the financial feasibility provisions of section 163.3177. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment improperly changes the FLUM, but the Plan Amendment does not change the FLUM. The rural community STZs are overlays that do not change FLUM designations. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not address hurricane evacuation times, but did not show that there is any legal requirement for Bay County to address hurricane evacuation times for amendments affecting lands outside of areas of hurricane vulnerability. Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of section 163.3177 related to energy conservation and efficiency, but the law cited by Petitioner was eliminated by the new law. Petitioner stated at the final hearing that her real objection is that the Plan Amendment promotes subdivisions far away from employment centers. Growth in the Sand Hills STZ is likely to be affected by and run parallel to growth in the adjacent West Bay Sector Plan because it is a developing employment center. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment is designed to make the Sand Hills STZ more self-sustaining, which would reduce vehicle miles. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not include sufficient standards and measures for the implementation of its new policies. The Plan Amendment is primarily self- implementing, in that it sets forth specific conditions for development. In addition, the Plan Amendment includes guiding principles that can be used in the application of existing land development regulations (LDRs) or the adoption of new LDRs. There also are references in the Plan Amendment to other regulatory programs that will be used to implement the policies. Petitioner claims the Plan Amendment was not coordinated with Washington County, but she did not prove the claim. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the Type B site plan for the 78-unit townhome/condominium project known as Park Terrace Townhomes should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Parties Skipper is the applicant for the Type B site plan at issue in this proceeding, No. TSP060026. Skipper owns the property on which the project will be developed, Parcel ID No. 21-23-20-417-000-0 (the project site). The City is the local government with jurisdiction over the project because the project site is located within the City limits. The Association is a voluntary neighborhood association encompassing 343 lots in an established single-family residential neighborhood generally located to the northeast of the Tharpe Street/Old Bainbridge Road intersection, adjacent to the project site. The purpose of the Association is to “preserve and enhance the quality of life in [the] neighborhoods by taking coordinated action on matters which advance the common good of all residents,” and one of the Association’s objectives is to “protect[] the neighborhood from incompatible land use and rezoning.” The Project Site (1) Generally The project site is located to the north of Tharpe Street, to the east of Old Bainbridge Road, and to the west of Monticello Drive. The project site is bordered on the south by the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center. It is bordered on the north, east, and west by the residential neighborhood represented by the Association. The project site consists of 13.91 acres. The western 11.11 acres of the project site are zoned R-4, Urban Residential. The eastern 2.8 acres of the project site are zoned RP-1, Residential Preservation. The project site is roughly rectangular in shape. It is 300 feet wide (north to south) and approximately 2,100 feet long (east to west). The project site is located within the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary. The Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages infill development within the USA. The project site is designated as Mixed Use A on the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. Residential development of up to 20 units per acre is allowed within the Mixed Use A land use category. The project site has been zoned R-4/RP-1 since 1997 when it was rezoned from Mixed Use A as part of the City-wide rezoning of all mixed use properties. Multi-family residential was an allowable use under the Mixed Use A zoning district, as was small-scale commercial. The R-4 zoning is intended to function as a “transition” between the commercial uses to the south of the project site and the single-family residential uses to the north of the project site. The R-4 zoning district allows a wide range of residential development at a density of up to 10 units per acre. (2) Surrounding Zoning and Uses The property to the north, east, and west of the project site is zoned RP-1, and is developed with single-family residences. The neighborhood adjacent to the project site is stable and well established. Most of the homes are owner- occupied, and many of the residents are retirees. The property to the south of the project site is zoned UP-1, Urban Pedestrian, and is developed with commercial uses, namely the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center. There is an existing stormwater pond located on the northwest portion of the shopping center parcel, adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. (3) Environmental Features on the Project Site The project site is vacant and undeveloped, except for several concrete flumes and underground pipes located in the drainage easements that run north/south across the site. The project site has been impacted by the surrounding development in that household and yard trash has been found on the site. The vegetative community on the project site is considered to be upland hardwood forest. There are a number of large trees on the project site, including pecan, cherry, pine, gum, and various types of oak trees. There are also various exotic plants species on the site, such as kudzu. The vegetative density is consistent throughout the project site. The land in the general vicinity of the project site slopes from south to north. The elevations along Tharpe Street to the south of the project site are in 220 to 230-foot range, whereas the elevations in the neighborhood to the north of the project site approximately one-quarter of a mile north of Tharpe Street are in the 140 to 160-foot range. The elevations across the R-4 zoned portion of the project site range from a high of 214 feet on the southern boundary to a low of 160 feet on the northern boundary. The southern property boundary is consistently 30 to 40 feet higher than the northern property boundary across the entire R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The slopes are the main environmental feature of significance on the project site. There are a total of 7.32 acres (319,110 square feet) of regulated slopes -- i.e., severe or significant grades -- on the project site, which is more than half of the total acreage of the site. There is a ravine that runs in a northwesterly direction across