The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondents are subject to discipline for offering and selling lots in a subdivision. The Department contends that the Respondents were required to obtain an order of registration before selling land, and to comply with other requirements with respect to their sales practices. The Respondents contend they are exempt from the registration and other regulatory requirements.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the Florida Uniform Land Sales Practices Act, Chapter 498, Florida Statutes. Orlando East Corporation is a Florida corporation formed in 1980 by Robert J. Loughlin which engages in the business of selling unimproved real estate in the State of Florida. It is not a government agency. Robert J. Loughlin is the President and sole shareholder of Orlando East Corporation. Between 1980 and 1986 the corporation acquired title to approximately 97 lots in the Partin Park Subdivision, a plated subdivision which contains 768 lots located in Orange County, Florida. The plat is recorded in Plat Book N at page 67 in Public Records of Orange County. The subdivision was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, on February 9, 1926. On April 15, 1980, Orlando East purchased lots 1-24 and 25A in block 5 of the subdivision and lots 24-48 in block 14; on December 5, 1985, the corporation purchased lots 1-24 in block 8 of the subdivision; on June 27, 1986, the corporation purchased lots 25-48 of block 8 of the subdivision. Obviously, Orlando East Corporation is not the original subdivider of Partin Park. The Respondents have offered for sale, and sold 60 of the lots they had purchased in Partin Park by conveying 3-lot parcels in 20 sales transactions. Some of the parcels were sold by agreements for deed (nine sales), or by warranty deed or exchange agreements (11 sales). The relevant documents were executed by Mr. Loughlin on behalf of the corporation. All sales took place before February 16, 1987. One of the purchasers under an agreement for deed was Shirley Katonka. Mr. Loughlin solicited purchasers for the parcels owned by Orlando East through long distance telephone calls to out-of-state purchasers. The Respondents have not obtained an Order Of Registration to sell the lots under Sections 498.005(12), and 498.029, Florida Statutes. Neither do the Respondents have a current Public Offering Statement approved by the Division for the lots offered for sale or sold in the Part in Park subdivision. None of the land conveyed by Orlando East Corporation in the subdivision was sold as part of a reservation program approved by the Division under Section 498.024, Florida Statutes. None of the lots were re-platted after Respondents purchased them. The lots were not offered for sale as cemetery lots. The offer to sell parcels in Partin Park subdivision was not registered with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, nor with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The sales of each 3 lot parcel in the subdivision were for $5,000 or less. The parcels were sold without any residential or commercial buildings located on them and without the obligation of Orlando East Corporation or Mr. Loughlin to construct residential or commercial buildings on them for the purchasers. The Division had not granted an order exempting Part in Park subdivision from the registration requirements of Chapter 498 Florida Statutes, before any of the 20 sales were made by the Respondents. None of the 20 purchasers the Respondents solicited for sales received a synopsis, which had been approved by the Division, of the sales script used in conjunction with the long distance telephone solicitations. The original plan Orlando East Corporation and Mr. Loughlin had for the distribution of the lots was to sell all lots to fewer than 45 persons. This was accomplished by grouping the lots into parcels of 3-lot units. There were no covenants, declarations, or legal restrictions on the property which prohibited Orlando East Corporation from disposing of the property as individual lots. One of the reasons lots were sold in 3-lot units was to provide a purchaser a large enough piece of property so that the owner might be able to build a house on it, after obtaining a variance from the local government. The property was not sold as a home-site subdivision, however. The individual lots as plated measured 25' x 140', but the 3-lot units meet the county requirements that building lots have 75 feet of frontage and a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Of the eleven agreements for deed, eight of the original purchasers are making payments on their lots. Ms. Shirley Katonka cancelled her purchase several years ago. The Respondents are receiving a gross income of $750 per month for the eight active agreements for deed. The monthly expenses of operation for the Respondents' business is between $300 and $350 per month, leaving the Respondents a net profit of between $400 and $450 per month for the eight active contracts, assuming the purchasers continue to pay under their agreements for deed. Orlando East Corporation currently has $450 in the bank. Respondents are not offering or selling lots now, but are awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. There is no evidence that the Respondents have been selling lots in Partin Park under a common promotional plan with any other person or entity, and the Division does not contend that they are involved in a common promotional plan with any other person or entity. The Respondents argue that their subjective plan of disposition for their 97 lots is determinative of whether they are entitled to an exemption from the registration requirements of Section 498.025(1)(d), Florida Statutes. They contend that their plan of distribution would have provided for no more than 32 sales.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents to be subject to Chapter 498, to have violated Section 498.051(1)(a) and (d), fining them $1,000 each, and requiring them to give purchasers the opportunity to rescind their purchases under Sections 498.023(2)(c) and 498.051(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NOS. 90-1904 and 90-2515 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Implicit in Finding 3. 4 - 7. Adopted in Finding 3. To the extent necessary, adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9, but amended to reflect the figure of $5,000. 18 and 19. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 16. Rejected as argument. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Findings 4 and 5. Rejected as unnecessary, but implicit in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Only the conduct of the Respondent is at issue here. Implicit in Finding 12. Implicit in Finding 12, although there is no legal impediment to selling individual lots. Adopted in Finding 12, except for the final sentence which is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 12. Implicit in Finding 12. Sentence one adopted in Finding 4, the remainder rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 16. 28 - 30. Rejected as unnecessary, because the Division's policy is derived from the language of the act and is consistent with the decision in Associated Mortgage Investors v. Department of Business Regulation, 503 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin L. Johnson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Matthew Carter, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Winter Springs' (City's) plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-29 on June 12, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City was incorporated in 1959 and is located just inside Seminole County in a highly developed area surrounded by the City of Oviedo to its east, the City of Casselberry to the south, the City of Longwood to the west, Lake Jesup to the north, and the City of Orlando a few miles to the southwest. The City adopted the amendment in question. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the City. Keewin is a Florida corporation and has a contract to purchase the property that is the subject of the challenged plan amendment. It offered comments in support of the plan amendment during the adoption process. The Association is a Florida Homeowners Association operating as a not-for-profit corporation under Section 720.301, Florida Statutes. It currently comprises approximately 1,378 residential units on 550 acres within the City, including single-family attached and detached dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. The Association is made up of nineteen separate subassociations of residents; however, the Association serves as the "master association." One of the subassociations (Greens Point) lies "a stone's throw" to the east from the subject property, while the others lie further east, separated from the subject property by another residential subdivision known as Wildwood (which is not a part of the Association). Wildwood has a MDR land use category, which is the same land use being sought for the Keewin property. Besides five miles of nature trails, the Association also owns and maintains five parks, a tennis facility, a pool, and a clubhouse. A representative of the Association offered comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the adoption of the amendment. As a property owner within the City who submitted objections to the plan amendment during its adoption process, the Association meets the definition of an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and accordingly has standing. As discussed below, however, the City and Intervenor (but not the Department) argue that the Association still lacks standing because its Board of Directors never authorized the filing of the initial Petition in this matter. Background In 2005 the City began consideration of an application