the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site. The ravine is considered to be an altered wetland area and/or altered watercourse. The regulated slopes and altered wetland/watercourse areas on the project site were depicted on a Natural Features Inventory (NFI) submitted in September 2005, prior to submittal of the site plan. The City’s biologists reviewed the original NFI, and it was approved by the City on October 13, 2005. A revised NFI was submitted in March 2007. The revised NFI removed the man-made slopes from the regulated slope areas, and made other minor changes based upon comments from the staff of the Growth Management Department. The City’s biologists reviewed the revised NFI, and it was approved by the City on August 24, 2007. The Association questioned the change in the amount of regulated slopes identified on the project site, but it did not otherwise contest the accuracy of the NFIs. Roger Wynn, the engineer of record for the project, testified that the amount of regulated slopes on the project site changed because the man-made slopes were initially included in the calculation but were later removed. That testimony was corroborated by the James Lee Thomas, the engineer who coordinated the Growth Management Department’s review of the project. The Project (1) Generally The project consists of 78 townhome/condominium units in 14 two-story buildings. It was stipulated that the density of the project is 7.02 units per acre, which is considered “low density” under the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. The stipulated density is calculated by dividing the 78 units in the project by the 11.11 acres on the project site in the R-4 zoning district. If the entire acreage of the project site was used in the calculation, the project’s density would be 5.61 units per acre. All of the buildings will be located on the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. Five of the buildings (with 21 units) will have access to Monticello Road to the east by way of Voncile Avenue. The remaining nine buildings (with 57 units) will have access to Old Bainbridge Road to the west by way of Voncile Avenue. There is no vehicular interconnection between the eastern and western portions the project. There is no vehicular access to the project from the north or south. However, pedestrian interconnections are provided to the north and south. The only development on the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site is the extension of Voncile Avenue onto the site. The remainder of the RP-1 zoned property will be placed into a conservation easement. The Voncile Avenue extension will end in a cul-de-sac at the eastern boundary of the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The extension will be constructed to meet the City’s standards for public roads, and it will comply with the City’s Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy. The other streets shown on the site plan are considered private drives because they are intended to serve only the project. Those streets and the internal cul-de-sacs have been designed to allow for the provision of City services - – e.g., trash, recycling, fire -– but they do not have to meet the City’s Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s Driveway and Street Connection Regulations, Policies and Procedures. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s Parking Standards. The City’s Parking Standards Committee approved tandem parking spaces and an increase in the number of parking spaces in the project. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s concurrency policies and regulations. A preliminary certificate of concurrency was issued for the project on March 9, 2007. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s requirements for utilities -- e.g., water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, gas, cable -- and infrastructure for those utilities. However, the Association still has concerns regarding various aspects of the project’s stormwater management system. See Part D(3), below. (2) Site Plan Application and Review On August 4, 2005, the City issued Land Use Compliance Certificate (LUCC) No. TCC060219, which determined that 94 multi-family residential units could be developed on the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The LUCC noted that the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site “is not eligible for multi-family development,” and that the “[a]ttainment of the full 94 units on the R-4 zoned property may be limited by the presence of regulated environmental features that will be determined via an approved Natural Features Analysis [sic].” On March 10, 2006, Skipper submitted a Type B site plan application for the project. The initial site plan included 82 multi-family units in 13 buildings; an extension of Heather Lane onto the project site to provide vehicular access to the north; vehicular access to the west by way of Voncile Avenue; and no vehicular access to the east. The Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department (Planning Department) and other City departments expressed concerns about the initial site plan in memoranda prepared in advance of the April 10, 2006, DRC meeting at which the site plan was to be considered. A number of neighboring property owners submitted letters to the DRC and other City departments detailing their concerns about the project. A number of neighboring property owners also sent “petitions” to Skipper urging him to reduce the density of the project and to construct single-family detached units rather than multi-family units. The DRC “continued” -- i.e., deferred consideration of -- the site plan at its April 10, 2006, meeting as a result of the concerns expressed by the City departments. The site plan was also “continued” by the DRC at each of its next 10 meetings. Skipper submitted a revised site plan in February 2007 that reduced the number of units in the project from 82 to 78; eliminated the extension of Heather Lane onto the project site; added the connection to Voncile Avenue on the east; and made other changes recommended by City staff. It is not unusual for a site plan to be revised during the DRC review process. Indeed, Mr. Wynn testified that it is “very uncommon” for the initial version of the site plan to be approved by the DRC and that the approved site plan is typically an “evolution” of the initial site plan. That testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Dwight Arnold, the City’s land use and environmental services administrator. The City departments that reviewed the revised site plan -- growth management, planning, public works, and utilities -- each recommended approval of the site plan with conditions. A total of 21 conditions were recommended, many of which were standard conditions imposed on all site plans. The DRC unanimously approved the site plan with the 21 conditions recommended by the City departments at its meeting on March 26, 2007. The DRC was aware of the neighborhood’s objections to the project at the time it approved the site plan. Mr. Arnold, testified that the Growth Management Department was “extraordinarily careful” in its review of the site plan as a result of the neighborhood’s concerns. The site plan received into evidence as Joint Exhibit J13 is an updated version of the revised site plan submitted in February 2007. It incorporates all of the DRC conditions that can be shown on the site plan. For example, the updated site plan shows the “stub-out” at the southern property boundary and the pedestrian interconnections requested by the Planning Department as well as the appropriately designated handicapped parking spaces requested by the Public Works Department. The site plan review process typically takes six months, but Mr. Arnold testified that the process can take longer depending upon the number of issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Arnold testified that there is nothing unusual about the one-year period in this case between the submittal of the site plan and its approval by the DRC. Issues Raised by the Association The primary issues raised by the Association in opposition to the project are the alleged incompatibility of the proposed multi-family development with the surrounding single- family neighborhood; concerns about increased traffic in and around the neighborhood; concerns relating to the design of the project’s stormwater management system and the potential for stormwater run-off from the project to cause flooding in the neighborhood; and the alleged inadequate protection of the environmentally sensitive features on the project site. The public comment presented at the final hearing generally focused on these same issues, but concerns were also raised regarding the potential for increased crime and decreased property values in the neighborhood if college-aged students move into the proposed multi-family units on the project site. Compatibility Protecting the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods from incompatible development is a specifically emphasized “growth management strategy” in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.1 [L] of the Comprehensive Plan promotes the protection of “existing residential areas from encroachment of incompatible uses that are destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment.” Paragraph (c) of Policy 2.1.1 [L] requires the adoption of land development regulations to limit future higher density residential development adjoining low density residential areas. Such limitations “are to result in effective visual and sound buffering (either through vegetative buffering or other design techniques) between the higher density residential uses and the low density residential uses; [and] are to discourage vehicular traffic to and from higher density residential uses on low density residential streets.” These Comprehensive Plan provisions are implemented through the buffering requirements in LDC Section 10-177, which requires landscaping and fencing to be installed between potentially incompatible land uses. The width of the buffer and the amount of the landscaping required vary depending upon the proposed and existing land uses. The multi-family development proposed in the project at 7.02 units per acres is not inherently incompatible with the existing single-family neighborhood surrounding the project site. Indeed, as noted above, both uses are considered low density under the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-family residential development on the project site furthers the intent of the R-4 zoning district in that it provides for a “transition” between the commercial uses in the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center to the south of the project site and the single-family residential neighborhood to the north of the project site. The Planning Department expressed concerns about the initial site plan’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood in its March 24, 2006, memorandum to the DRC. The memorandum recommended that the project be redesigned -- with a lower density and/or clustered single-family lots or townhomes - - in an effort to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Department does not have the authority to require a project to be redesigned; it can only recommend that the developer consider alternative designs. The Planning Department does not have compatibility concerns with the revised site plan. Indeed, Mary Jean Yarbrough, a senior planner with 10 years of experience with the Planning Department, testified that “the site plan has changed significantly from the first submittal” and that it now “meet[s] the compatibility requirements of the comprehensive plan.” Similarly, Wade Pitt, an expert in local land use planning, testified that the project meets the compatibility requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. Mr. Pitt also testified the project furthers the intent of the R-4 zoning district by providing a transition between the commercial uses to the south of the project site and the single-family residential uses to the north of the project site. Some of the changes in the site plan mentioned by Ms. Yarbrough that led to the Planning Department no longer having compatibility concerns with the project were the elimination of the Heather Lane interconnection; the reduction in the number of units in the project; the reduction in the size of the eastern stormwater pond; the inclusion of buffers in the project; and the elimination of the road through the project, which allowed for more extensive conservation areas in the central portion of the project site. A Type D buffer is required where, as here, the existing use is single-family and the proposed use is multi- family. The width of a Type D buffer can range from 30 to 100 feet, but the wider the buffer, the less landscaping that is required. The site plan includes a 30-foot wide buffer along the project site's northern and western property lines, as well as along the eastern border of the R-4 zoning district on the project site.1 The 30-foot Type D buffer is required to contain at least 12 canopy trees, six understory trees, and 36 shrubs for every 100 linear feet of buffer. The northern boundary of the R-4 zoned portion of the project site is approximately 1,600 feet long, which means that there will be approximately 864 plants -- 192 canopy trees, 96 understory trees, and 576 shrubs -- in the buffer between the proposed multi-family units and the neighborhood to the north of the project site. The Association contends that a 60-foot Type D buffer should have been required. However, Ms. Yarbrough persuasively testified that the 60-foot buffer actually provides less buffering because it is not required to be as densely vegetated as the 30-foot buffer provided on the site plan. Portions of the buffer shown on the site plan overlap the designated conservation areas that will be subject to the conservation easement on the project site. Mr. Arnold testified that it is not uncommon for buffers