by Keewin (on behalf of the current owner, Dittmer Properties, Inc.) to change the land use on the 47.7-acre tract of property. The land use change was also accompanied by a proposed change in the zoning of the property; however, that matter is not of concern here. The amendment was initially considered and approved by the City Commission at a meeting conducted on February 13, 2006. An amendment transmittal package was then sent to the Department for its review. After the Department issued an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) on April 20, 2006, which noted four specific objections to the map change, the City provided further information to the Department to resolve these concerns. On June 12, 2006, the City voted to adopt Ordinance No. 2005-29, which approved the map change in issue. On August 4, 2006, the Department published in the Seminole County Edition of the Orlando Sentinel its Notice of Intent to Find the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Compliance. Sometime in September 2006, the Association filed its initial Petition for a hearing to contest the plan amendment. The Petition was apparently dismissed without prejudice by the Department, with leave to file an amended petition. On September 25, 2006, the Association filed its Amended Petition raising the following objections: the new land use would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses; the land use change "further erodes" the City's ability to meet the requirements in its Plan for industrial uses; the amendment will have a "negative overcrowding impact on schools, particularly Highlands Elementary"; the amendment will cause overcrowding of the nearby roadways; the amendment will negatively impact the City's level of service standards for recreational facilities; and the amendment conflicts with various provisions within Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. Authorization by the Board of Directors Citing various provisions within the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws, and the sometimes conflicting testimony of two members of the Association's Board of Directors, the City and Intervenor have argued extensively in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the Association's Board of Directors did not formally authorize its outside counsel to file the initial Petition in this matter. They point out that under the By-Laws, in order for the Board of Directors to initiate a legal action, as it did here, prior to the filing of a petition, it must have either had a vote of the majority of the Directors at a meeting at which a quorum was present or consent in writing by all members of the Board of Directors. See Art. VI, §§ 6.5 and 6.8, By-Laws. They further contend that the president of the Board of Directors, Paige N. Hinton, had no authority, as she assumed she did here, to advise another member of the Board of Directors, Helga R. Schwarz, that Ms. Schwarz could authorize outside counsel to file a petition with the Department. The affairs of the Association are managed by a Board of Directors made up of seven members. See Art. V, § 5.1, By- Laws. When this matter arose, Ms. Hinton served as president of the Board of Directors while Ms. Schwarz served as its secretary and a member. Both testified at the final hearing. When the plan amendment was first being processed and considered by the City in its early stages, a number of Association residents approached members of the Board of Directors and voiced their concerns with the proposal. Based upon those concerns, the Board of Directors held a special meeting on January 13, 2006, to discuss the issue. All seven directors were present at the meeting. A copy of the minutes of that meeting has been received in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 3. The minutes are normally prepared by Bonnie J. Whidden, a full-time employee who serves as property manager, and "are not required to be detailed." After preparation by Ms. Whidden, the minutes are then reviewed at the following month's meeting and approved for form. There is no indication in the record that the Board of Director's outside counsel attended the meeting in question. The minutes reflect that the following action was taken at that meeting: The Board discussed the implications facing The Highlands if the Dittmer parcel were to be rezoned from light industrial to medium density residential as proposed by Keewin Real Property. Discussion ensued on impacts to The Highlands' recreational amenities, neighborhood roads, school capacities, and other concerns. The Board agreed that the proposed change in zoning was not in the best interest of The Highlands. The Board agreed to hold a community town hall meeting on the Keewin Large Scale Plan Amendment for The Highlands' residents in order to provide residents with information and to seek their input and feedback prior to the public hearing. The Board discussed committing funds for Clayton & McCulloh's legal services to represent The Highlands' interests on this issue. A motion was made to empower Ms. Schwarz to work with Clayton & McCulloh on this matter and to represent the Association at any city meeting related to the Dittmer rezoning. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding having Clayton & McCulloh represent the Association at the city's public hearing on February 13, 2006. Ms. Schwarz would discuss the matter with counsel and apprise Ms. Hinton. Although the minutes refer primarily to the Association's opposition to the rezoning of the property, it is fair to infer that the Board of Directors was opposed to both the rezoning of the property and a change in the land use on the FLUM. According to Ms. Hinton, the Association intended that Ms. Schwarz act as the Board of Director's "primary point of contact with Clayton & McCulloh [its outside counsel] should [the Association] need to petition the [S]tate, and also to speak on behalf of the Association at City [C]ommission meetings for the City of Winter Springs." However, authorization to file a petition with the Department was not discussed at the meeting nor voted on. This is because it would have been premature to do so at that point as the amendment had not yet even been formally considered or adopted by the City. As the minutes disclose, the Board of Directors directed that Ms. Schwarz, a long-time resident and its secretary, represent the Association "at all city meetings" and to liason with its outside counsel. Acting on those instructions, she attended the February 13, 2006, meeting of the City Commission, when the Commission voted to transmit the amendment package to the Department for its preliminary review, and the meeting on June 12, 2006, when the map change was finally approved. (She also attended several meetings of the City Planning and Zoning Board, which presumably considered the zoning change.) At least twice, Ms. Schwarz presented oral objections on behalf of the Association at City Commission meetings. On an undisclosed date before the Association's initial petition was filed, Ms. Hinton spoke with Ms. Schwarz by telephone and advised Ms. Schwarz that pursuant to the Board's decision on January 13, 2006, Ms. Schwarz should instruct its outside counsel to file a petition challenging the new amendment. This information was given to outside counsel, who presumably filed the initial Petition, which was later amended on September 25, 2006. After the January 13 meeting, the Board of Directors was given a number of "updates" concerning the status of the plan amendment throughout the adoption and Department review process, including advice that a petition had been filed by outside counsel with the Department. However, no other formal action was taken by the Board concerning this matter before the initial petition was filed in September 2006. On advice of outside counsel, on November 16, 2006, a special closed meeting of the Board of Directors was called by Ms. Hinton to discuss "pending legal matters," including ratification of the Petition that had previously been filed. One reason for calling this meeting was the fact that the issue of whether the Board of Directors had authorized the petition to be filed had just arisen during the course of discovery for the hearing. A copy of those minutes is not of record since they were not reviewed and approved until the Board of Directors held its December 2006 meeting. Although the record is somewhat confusing (due to conflicting testimony) as to what action was taken at the meeting, it is clear that the Board of Directors (of whom six were present) orally ratified the filing of the Petition by "unanimous consensus." The Amendment The amendment consists only of a change in the FLUM on the subject property from Industrial to MDR. There are no accompanying changes to the text of the Plan. The property is currently vacant, but carries an Industrial land use and PUD zoning. The land uses surrounding the subject property are industrial to the north (across Shepard Road), medium density residential (including multi-family units) to the east, industrial and low density residential to the south, and predominately industrial and commercial to the west. There are "public lands" on the southeast side of the property. Less than one thousand feet west of the subject property and running in a north-south direction is U.S. Highway 17-92, a major arterial roadway maintained by the State. (Just across that road is the City of Longwood.) Shepard Road, a two- lane collector road which runs in an east-west direction, adjoins the northern boundary of the subject property and part of the Association and eventually exits to the west into U.S. Highway 17-92 at a major intersection with a traffic signal. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner has challenged the amendment based on compatibility, need, schools, roads, recreational facilities, and alleged violations of various provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. There are no challenges to the amendments based upon internal inconsistency with the City's plan, inconsistency with the East Central Florida Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan, or inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility. The Amended Petition contains allegations that the MDR designation is incompatible with surrounding land uses, and, in particular, with the Association property that is located to the east of the subject property that is designated as MDR on the FLUM. The ORC Report raised an objection regarding land use compatibility of the amendment with the industrial land use designation to the west. The concern was that the amendment was not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment was compatible with the industrial use. In response to the objection, the City set forth Plan provisions that require buffering and also provided a Development Agreement in which the developer agreed to build a buffer between the amendment site and the industrial properties to the west. By doing so, the City adequately responded to the objection by indicating that the subject property would contain a buffer to address the potential compatibility concerns with the adjoining industrial property. The MDR designation on the subject property provides a transition from the commercial and industrial uses fronting U.S. Highway 17-92 and is compatible with the MDR to the east. Thus, the MDR use on the subject property is appropriate as a transitional use between the residential to the east and the industrial and commercial properties to the west that front U.S. Highway 17-92. Based on the evidence, it is fairly debatable that the MDR land use is compatible with the industrial use to the west and the MDR to the east. Need for Industrial Lands The Amended Petition alleges that the change from Industrial to MDR "further erodes" the ability of the City to meet requirements in its plan for industrial uses. There is no Plan policy that calls for a certain number of acres of industrial property. Rather, the Plan contains an analysis of the existing industrial acreage and a projection for future acres. Looking only at the industrial land use category, the City has 170 acres, and the plan amendment reduces that number by 47 acres or approximately twenty-eight percent. However, industrial is allowed in other future land use categories besides the industrial category. Moreover, the industrial land use designation has been on the property since at least 1991, but has remained vacant. Thus, the appropriateness of the industrial designation at this location did not come to fruition. By contrast, the City's analysis indicated a need for approximately 328 additional acres of MDR land. The FLUM change on the Keewin property furthers the need for that land use. Also, as found above, the subject property is an appropriate location for the MDR because it serves as a transition, and the property had remained vacant under the industrial future land use designation since 1991. Coordination With Schools The Association has also contended that the amendment "will have a negative overcrowding impact on schools, particularly Highlands Elementary," which lies just north of Shepard Road and serves the Association residents. Unless elected by local option, local governments are not required to have a school facilities element in their comprehensive plans at this time, are not required to have a level of service (LOS) standard in their plan for school facilities, and are not required to implement school concurrency. The City has not elected the local option of school concurrency. At this time, the Department requires only coordination of the plan amendment with the Seminole County School Board (School Board) so that the School Board and the City have a general understanding of the potential implications of the plan amendment. The ORC Report contained an objection regarding coordination of the amendment with the School Board. In response to the objection, the City indicated that it provided notice of the amendment to the School Board and an additional opportunity for School Board comment. The City also provided an analysis from the School Board indicating that the amendment would generate only 76 students. Additionally, in the Development Agreement between the City and the Developer, the Developer agreed to pay $1,235.00 for each residential unit to the School Board in addition to the school impact fees required for each residential unit. The Agreement for this mitigation represents an additional step toward helping to address what is the understanding of the impact on schools and is a further indication of coordination between the land use and school planning. The Department does not currently have a standard to use to measure the adequacy of the dollar amount since school concurrency is not required at this time. Therefore, the City has not established LOS standards. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that the City has demonstrated adequate coordination with the School Board regarding school facilities. Impact on Transportation The Association further contends that the LOS on public streets serving the Association's members and serving property owned by the Association will deteriorate. It also contends that traffic flowing from the subject property will overcrowd and/or negatively impact the Association. In support of these contentions, the Association presented the testimony of Harry A. Burns, Jr., a professional engineer, regarding potential traffic impacts based upon his review of the Plan and transportation element. According to the Plan, the segment of U.S. Highway 17-92 north of Shepard Road is currently operating at LOS F, which is below the adopted LOS standard. As noted earlier, U.S. Highway 17-92 is a major arterial very close to the subject property. Although the Plan indicates that U.S. Highway 17-92 is slated for a six-lane project by 2010, the Plan also indicates that it is anticipated the LOS will still remain at F. Mr. Burns opined that Shepard Road and Sheoah Boulevard, a minor two-lane collector road which winds through the Association in a north-south direction, will be "impacted" by the MDR land use designation. He concluded that a traffic study should be done for Sheoah Boulevard because it is a collector road and is in the amendment's impact area. Although he testified that Shepard road would be impacted, he had no information indicating that Shepard Road would be negatively impacted. Also, he did not know whether the plan amendment would result in a reduction in the operating LOS for Shepard Road and Sheoah Boulevard. Petitioner's expert also opined that traffic generated by a change in the land use would have a different trip distribution than traffic generated by industrial. He testified that, from a traffic circulation standpoint, it was likely that residential traffic would be more willing to travel east through the Association than would industrial traffic because the industrial traffic would prefer to access the nearby U.S. Highway 17-92 to the immediate west. He further opined that there were not "attractors" for industrial traffic to travel east through the Association. He admitted, however, that the City's Town Center as well as the Greenway toll road (State Road 417) were located to the east of the subject property. Although the expert believed that the trip generation characteristics of an industrial land use would be different than those for a residential land use, he agreed that he would need to model the trip distribution to accurately determine where the traffic would go. The witness had not done that prior to the hearing. Data and analysis relative to traffic impacts were submitted to the Department by the City and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Based upon its review of the plan amendment, on March 22, 2006, FDOT provided a letter to the Department in which it determined that an Industrial land use would generate 7,176 average daily trips (ADT) and 1,308 PM (afternoon) peak hour trips. On the other hand, a MDR designation would generate only 3,936 ADT and 394 PM peak hour trips, resulting in a decrease of 3,240 average daily trips. This is a substantial reduction. All experts in this case agreed with the FDOT's assessment. FDOT further concluded that because the "amendment would result in a decrease in daily trips . . . FDOT has no comments on this amendment." The letter did not raise any concerns regarding impacts to U.S. Highway 17-92, a state road under its jurisdiction. The City Engineer and the City's expert planner established that a further traffic study or analysis at this stage was unnecessary because the land use change resulted in a substantial decrease in trips. In addition, the Department's planner opined that reducing the trip generation potential from the amendment parcel is a strategy to reduce the potential traffic on the road network that, in combination with other actions, can have a significant effect on helping improve the coordination between land use and transportation relative to the operating LOS on the roadways. Due to the specific nature and context of this particular amendment, he also agreed that no further general planning or transportation analysis was warranted at this stage. In fact, the reduction helps the Plan better coordinate land use and transportation in terms of the potential trips that might occur on the road system. Coordination of land use and transportation facilities was appropriately addressed at the plan amendment stage through the significant reduction in trip generation potential on the property. Finally, although Petitioner's expert pointed out that the City's Plan indicates that even with scheduled improvements the segment of U.S. Highway 17-92 north of Shepard Road will have deficiencies by the year 2010, he could not say that the amendment would cause LOS deficiencies on that road or indicate with any degree of precision the effect the amendment would have on the LOS. As noted above, he did not perform a traffic analysis of the amendment. Given these considerations, it is found that Petitioner did not demonstrate beyond fair debate that the amendment will result in LOS deficiencies on U.S. Highway 17-92, Shepard Road, or Sheoah Boulevard. Further, it failed to prove beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance with respect to transportation issues. Open Space and Recreational Land and Facilities Contrary to the Association's assertion, the plan amendment will not impact or adversely affect the City's LOS standards for recreational facilities. There have been increased recreational facilities in the City since the Plan was written, which has increased the LOS that is available, and there is no LOS deficiency for parks through the year 2010. Indeed, the LOS will be met even if park lands are not built on the subject property. The Development Agreement between Keewin and the City requires Keewin to include park lands on the subject property. The Agreement specifically provides a paragraph on "Parks and Recreation" which includes the following language in paragraph 4: In accordance with Winter Springs Code Section 20-354 and other applicable provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code, the Developer agrees to dedicate an appropriate amount of land as a park for the residents of the Project. Such park shall have recreational facilities built in accordance with the standards of the National Recreational Association. In addition, such park shall be protected through deed restrictions . . . which shall ensure the preservation of its intended use, the payment of future taxes, and the maintenance of the park and facilities for a safe, healthy and attractive living environment. The park shall be included in the phasing plan, if any, and shall be constructed and fully improved by Developer at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of the residential structures for which it serves. Therefore, the subject property will provide its own park and recreation area on-site. There is sufficient land on the site to accommodate on-site park facilities based on the residential densities that might be allowed on the subject property. The Department established that the land use is being adequately coordinated with recreational facilities. There is appropriate coordination between the land use and recreational facilities, and the residents of the subject property would not have to make use of any other city park facilities. Petitioner acknowledges that the Developer's Agreement indicates that the Developer will provide for a park; however, Petitioner still complains that there is not enough detail about the parks to be provided on-site. However, there is no requirement at this stage of the process that such a degree of specificity for parks be provided. The evidence supports a finding that a change to MDR is compatible with adjacent land uses and will have no impact on private parks and recreation areas on adjacent lands. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the plan amendment will impact the Association. Indeed, the subject property will have two City parks that service the area and a 315-acre county-owned community park facility less than a mile from the subject property. Consistency With Rule and Statutory Provisions The Amended Petition alleges that the amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. However, Petitioner did not present any testimony addressing any of the rule or statutory provisions. Conversely, the evidence presented by Respondents and Intervenor demonstrates that the amendment is consistent with these provisions. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment is not inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)1., 9J-5.006(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2. and 3., 9J-5.016(1)(a) and (b), 9J-5.016(2)(b), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1. and 5., 9J-5.016(3)(c)5., 9J-5.0055(2)(a), and 9J-5.0055(3)(b) and (d), and Section 163.3177(3), (6)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Petition. Trespass and Vandalism Concerns Finally, Petitioner has alleged that residential development of the subject property will increase the unauthorized use of its private recreational facilities and amenities, as well as increase vandalism to its personal property by non-residents. However, allegations regarding potential trespass and unauthorized use of recreational facilities on nearby lands is not a compliance issue under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Issues Under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes In its Amended Petition filed on September 25, 2006, the Association raised five grounds for determining the plan amendment to be not in compliance: increased traffic that would impact the Association's members; school overcrowding, and particularly the elementary school just north of Shepard Road; inadequate open space and recreation land and facilities, including unauthorized use of Association facilities, as a result of the new development's residents and children; reduced industrial zoning; and inconsistencies with various provisions within Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence that the Association has ever participated in a prior proceeding involving the City or Keewin and the same project. The Association representative, Ms. Schwarz, acknowledged that before the Amended Petition was filed, the Association did not consult with any experts regarding the issues raised in that filing. According to Ms. Schwarz, the allegations represented concerns expressed by various members of the Association to the Board of Directors. Most of these concerns are specifically reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on January 13, 2006. However, the Association did consult with outside counsel in drafting the issues in the Petition. This is evidenced by the fact that at least three of the concerns in the Amended Petition (traffic, school overcrowding, and inadequate open space and recreational facilities) were previously discussed in detail in a letter from outside counsel to the City on February 7, 2006, or just before the City Commission initially met to consider the amendment. Although the case was originally scheduled to be heard in February 2007, on October 31, 2006, Intervenor filed its demand for an expeditious hearing under Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, by Order dated November 1, 2006, this case was rescheduled to be heard on November 29, 2006, under the mandatory fast track timelines in that statute. Because of this short timeframe, Association counsel represented during a status conference on November 10, 2006, that he was experiencing difficulty in interviewing and hiring outside experts on such short notice, particularly with the intervening Thanksgiving holidays. This was confirmed by Ms. Hinton at final hearing, who represented that if the hearing had been held in February 2007, the Association had planned on hiring a number of experts. Even so, on short notice, the Association was able to engage the services of a professional engineer who offered expert testimony on the traffic issue. The remainder of its evidence was presented through lay witnesses, by cross- examination of the other parties' experts, and by documentation. No direct evidence was affirmatively presented on the issue of whether the plan amendment was in conflict with various provisions of Department rules or Florida Statutes. As to all other issues, even though the Association did not prevail on any of its claims, it did present some evidence, albeit minimal in some respects, in support of its position. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support a finding that the Association's primary motive in filing its Petition was to simply harass the City or developer, delay the project (which will be built on the property after the land use change is approved and building permits obtained), or needlessly increase the cost of litigation for those parties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-29 is in compliance. Jurisdiction is retained to consider the City's Motion for Sanctions Against Petitioner and Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions, Fees and Costs filed under Sections 120.569(2) and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes, if renewed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd of January, 2007.