to overlap conservation areas. The conservation areas will be disturbed in those areas where the trees and shrubs are planted to comply with the landscaping requirements for the buffer. An eight-foot high fence will be constructed along the northern and western property lines. The site plan shows the fence several feet inside the property line, within the designated conservation areas. However, Mr. Arnold and City biologist Rodney Cassidy testified that the fence will have to be placed outside of the conservation areas along the property lines. LDC Section 10-177(f)(5) does not impact the placement of the fence on the property line as the Association argues in its PRO. That code section requires planting materials to be located on the outside of the fence “[w]hen residential uses buffer against other uses.” Here, the residential uses on the project are not being buffered against “other uses”; they are being buffered against the same type of use, residential. None of the six buildings on the northern side of the project site directly abut the buffer. Only one of the buildings is closer than 40 feet from the northern property line, and three of the buildings are as much as 80 feet from the northern property line. The only development actually abutting the 30-foot buffer is the retaining walls for the stormwater management ponds. The walls will be covered with vines to minimize their aesthetic impact on the adjacent properties. It is not necessary that the trees and shrubs in the buffer reach maturity before a certificate of occupancy is issued; all that is required is that the appropriate type and number of trees and shrubs are planted. The project is adequately buffered from the existing single-family residences to the north and west of the project site. The buffer requirements in the LDC have been met. In addition to the landscaped buffer and fence, impacts of the project on the surrounding neighborhood have been mitigated by the placement of parking on the interior of the site and by the elimination of the Heather Road interconnection that was in the initial site plan, which would have directed more traffic from the project onto the neighborhood streets. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the project is not inherently incompatible with the surrounding single-family uses and that its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood have been mitigated as required by the LDC. Thus, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon the incompatibility concerns raised by the Association. Traffic Concerns There is currently considerable traffic on Old Bainbridge Road, particularly during rush hour. This makes it difficult for residents of the neighborhood north of the project site to turn left onto Old Bainbridge Road from Joyner Drive. The amount of traffic on Old Bainbridge Road is in no way unique. There are many streets in the City that have similar amounts of traffic, particularly during rush hour. Vehicles leaving the project will utilize Voncile Avenue, Joyner Drive, and Monticello Drive to access Old Bainbridge Road or Tharpe Street. Those streets are considered collector roads, not local streets. The number of vehicles expected to utilize the local streets in the neighborhood to the north of the project site will not be significant from a traffic engineering perspective. The initial version of the site plan showed Heather Lane being extended onto the project site and connected with a street running through the project. This interconnection, which is no longer part of the site plan, would have increased the amount of traffic on the surrounding neighborhood streets because Heather Lane runs through the middle of the neighborhood to the north of the project site. There are expected to be less than 50 trips entering the eastern portion of the project during the afternoon peak hour, and less than 20 trips entering the western portion of the project during the afternoon peak hour. The exiting trips during the afternoon peak hour are expected to be about half those amounts. The number of trips generated by the project fall below the one percent or 100 trip threshold in the City’s concurrency regulations. A preliminary certificate of concurrency, No. TCM060026, was issued for the project on March 9, 2007, indicating that there will be adequate capacity of roads (and other infrastructure) to serve the project. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. LDC Section 10-247.11 requires properties in the R-4 zoning district to have vehicular access to collector or arterial streets if the density is greater than eight units per acre. Where, as here, the density of the project is less than eight units per acre, vehicular access to local streets is permitted. In any event, as noted above, access to the project site is by way of Voncile Avenue, which is considered a collector road. In sum, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon traffic concerns because the project satisfies the City’s traffic concurrency requirements. Stormwater Management/Flooding Concerns Currently, stormwater run-off from the project site flows uncontrolled across the site, down the slope towards the neighborhood to the north that is represented by the Association. The neighborhood had severe flooding problems in the past. The City resolved those problems by reconfiguring the stormwater management system and constructing several stormwater ponds in the neighborhood. The Association is concerned that the stormwater run- off from the project will cause flooding in the neighborhood. The Association also has concerns regarding the design of the stormwater ponds and their proximity to the neighborhood. The project site is located in the upper reaches of a closed basin. As a result, the project’s stormwater management system is subject to the additional volume control standards in LDC Section 5-86(e), which requires the volume of post- development stormwater run-off from the site to be no greater than pre-development run-off. The project’s stormwater management system provides volume control, rate control, and water quality treatment. The system complies with all of the design standards in LDC Section 5-86, including the additional closed basin standards in paragraph (e) of that section. The project will retain all post-development stormwater run-off on site by capturing it and routing it to two stormwater ponds located in the north central portion of the project site. Stormwater run-off will be captured by roof collectors on the buildings and inlets on the streets and then routed to the stormwater ponds through underground pipes. The two stormwater ponds are designed with retaining walls on their north/downhill sides. The walls will have a spread footing, which was a design change recommended by Mr. Thomas to improve the functioning of the ponds. The walls will be eight to nine feet at their highest point, which is less than the 15-foot maximum allowed by LDC Section 5-86(f)(7), and they will be covered with vegetation as required by