The Issue Introduction. 21 The Parties. 21 General Description of Monroe County 22 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan 24 The Original Comprehensive Plan. 24 The Remedial Comprehensive Plan. 25 Area of Critical State Concern Review 27 The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. 27 Area of Critical State Concern Review of the Remedial Plan. 28 The DCA Proposed Rules 31 Challenges to the DCA Proposed Rules 33 The Administration Commission Proposed Rules . 34 Challenges to the Administration Commission Proposed Rules 36 The Final Order in the DCA and Administration Commission Proposed Rules Challenge Cases. 36 The Department's Review Pursuant to the Act. 38 Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes 38 The Department's Review. 39 Impact of the Area of Critical State Concern Review on the Department's Review Under the Act. 40 Challenge to the Remedial Plan Pursuant to the Act by the Intervenors 41 Carrying Capacity: The Cornerstone of Monroe County Remedial Plan. 42 Carrying Capacity as a Planning Tool 42 Monroe County's Carrying Capacity Analysis 44 The Settlement Agreement's Reference to a Carrying Capacity Analysis 45 Monroe County's Application of the Carrying Capacity Analysis. 46 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity 47 Environmental Carrying Capacity. 48 The Department's Review of Monroe County's General Acceptance of a Carrying Capacity Approach 49 Monroe County's Environment. 49 The Unique Environmental Character of the Florida Keys 49 General Habitat Types in the Florida Keys. 51 Upland Habitat Types 53 Wetland and Transitional Wetland Habitat Types. 55 Marine Habitat Types 59 The National Marine Sanctuary. 63 The Upper, Middle and Lower Keys 64 Areas of Critical County Concern 66 Ohio Key 67 Coupon Bight 67 Species of Special Concern 68 The Florida Key Deer 68 Marine Turtles 72 The Impacts of Development on the Environment of the Florida Keys. 72 A Brief History of Development in the Florida Keys 72 The Impact of Development on Water Quality and Marine Resources 73 The Impact of Development on Coral Reefs 79 The Impact of Development on Seagrasses. 80 The Impacts of Boating 80 The Impacts of Docks and Marinas 82 The Impacts of Development on Wetlands and Transitional Wetlands. 83 The Impact of Development on Mangroves 85 The Impact of Development on Beach Berm. 85 The Impact of Development on Hammocks. 86 The Impact of Development on Offshore Islands. 87 The Impact of Development on North Key Largo . 88 The Impact of Development on Ohio Key. 88 The Impact of Development on Key Deer and Big Pine Key 89 The Impact of Development on Coupon Bight. 92 The Impact of Development on Marine Turtles. 92 The Florida Keys' Environmental Carrying Capacity 92 Monroe County's Conclusion 92 The Carrying Capacity of the Nearshore Waters and Seagrasses. 94 The Carrying Capacity of the Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys. 98 The Carrying Capacity of Offshore Islands. 98 The Carrying Capacity of North Key Largo, Ohio Key and Coupon Bight. 99 The Carrying Capacity of the Key Deer and Big Pine Key 101 The Need to Maximize Measures to Protect Other Environmental Features of the Florida Keys Environment 103 Sewage Treatment Systems 104 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 104 The Department's Review Under the Act. 107 Intervenor Challenges. 108 Maintenance vs. Improvement. 109 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 110 The Interim Levels of Service. 112 Cesspool Inspection Program. 117 Disturbed and Undisturbed Wetlands 117 Stormwater Treatment. 118 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 118 The Department's Review Under the Act. 119 Intervenor Challenges. 119 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 120 Impact on Water Quality. 121 The Interim Levels of Service. 121 Marine Resources 121 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 121 The Department's Review Under the Plan 124 Intervenor Challenges. 125 Adequacy of Living Marine Resource Protections. 127 Moored/Anchored Vessels, Marinas and Docks. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Moored/Anchored Vessels. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Marines. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Docks. 129 The Department's Review Under the Act. 131 Intervenor Challenges. 133 F Residential Docks. 135 G. Perpendicular Docks. 136 Canals 137 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 137 The Department's Review Under the Act. 138 Intervenor Challenges. 138 Wetlands. 139 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 139 The Department's Review Under the Act. 140 Intervenor Challenges. 140 Disturbed Wetlands 141 Setbacks 141 Provisions in the Remedial Plan. 141 The Department's Review Under the Plan 142 Intervenor Challenges. 143 The Justification for Setbacks 143 "No Net Loss" of Wetlands 145 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 145 The Department's Review Under the Act. 145 Intervenor Challenges. 146 On-Site Mitigation vs. Off-Site Mitigation 147 ACCC: Big Pine Key, North Key Largo and Ohio Key. 148 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 148 The Department's Review Under the Act. 151 Intervenor Challenges. 152 Big Pine Key; Protection of the Key Deer 154 North Key Largo. 155 Miscellaneous Environmental Provisions. 156 Freshwater Lenses. 156 Open Space Requirements for Hammocks 157 Public Access to Beaches 158 Public Expenditures in the Coastal Zone. 159 Natural Heritage and Park Program. 160 Protection of Upland Vegetation. 161 Clustering 161 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity. 162 Hurricanes 162 Preparation for Hurricanes 165 The Potential Impacts of Hurricanes on the Florida Keys 167 Evacuation and Refuges of Last Resort 169 Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Provisions 172 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Response in Objective 101.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 Intervenor Challenges. 177 Alleged Worthlessness of Undeveloped Property and Impact on Taxes. 179 Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time Calculations 180 The Reasonableness of the Estimated Clearance Time Calculations. 187 Sham Device and Reasonableness of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Goals. 189 Hurricane Shelters 191 The Board of County Commissioner's Meeting of May 4, 1991 198 The Administration Commission's Policy 216.1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 The Permit Allocation System 200 Monroe County's Decision to Employ a Permit Allocation System. 200 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Adopting the Permit Allocation System 203 Monroe County's Method of Allocating Allowable Growth Under the Permit Allocation System. 205 The Department's Review of the Permit Allocation System Under the Act. 210 The Department's Review of the Point System Under the Act. 210 Intervenor Challenges to the Permit Allocation System. 216 General Challenges to the Point System 216 Intervenor Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5. 217 The Number of Permits and Subareas 218 The General Challenges to the Permit Allocation System 219 General Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.4. 222 Negative Points for Habitat, Habitat of Critical Concern and Species 222 Protected Species Habitat Map. 228 Coastal High Hazard Areas. 228 Platted Subdivisions 229 Affordable Housing 229 Transportation Levels of Service 229 Commercial Infill, and the Existence of Infrastructure 230 Points for TDRs. 230 Offshore Islands, Conservation Lands and Historic/Archaelogical Resources 232 Transferable Development Rights Program 233 The Current Transferable Development Rights Program. 233 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 233 The Department's Review Under the Act. 236 D Intervenor Challenges. 238 E. Sender vs. Receiver Sites. 239 Land Use Categories. 242 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 242 The Department's Review Under the Act. 243 Intervenor Challenges. 247 D. Policies 101.4.1 and 101.4.2 248 Maintenance of Community Character and Protection of Environmental Resources. 248 Residential Medium Land Use Category 249 Mixed Use/Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing. 249 Disturbed Wetlands 251 Height Limitation. 251 The Future Land Use Map Series. 252 The Future Land Use Map Series Adopted by Monroe County 252 The Department's Review Under the Act. 252 Intervenor Challenges. 253 Are the Future Land Use Maps in Compliance With the Act 254 Vested Rights. 255 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 255 The Department's Review Under the Act. 256 Intervenor Challenges. 258 Definition of Vested Rights. 258 Limited Application of Land Development Regulations to Property with Vested Rights 259 Miscellaneous Provisions of the Remedial Plan 260 Non-Residential Development. 260 The Monroe County Land Authority 263 Transient Residential Unit Moratorium. 264 Nonconforming Uses 266 The Coastal High Hazard Area 268 The Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan 269 Siting Public Facilities 270 Intergovernmental Coordination 272 The County Geographic Information System 275 Public Expenditures for Services and Infrastructure 275 Affordable Housing 276 L. Goal 101 276 Roadway Improvements 277 Solid Waste Level of Service 278 Proposed Widening of U.S. Highway 1 on Big Pine Key 279 Public Participation 280 Capital Improvements 280 Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 282 Monroe County's Determination of the Economic Impact Consequences of the Remedial Plan and Its Response Thereto 282 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 284 Intervenor Challenges. 286 Monroe County's Lack of Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 286 The Justification for Funding Assistance 287 Policy 1, as Modified by the Department and Policy 4 as Adopted by the Administration Commission are in Compliance with the Act. 288 Compliance with the State and Regional Plans. 291 The State Comprehensive Plan 291 The South Florida Regional Planning Council Policy Plan. 292 Constitutional Taking. 293