that section. Access to the stormwater ponds for maintenance is provided by way of the 20-foot wide “pond access” easements shown on the site plan for each pond. These easements meet the requirements of LDC Section 5-86(g)(2). The stormwater ponds are roughly rectangular in shape, rather than curvilinear. The shape of the ponds is a function of the retaining walls that are required because of the sloping project site. The stormwater ponds have been visually integrated into the overall landscape design for the site “to the greatest extent possible” as required by LDC Section 5-86(f)(10). The south side of the ponds will be contoured with landscaping, and the walls around the ponds will be covered with vegetation. The final design of the stormwater ponds and the retaining walls is evaluated during the permitting phase, not during site plan review. The walls must be designed and certified by a professional engineer, and the construction plans submitted during the permitting phase will include a detailed analysis of the soil types on the site to determine the suitability of the walls and to ensure the proper functioning of the ponds. The project’s stormwater management system will also collect and control the overflow stormwater run-off from the existing stormwater pond on the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center site. That run-off currently overflows out of an existing catch basin on the eastern portion of the project site and flows uncontrolled across the project site, down the slope at a rate of 6.7 cubic feet per second (CFS). After the project is developed, that run-off will flow out of a redesigned catch basin at a rate of 0.5 CFS, down the slope through a conservation area, to a graded depression area or “sump” on the northern property line, and ultimately to the existing stormwater management system along Heather Lane. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cassidy testified that the reduced flow down the slope will benefit the conservation area by reducing erosion on the slope. Mr. Cassidy further testified that he was not concerned with the flow through the conservation easement forming a gully or erosion feature or otherwise altering the vegetation in that area, and that potential impacts could be addressed in a management plan for the conservation area, if necessary. The stormwater ponds and other aspects of the project’s stormwater management system will be privately owned and maintained. However, the operation and maintenance of the system will be subject to a permit from the City, which must be renewed every three years after an inspection. The City can impose special conditions on the permit if deemed necessary to ensure the proper maintenance and function of the system. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the project’s stormwater management system meets all of the applicable requirements in the LDC. On this issue, the testimony of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wynn was more persuasive than the stormwater-related testimony presented on behalf of the Association by Don Merkel. Mr. Merkel, a former engineer, “eyeballed” the project site and the proposed stormwater management system; he did not perform a detailed analysis or any calculations to support his criticisms of the project’s stormwater management system. In sum, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon the stormwater management/flooding concerns raised by the Association. Protection of Environmental Features on the Project Site The NFI is required to depict all of the regulated environmental features on the site, including the regulated slopes. The revised NFI approved by the City in August 2007 accurately depicts the environmentally sensitive features on the project site. The environmental features regulated by the City include “severe grades,” which are slopes with grades exceeding 20 percent, and “significant grades,” which are slopes with 10 to 20 percent grades. The project site contains 5.74 acres (250,275 square feet) of “significant grades” and 1.58 acres (68,835 square feet) of “severe grades.” Those figures do not include man-made slopes in the existing drainage easements across the site, which are not subject to regulation. There are 0.76 acres (33,056 square feet) of severe grades on the R-4 portion of the project site that are regulated as significant grades because of their size and location. Thus, there are a total of 6.50 acres (283,331 square feet) of slopes regulated as significant grades on the project site. LDC Section 5-81(a)(1)d. provides that 100 percent of severe grades must be protected and placed in a conservation easement, except for severe grades that are less than one- quarter of an acre in size and located within an area of significant grades that are regulated as significant grades. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d. provides that a minimum of 50 percent of significant grades must be left undisturbed and placed in a conservation easement. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d.1. provides that the significant grades to be protected are those areas “that provide the greatest environmental benefit as determined by the director [of growth management] (i.e., provides downhill buffers, protects forested areas, buffers other protected conservation or preservation areas, or provides other similar environmental benefits).” The Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) included with the site plan shows that 100 percent of the severe slopes that are regulated as such are protected and will be placed in a conservation easement. The EIA shows that a total of 3.05 acres (133,002 square feet) of the significant grades on the project site will be impacted. That figure is 46.9 percent of the total significant grades on the project site, which means that 53.1 percent of the significant grades will be undisturbed and placed into a conservation easement. It is not entirely clear what environmental benefit is provided by some of the smaller conservation areas shown on the site plan, such as those between several of the buildings, but Mr. Cassidy testified that he took the criteria quoted above into consideration in determining that the site plan meets the applicable code requirements and is “approvable." Moreover, Mr. Arnold testified that similar “small pockets” of conservation areas are located in other areas of the City and that fencing or other appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that the areas are not disturbed. The EIA will be approved simultaneously with, and as part of the site plan. The conservation easement is not required during site plan review. Rather, LDC Section 5-81(b) requires the easement to be recorded no later than 30 days after commencement of site work authorized by an environmental permit. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d.1. provides that development activity in the area subject to the conservation easement is prohibited, except for “vegetation management activities that enhance the vegetation and are specifically allowed in a vegetation management plan approved by the director [of growth management].” LDC Section 5-81(b) provides that a management plan for the area subject to a conservation easement “may be approved provided the activity does not interfere with the ecological functioning of the conservation or preservation area and the activities are limited to designs that minimize impacts to the vegetative cover.” That section further provides that the management plan is to be approved “during the [EIA].” Mr. Cassidy testified that an approved management plan is required in order to plant trees in a conservation area. He further testified that impacts related to the construction of the buffer fence could be addressed in the management plan, if necessary. No management plan has been prepared or approved for the project even though there will be planting in the conservation areas that overlap the 30-foot Type D buffer. In sum, more persuasive evidence establishes that the regulated environmentally sensitive features on the project site are accurately depicted in the NFI; that the required amounts of regulated slopes are protected on the site plan; and that, subject to approval of a management plan for the plantings in the buffer as part of the EIA, the project complies with the requirements of the LDC relating to the protection of environmentally sensitive features. Other Issues The final hearing was properly noticed, both to the parties and the general public. Notice of the final hearing was published in the Tallahassee Democrat on September 9, 2007. An opportunity for public comment was provided at the final hearing, and 16 neighboring property owners spoke in opposition to the project. A number of the concerns raised by the Association and the neighboring property owners who spoke at the hearing are permitting or construction issues, not site plan issues. For example, issues related to the engineering specifications for the stormwater pond retaining walls and issues related to the protection of the conservation areas from construction impacts will be addressed and monitored as the project moves through the permitting process. Mr. Arnold testified that Association and neighboring property owners are free to provide input and express concerns on those issues to the appropriate City departments as the project moves through permitting and construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission approve the Type B site plan for the Park Terrace Townhomes project, subject to the 21 conditions recommended by the DRC and additional conditions requiring: the eight-foot high buffer fence to be located on the property lines, outside of the designated conservation areas; and a management plan to be approved for the conservation areas that will be disturbed through the plantings required in the Type D buffer. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 7th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether small-scale amendments to the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017 (the “FLUM Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, Ronald Ross, resides and owns property within the City. Mr. Ross submitted written comments concerning the FLUM Amendments to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the FLUM Amendments and ending with the adoption of same. Respondent is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2017). The Subject Properties Together the FLUM Amendments affect eight contiguous parcels located at the corner of North 2nd Street and Broome Street, which runs perpendicular to, and dead ends at, North Front Street, the City’s historic waterfront. The subject properties are located two blocks east of North Front Street. The structure at 211 Broome Street is an existing single-family home built circa 1900. The structure at 205 Broome Street is a vacant single- family home built circa 1900. The parcel at 224 North 2nd Street contains a multi- family structure. The remaining parcels are vacant and undeveloped. The Amendments are owner-initiated. Existing Conditions Residential uses are not allowed in the IND land use category. As such, the residential uses on the subject parcels are non-conforming to the regulations for that category. The residential uses at 211 Broome Street and 224 North 2nd Street are “grandfathered” from the prohibition on residential uses, and are allowed to continue as non-conforming uses until such time as any one of a number of criteria are met. Significant redevelopment of the structure would trigger the requirement to conform to allowable uses. The residential structure at 205 Broome Street is vacant, in disrepair, and cannot be redeveloped for a residential use in the IND category. The FLUM Amendments The FLUM Amendments change the FLUM category for each of the eight parcels from IND to CBD. The purpose of the IND land use category is to “recognize the existing industrial development, appropriate open air recreation activities, and the animal shelter, and to ensure the availability of land for industrial and airport purposes.” Industrial uses include “airport dependent uses, manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; green technologies, general commercial activities; integral airport related support services such as rental car facilities, parking facilities; and other similar land uses.” The CBD category is designed to “accommodate single- family or duplex residential uses, either ‘stand alone’ or in a mixed residential and business structures; offices; commercial retail; personal service establishments; restaurants; transient accommodations; commercial parking facilities; civic uses; and cultural uses.” The CBD allows other uses, such as indoor recreation, multi-family, marinas, daycare centers, and educational facilities, subject to certain conditions. The maximum density of residential uses in CBD is 34 units per acre (34/acre). The maximum intensity of non-residential uses in both IND and CBD is a floor area ratio (”FAR”) of 2.0. The Community Redevelopment Area All of the subject properties are located within the City’s Waterfront Area Community Redevelopment Area (“Waterfront Area CRA”). Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to undertake community redevelopment projects in areas designated as slum or blighted, or areas with a shortage of affordable housing. The local government must first adopt, by resolution, findings that slum, blight, or inadequate housing exists. See § 163.355, Fla. Stat. Following adoption of this “Finding of Necessity,” the local government, or community redevelopment agency, may adopt a community redevelopment plan for the area, following review and comment by the local planning agency, and an advertised public hearing. Once a community redevelopment area (“CRA”) is designated, the local government may issue redevelopment revenue bonds; approve investments, acquisitions, demolition, removal, or disposal of property in the area; approve community policing innovations; and exercise the power of eminent domain. The statute provides a financial benefit for CRAs known as tax increment financing, or “TIF.” The incremental increase in ad valorem value of properties within the CRA, derived from investment in the CRA, must be deposited in a trust fund established by the local government. TIF revenues may only be utilized for redevelopment projects within the CRA boundary. The City adopted a “Finding of Necessity” to establish a CRA in 2004. The City found the following statutorily- enumerated blighted conditions in its waterfront district: inadequate street layout and parking facilities; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deterioration of site and other improvements; and inadequate and outdated building density patterns. In June 2004, the City established the Waterfront Area CRA including the marina, shrimping and seafood processing area, and adjacent residential areas, including the subject properties. The total acreage of the Waterfront Area CRA is 37.364 acres. In its 2005 resolution approving the Waterfront Area CRA Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), the City found, “The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Challenges to the Plan Amendments Internal Inconsistency Petitioner first challenges the FLUM Amendments as inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01, which reads as follows: The City shall perform a housing needs assessment by December 2013. Information contained in the assessment should include, but not be limited to, information regarding housing trends; the number, type and condition of existing housing units; identification of substandard housing units; the number and types of housing units needed in the future for all income ranges based on growth projections; and shortages and/or deficiencies in the existing housing stock. The housing needs assessment should be updated a minimum of every five (5) years. It is an undisputed fact that the City has not conducted the housing needs assessment mandated by the subject policy. Petitioner maintains that the FLUM Amendments, which allow the subject properties to be developed (or, redeveloped, as the case may be) for residential densities as high as 34/acre, conflict with the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessment called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendments create an internal inconsistency with the policy. The cited policy does not prohibit the City from adopting any plan amendment until the assessment is completed. Petitioner presented no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01. Petitioner next contends the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08, which reads as follows: The City shall establish a City-wide neighborhood planning program to encourage the stabilization and preservation of residential areas throughout the City and strengthen linkages between neighborhoods and City government. The parties stipulated that the City has not implemented the neighborhood planning program called for in the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is that without the neighborhood planning program, the City cannot assess the impact of the FLUM Amendments on the medium density residential neighborhood to the east of the subject properties.3/ The policy in question does not prohibit the City from adopting plan amendments until the neighborhood planning program is implemented. Petitioner introduced no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The evidence does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08. Data and Analysis Petitioner’s last argument is the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), which requires as follows: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. The City’s Senior Planner, Kelly Gibson, testified in deposition that the FLUM Amendments are supported by the Findings of Necessity supporting creation of the Waterfront Area CRA, the Redevelopment Plan, and the historic development patterns of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the City’s stated purposes of creating the Waterfront Area CRA is to “afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Applicants for the change in land use designation of 205 and 211 Broome Street seek to redevelop the deteriorated residential structure at 211 Broome Street. The applicants will not invest in redevelopment of the property under the IND designation because that designation prohibits residential uses. The FLUM Amendments will encourage redevelopment by allowing the applicants to invest in the dilapidated structure. Further, the FLUM Amendments afford the applicants more flexibility in development of the vacant lots because, while the IND land use category is limited to the uses described in paragraph 14, above, the CBD category allows single-family and duplex residential uses, offices, commercial retail, personal service establishments, restaurants, transient accommodations, commercial parking facilities, civic uses, and cultural uses. The applicants for change in the land use designation of properties located at 224 North 2nd Street, and the adjoining vacant lots, seek to reinvest in the existing non-conforming multi-family residential structure. The FLUM Amendments encouragement redevelopment by allowing the reinvestment sought by the applicants. Likewise, the FLUM Amendments provide flexibility for infill development of the adjoining vacant lots. The Redevelopment Plan includes initiatives and programs for the Waterfront and “Transitional Areas.” The subject properties are located within a Transitional Area of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan is to “encourage opportunities for new development by allowing a broader mix of uses in the . . . transitional areas[.]” Further, the Plan states, “It is critical that the strategies are prioritized to initiate growth of tax increment revenues to the Agency – a primary or seed funding source for many of the redevelopment efforts identified in this Plan.” Objective 2 of the Redevelopment Plan is to promote a mix of uses within the CRA. This section states, “The existing Future Land Use and Zoning designations along the waterfront and adjacent areas limit the type of allowable uses to industrial uses. Such limitations may be a primary impediment to redevelopment of the CRA.” The Redevelopment Plan further states, “[T]he City should take a proactive position in accommodating a broader mix of uses with design controls.” The CBD category allows a broader mix of uses than the IND category. See paragraphs 14 and 15, above. Further, the FLUM Amendments remove the impediment to redevelopment of the subject properties created by the prohibition on residential uses in the IND category. Petitioner elicited testimony from the City’s experts that there are minimal differences between the uses allowed within the existing zoning category of the subject properties and the zoning category sought under the applicant’s concurrent rezoning request. Petitioner proved that the uses allowed within the CBD zoning category, which are not allowed in the existing I-1 (Light Industrial), are residential, daycare centers, group homes, and bed and breakfast inns. The issue in this case is not the breadth of the zoning category, but that of the FLUM category.4/ The FLUM Amendments are supported by both the Findings of Necessity establishing, and the Redevelopment Plan for, the Waterfront Area CRA.5/ Finally, Petitioner points to Future Land Use (FLU) Policy 1.07.10 to support his argument that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by data and analysis. FLU Policy 1.07.10 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A proposed amendment to the FLUM to increase the land area within the Central Business District land use category shall demonstrate the suitability of the proposed site based on: The need for additional land area within the Central Business District land use category; Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the Central Business District; and Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the downtown. Petitioner presented the lay testimony of former City Mayor and Councilman Greg Roland, distinguishing the location and characteristics of the downtown and the CBD from those of the subject properties. In the same vein, Petitioner grilled both Ms. Gibson and Mr. McCrary in deposition regarding what data and analysis support a need for additional land in the CBD. The testimony and other evidence regarding this policy was largely irrelevant because Petitioner did not allege, in either his Petition or the pre-hearing stipulation, that the FLUM Amendments were internally inconsistent with FLU Policy 1.07.10. The testimony regarding compliance with FLU Policy 1.07.10 was relevant to Petitioner’s contention that the FLUM Amendments are not based on relevant and appropriate data. However, as explained below, the issue is whether the FLUM Amendments are supported by data available at the time the amendments were adopted, not whether non-existent data may be contrary to the amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendments are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis in violation of section 163.3177(1)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the amendment of the boundaries of The Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge 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, amend the boundaries of The Crossings at Fleming Island 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 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Bradley, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 David Schwartz, Esquire Office of the Governor Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Room 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 Amend the Boundary of the Gateway Services Community Development District (Petition), dated June 2, 2004. The local public hearing was for purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by the FLWAC.
Findings Of Fact In 1987 the City of St. Petersburg sought permission to file an application for an Areawide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Intown Area. On July 23, 1987, notice was sent to each property owner within the proposed Areawide DRI. The notice indicates that a public hearing would be held on August 27, 1987, from which the St. Petersburg City Council would decide whether to authorize the City of St. Petersburg to proceed to apply for the DRI. Petitioner, John Warren, received said notice and owns property within the area encompassing the Areawide DRI. Further notices were provided to property owners within the area, including a notice of the petition filed by the City which was published in the St. Petersburg Times on July 27, 1987; a notice to property owners dated September 1, 1987, advising that the City was authorized to proceed with the Intown Areawide DRI; and three other notices regarding public hearings and consideration of the DRI. After all required notice, the St. Petersburg City Council considered the proposed Areawide DRI on December 15, 1988, and formally adopted the DRI by Ordinance No. 1072-F. The ordinance was signed on December 15, 1988. A Notice of Adoption of a Development Order was executed and recorded in the public records on December 20, 1988. The development order enacted on December 15, 1988, was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council on December 19, 1988, and to the City Clerk on December 20, 1988. A certified copy of the DRI Ordinance 1072-F as enacted on December 15, 1988, is a part of the record as Exhibit K and it is incorporated by reference. Thereafter the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council appealed the DRI pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The City and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council reached an agreement for settling the appeal and said settlement was finalized in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the St. Petersburg City Council, at its February 2, 1989, meeting, adopted the terms of the Settlement Agreement, modified Ordinance 1072-F to incorporate the settlement terms, and adopted Ordinance 1072-F as modified. Based upon the settlement and modification of the DRI by the St. Petersburg City Council, on February 7, 1989, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission entered a Final Order of Dismissal on February 20, 1989. Warren filed his Petition on Appeal on March 20, 1989. The Petition is filed pursuant to Sections 380.06(25)(h) and 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-2.002, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petition on Appeal filed by John Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 16th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont Patty Woodworth, Secretary Attorney at Law Planning and Budgeting 511 31st Avenue North Executive Office of the Governor St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Michael S. Davis Mirelle Murphy James Honorable Bob Martinez Mark A. Winn Governor, State of Florida Attorneys at Law The Capitol Post Office Box 2842 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Roger S. Tucker Attorney General Attorney at Law State of Florida Tampa Bay Regional Planning The Capitol Council Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Suite 209 9455 Koger Boulevard Honorable Doyle Conner St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder The Capitol Attorney at Law Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Honorable Betty Castor Suite 138 Commissioner of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 State of Florida The Capitol James C. Vaughn, Jr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Governmental Analyst Florida Land and Water Honorable Jim Smith Adjudicatory Commission Secretary of State The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Honorable Gerald Lewis Commissioner Comptroller, State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