Conclusions For Petitioner, the Department of Community Affairs: Stephanie M. Gehres Assistant General Counsel David J. Russ Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050 For Respondent, Monroe County: Robert C. Apgar, Esquire David A. Theriaque, Esquire Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc.: Richard Grosso, Legal Director 1000 Friends of Florida Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center NOVA Southeastern University 3305 College Aveneue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 For Intervenors, Henry Lee Morgenstern and Florida Wildlife Federation: David J. White, Esquire National Wildlife Federation 1401 Peachtree Street, Northeast Suite 240 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 For Intervenor, Friends of the Everglades, Inc.: Nancy Carroll Brown, President Friends of the Everglades, Inc. 9220 Southwest 166th Street Miami, Florida 33157 For Intervenor, Upper Keys Citizens Association: Dagny Johnson, President Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. 95,600 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 For Intervenors, George N. Kundtz and Florida Keys Citizens Coalition: Gregg Goldfarb, Esquire 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 707 Miami, Florida 33130 For Intervenor, The Wilderness Society: Debra S. Harrison Florida Keys Coordinator The Wilderness Society 8065 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 For Intervenors, George DeCarion, et al.: James S. Mattson, Esquire Andrew M. Tobin, Esquire MATTSON & TOBIN Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issue in these cases is whether the remedial Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is "in compliance", as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, consistent with this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX A Case Numbers 91-1932GM and 93-3371GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, or the proposed findings of fact of the parties, except 1000 Friends of Florida, George N. Kundtz and the Florida Keys Citizens' Coalition and the Upper Keys' Citizens' Association, have been accepted or rejected in this Appendix A. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 9-10, 24, 26, 31-34, 43, 60, 67, 73, 75, 78, 87-88, 91, 97-100, 102-103, 107, 160, 192, 224, 231, 237, 248, 256, 282, 288, 294, 300-303, 313, 316, 331, 338, 340, 355, 376 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 2 Not a finding of fact. 108 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Monroe County's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 3, Footnote 4, 42, 55, 93-94, 115, 125-127, 130, 173, 178, and 181. Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 10 The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13 The second sentence to the next to last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and the rest of the proposed finding is not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. "DCA" did not amend Policy 1. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 58 The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 138 The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 146 The last three sentences are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, the proposed finding ignores the fact that the evidence failed to prove that the lack of action by the Service is because the key deer have not reached their carrying capacity, which is the issue in these proceedings. The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not relevant. 157-159 Although generally correct summaries of some testimony, these proposed findings are not relevant. 160-163 These proposed findings are generally accepted. They do not, however, justify failing to recognize that the carrying capacity of the key deer has been exceeded. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 170 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 189 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 191 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 193 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 195 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 202 The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 203 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 204 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 205 Not relevant. 205 Not relevant. DeCarion's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact after number 53 have not been numbered in DeCarion's proposed order. They are referred to in this Appendix by the titles of the portion of the proposed order under which they appear. Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 25-29, 32, 35-38 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 1 No evidence to support this proposed finding was presented. Standing was, however, stipulated to. 7-16 Although generally correct, the conclusions reached in these proposed findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 24 The first sentence is not relevant. 43-44 While these proposed findings are an accurate reflection of some of the testimony in these proceedings, the conclusions suggested by DeCarion are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 46-48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Five-Year Moratorium on Hotel-Motel Construction": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Marina Expansion Restrictions": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Wilderness Society's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 7, 10, 12, 29, 34, 71-72, 81, 87, 138, 141 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 3-6 Not relevant. 73-75 Not relevant. 88-89 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 102-103 Not relevant. Not relevant. The first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117-130 Not relevant. 147-248 Not relevant. 154 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 159-161 Not relevant. APPENDIX B ORIGINAL AND REMEDIAL PLAN CHALLENGE CASES: CASE NUMBERS 91-1932GM AND 93-3371GM TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEARANCES. 3
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Broward County Ordinance 1999-26, amending the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (Plan), is "in compliance," as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and more specifically whether that portion of PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999-26, which limits the use of flexibility units and reserve units east of the Intracoastal Waterway is not "in compliance" under Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Hallandale Beach.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Petitioner, the City of Hallandale Beach (the City or Hallandale) is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (the City's Plan). In August of 1999, the City of Hallandale officially changed its name to the City of Hallandale Beach. The Respondent, Broward County (the County or Broward) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is a charter county. The County has adopted the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (the County's Plan). The Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency which under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, is responsible for, among other things, the review of municipal and county comprehensive plans to determine if the plans, and subsequent amendments thereto, are "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Standing The transmittal hearing for the proposed amendment was conducted on February 23, 1999. The adoption hearing was held June 22, 1999. During the plan amendment process, the City submitted three letters dated January 22, 1999, February 11, 1999, and April 30, 1999, in opposition to the proposed amendment. These letters, along with other materials in support of and in opposition to the proposed amendment were forwarded to the Department in the adopted amendment package on June 30, 1999. The City is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County Charter The Charter of Broward County took effect on January 1, 1975. (The current Charter submitted as Joint Exhibit 1 is revised as of November 5, 2002). With reference to land use planning, the County Charter in Article VIII creates the Broward County Planning Council (Planning Council). The Planning Council is the local planning agency for the Broward County Land Use Plan (BCLUP). The Planning Council employs a staff, which includes professional planners, gathers data, performs analyses of data, conducts hearings, and recommends the adoption of land use ordinances by the Broward County Commission. The Planning Council has final authority over the approval, or recertification, of municipal land use plans and amendments. Under the Charter, the County has primary responsibility for land use planning. Municipal comprehensive plans must be in conformity with the BCLUP. Pursuant to section 11.01 of the Charter, County Ordinances relating to land use planning prevail over municipal ordinances. Flexibility Units/Reserve Units Broward County is a highly urbanized, fast-growing county located in the southeastern portion of Florida. The estimated 1998 population was 1,460,890, a 16.4 percent increase over the 1990 census. In addition to the County government, there are 29 municipalities in the County. In November 1977, Broward County first devised the concept of allowing flexibility to municipalities in land use planning by creating "flexibility units" (flex units) which could be used by municipalities in land use planning. The number of flex units is equal to the difference between the density permitted on the BCLUP map and the density permitted on the applicable municipal land use plan for any particular parcel of land. Flex units are unique to Broward County in the State of Florida. The entire County is divided into 126 flexibility zones. Each flexibility zone has a determined number of available flex units based on the difference in densities between the future BCLUP map and the municipal land use plan. Within each of the 126 flexibility zones, designated on the future BCLUP map, the appropriate municipality may rearrange and revise land uses and densities, within limits specified in the County Plan, without the necessity of an amendment to the County Plan. The total density within any particular flexibility zone cannot exceed the density on the future BCLUP map. The Administrative Rules Document contains rules and procedures regulating flexibility zones and units. Modifications to flexibility zones may be requested by the municipality, the County, or the Planning Council, subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Municipal plan amendments revising land uses by use of flex units within flexibility zones are subject only to recertification by the Planning Council. Without the use of flex units, the land use category for a particular piece of property on the BCLUP map can be amended through an amendment to the BCLUP. "Reserve units" are additional permitted dwelling units equal to 2 percent of the total number of dwelling units permitted in a flexibility zone by the future BCLUP map. Reserve units function similarly to flex units and may be allocated by a municipality to rearrange and revise densities within a flexibility zone. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, reserve units shall be treated as flex units. Hallandale contains flexibility zones 93 and 94. Review of the Operation of Flexibility Rules In 1996, in response to state requirements for periodic evaluations of county comprehensive plans, the planning council staff, including Henry Sniezek of the County planning staff, prepared the Broward County Land Use Plan "Flexibility Rules" Study. After many hours spent obtaining data and analyses, the staff recommended that flexibility rules include more consideration of compatibility with surrounding land uses and the impacts on public schools. The 1996 report concluded: (1) that flexibility rules generally continued to serve the purpose of allowing local governments to address local planning issues and market concerns; (2) that local governments have utilized the flexibility rules consistent with their intent; and (3) that flexibility rules should continue to be available for local government use. The issue which is the subject of this proceeding, as to whether flex units should continue to be authorized for land planning uses in areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway to increase density from 25 to 50 units per acre, was not specifically within the scope of the 1996 report. Coastal Densities An April 24, 1998, version of the County land uses plan map, which is apparently still in force, designated a number of parcels throughout Broward County, east of the Intracoastal Waterway on the Atlantic Ocean, as land use category "H," for high density dwellings of 50 units per gross acre. Under the Broward County land use regulations, gross acreage is calculated by including the property owned by the landowner and half of adjacent right-of-way. In County-designated "H" parcels, developments of 50 units per acre are permitted, without the need to allocate flex units to the parcels. The Hallandale Ordinance In 1998, Hallandale passed an Ordinance 1998-3, creating a new Residential High Density-2 Land Use Designation (HD-2), allowing developments up to 50 residential dwelling units per acre, but only by the allocation of available flex units. On June 1, 1999, the Mayor of Hallandale was notified, by letter, that the land use element, as amended to create the HD-2 category, was recertified by the Planning Council. The recertification process constitutes a determination that the municipal plan amendment substantially conforms to the County Plan. The DCA found Hallandale's HD-2 ordinance in compliance. The Regional Planning Council determines whether comprehensive plan amendments comply with the 1995 Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Planning Council approved the City's HD-2 category as consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The intent of the ordinance was to promote and attract redevelopment to Hallandale, particularly the beach area, where many buildings date from the 1960's and 1970's, and may be approaching the end of their useful lives. The City used the HD-2 for the redevelopment of a property called Riviera Beach, which consisted of a deteriorating motel, a restaurant, and offices. The City also used the category to promote the redevelopment of the Ocean Marine property site of another deteriorating motel with a yacht club on the Intracoastal Waterway, which is currently going through the approval process. The City's former Director of Growth Management, Lorenzo Aghemo, opined that with existing average density on the beach in the range of 86 to 89 units an acre, redevelopment up to only 25 dwelling units per acre is not economically advantageous. The Proposed Amendment The Amendment that is the subject of this proceeding began as a "housekeeping" amendment which was initially designed to establish a uniform cap of 50 units per acre for the use of flex units to be consistent throughout the County Plan. During the process of meetings and public hearings before the Planning Council and the County Commission, and in response to comments and suggestions from members and staff as well as comments from DCA, the Planning Council, the Broward County League of Cities and various municipal governments, the Amendment evolved as more particularly described below. The Amendment ultimately became a mechanism to further goals contained in a Governor's Commission report entitled "Eastward Ho!" which was published in July 1996 and discussed in more detail below. A primary focus of the Eastward Ho! report is the recommendation that development in Southeast Florida, including Broward County, should be redirected into a corridor of land that generally consisted of the land between CSX and Florida railroads. The precise parameters of the Eastward Ho! corridor are undefined and the corridor eventually was expanded beyond the lands between the railroads; however, it is agreed that this corridor contains many of the older municipal regions of the County west of the Intracoastal Waterway. In its adopted form, the portion of the County's challenged amendment PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999- 26, implements several changes which encourage the redevelopment of the County's urban corridor, and redirects development away from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) as well as away from the environmentally sensitive western areas of the County. With respect to the use of flex units, the challenged Amendment establishes four areas ("Areas A-D") within the County. Each area is given its own designation regarding the use of flex units. Area A This area generally encompasses all land west of the Urban Infill Area line. It is treated differently from the other areas for planning purposes because of its environmentally sensitive lands. Included in this area are portions of the Florida Everglades, other wetlands and well fields. In recognition of the environmental features of this area, the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre and helps to minimize urban sprawl. Area B This area is defined as all land east of the Intracoastal Waterway. It lies entirely within the County’s CHHA, which includes the land and water eastward of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean. CHHAs are areas that are prone to damage from flood and wind from a hurricane event. This vulnerability to hurricanes presents special planning issues which led the County to limit the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre. In order to better protect human life and property, the County not only places a limit on flexibility units in this area, but encourages development and redevelopment in other portions of the County outside the CHHA. Area C This area generally comprises all of the land east of the Urban Infill Area Line and West of the Intracoastal Waterway. It includes many of the County’s older cities, where there is the greatest need for redevelopment. This area generally includes the Eastwood Ho! corridor. In order to encourage redevelopment in this area, the County continues to allow local governments to use up to 50 flexibility units an acre. Area D This area contains pocket areas that lie west of the Urban Infill area. Although the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre in this area, no compatibility review is required. At this time, there are two areas with this designation. Both of these pocket areas lie close to the Urban Infill Area. Application to Hallandale Most of Hallandale lies within Area C. A small potion of the City consisting of the beach east of the Intracoastal Waterway is in Area B and also within the CHHA. Under the challenged Amendment the City is limited to a maximum allowable density, with the allocation of flex units, to 25 units per acre, because the area is east of the Intracoastal Waterway. For purposes of this proceeding, the objectionable effect of the challenged Amendment is that it prohibits the use of flex units to that small portion of Hallandale that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway to attain densities greater than 25 units per acre. Lorenzo Aghemo, formerly Hallandale's Director of Growth Management, testified that the County's challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the following elements of the County's Plan: Objective 8.03.00, on discouraging urban sprawl by directing development to areas with existing facilities and services; Goal 13.00.00, on maximizing intergovernmental coordination and cooperation; Policy 13.01.08, on the Planning Council's responsibility to ensure consistency, as compared to its decisions to approve 50 units and than a few months later 25 units per acre; Goal 17.00.00, directing growth to identified urban infill, in areas of existing infrastructure and services to promote redevelopment; Policy 17.02.02, on urban infill and redevelopment to promote economic development and increase housing opportunities. Mr. Aghemo testified that the County's Ordinance, limiting the flex units to 25 per acre is also inconsistent with the following statutes: Section 163.3177(11)(c) - on maximizing the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment and urban infill development; Section 187.201(15)(a) and (b) - on directing development to areas which have, in place, land and water resources, fiscal abilities and service capacity; Section 187.201(16)(b)5. - on allowing local government flexibility to determine and address urban priorities. Henry Sniezek testified that the proposed Amendment viewed in its entirety, is consistent with the above-cited provisions. Evolution of the Proposed Amendment On January 15, 1999, the County Planning Council's Land Use/Traffic Ways Committee discussed, for the first time, an early version of a County amendment to limit the density allowed from the use of flex units. At that time, the staff recommended that flex units should result in densities no higher than 50 units per acres. As stated above, the maximum of 50 units an acre, recommended in 1999, was intended for "housekeeping" purposes to establish the same cap for flex units consistently referenced throughout the plan. Robert Daniels, the principal planner for the Regional Planning Council, first recommended that the coastal barrier island be excluded from certain flex unit allocations in a letter to Mr. Sniezek, on January 27, 1999. Mr. Daniels testified that his concern was based on the Strategic Regional Plan goal and policy of reducing densities on coastal barrier islands, the beaches and areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Broward League of Cities Technical Advisory Committee, composed of planners from various municipalities in the County, also recommended to the County Commission that it attempt to direct growth to the area between the Everglades on environmentally sensitive west and the CHHA. That policy is included in the County's "Eastward Ho" voluntary initiative. The Broward County urban infill area has a western boundary that coincides with the western boundary of the challenged amendment but extends east to the Atlantic Ocean. The Amendment, as adopted, ultimately excluded the area east of the Intracoastal Waterway within the urban infill area, as designated on the County land use map, from the maximum flex unit uses without County Commission approved. Eastward Ho! "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida’s Urban Core" is a 1996 planning initiative of the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. It was developed by the South Florida Regional Planning Council in conjunction with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Eastward Ho! promotes urban infill and redevelopment in order to revitalize older communities. Among its other goals is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands, prime agricultural areas, and water resources. The Eastward Ho! initiative attempts to capture some of the projected growth in the western and CHHA and redirect it to the urbanized areas. The boundaries for the Eastward Ho! initiative include portions of Palm Beach County, Broward County and Miami-Dade County. Its boundaries are not precisely defined and have evolved over time. The original study area encompassed the area between the Florida East Coast Railroad and the CSX Railroad. As the program progressed, it became apparent that additional areas should be included. This larger Eastward Ho! area includes the lands lying east to US 1 and west to the Palmetto Expressway, the Florida Turnpike, State Road 7 and Military Trail. The Amendment Area C is generally compatible with the Eastward Ho! boundaries in Broward County. Area B does not lie within the Eastward Ho! boundaries. In its totality, the Amendment advances the purposes of Eastward Ho! by redirecting growth towards already urbanized areas and away from the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County and the CHHA. The Eastward Ho! initiative is advanced by the Amendment in that the proposed flexibility units scheme promotes the goals of directing some future development away from environmentally sensitive areas and the CHHA and redirects that future development to the urban infill areas. As the Amendment is consistent with, and furthers, Eastward Ho! goals, the contents of the document entitled "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida's Urban Core" constitute relevant and appropriate data and analysis which supports the Amendment. In February 1999, a report was issued by Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research in which the Eastward Ho! program is described and analyzed. This report was prepared for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document is entitled "Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Paths to More Efficient Growth in Southeast Florida." Included in this report are data and analysis contrasting projected Eastward Ho! and non-Eastward Ho! development patterns. In this report, it is concluded that directing some residential development growth from the hurricane hazard area and the western areas into the Eastward Ho! areas in the next twenty-five years will save 52,856 acres of prime farmland and 13,887 acres of fragile environmental lands. It is also expected that housing costs would drop approximately 2.3 percent. The report also concludes that by directing some future development over a 25-year period into the Eastward Ho! areas, the following savings in infrastructure costs can be gained: $1.54 billion dollars in local road costs, $62 million in state road costs, $157 million in water capital costs, and $135.6 in sewer capital costs. As the Amendment helps implement the goals of Eastward Ho!, it reasonably can be concluded that this report contains data and analysis that supports the Amendment. Local Mitigation Strategy Broward County’s emergency management staff has prepared a local mitigation strategy (LMS), which is the County’s plan to mitigate the effects of potential natural disasters, especially hurricanes. In this document, the County identifies the trend of conversions of living units in the coastal hurricane evacuation zone from seasonal to year-round use, increasing the number of residents in the coastal hurricane evacuation zones. This area is basically the same as the portion of the County described in the Amendment as Area B. In order to minimize the impact of natural disasters, the LMS recommends discouraging additional public expenditures to expand or improve infrastructure in the CHHA. The Amendment implements these recommendations by providing an incentive for directing some future growth away from the CHHA to Area C. Accordingly, the LMS constitutes data and analysis which supports the Amendment. Consistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan: Objective 8.03.00, Goal 13; Policy 13.01.08, Goal 17; and Policy 17.02.02. Those provisions are part of the BCLUP. Objective 8.03.00 is entitled "EFFICIENT USE OF URBAN SERVICES" and reads: Discourage urban sprawl and encourage a separation of urban and rural uses by directing new development into areas where necessary regional and community facilities and services exist. The BCLUP does not define "urban sprawl." The Department of Community Affairs has a rule that defines "urban sprawl" as meaning: . . . urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low- intensity or low density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided.... Rule 9J-5.003(134), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides guidance on how to ensure that plans and plan amendments are consistent with applicable requirements pertaining to the discouragement of urban sprawl. Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The rule contains sections on primary indicators, land use evaluations, and development controls, each of which includes many factors to be carefully considered. The Amendment provides incentives for development in Area C, which is the older urban corridor of the County. Although some of it is also urban, Area B lies in the CHHA and the data and analysis support its disparate treatment. Taken as a whole, the Amendment has the effect of discouraging urban sprawl by promoting infill in older downtown areas (Area C) and directing development away from the environmentally sensitive areas (Areas A and B) and areas with inefficient land use patterns (Area A) such as the western areas of the County. Goal 13 and Policy 13.01.08 are located in the section of the plan entitled "INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION." They read as follows: GOAL 13.00.00 MAXIMIZE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. POLICY 13.01.08 The Broward County Planning Council shall continue to coordinate, cooperate and share information and services with all City and County planning offices and all local government agencies in order to ensure consistency and compatibility among the Broward County Land Use Plan and the other elements of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, as well as municipal comprehensive plans. The Amendment does not modify the intergovernmental coordination provisions. While the Amendment restricts the effect of Hallendale Ordinance 1998-2 in that small portion of the City that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway, that restriction alone does not support a finding that the Amendment as a whole is inconsistent with Policy 13.01.08. Moreover, the County complied with the letter and spirit of Goal 13.00.00 and Policy 13.01.08 in developing and adopting this Amendment. It kept the municipalities informed of the Amendment by providing written drafts and coordinated with entities including the Broward County League of Cities, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Broward County Planning Council, and its technical advisory committee. Suggestions and comments from the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the League of Cities were a major influence in the ultimate version of the adopted Amendment. Goal 17.00.00 and Policy 17.02.02 are contained in the Plan’s section entitled "URBAN INFILL AREAS, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION." They read as follows: GOAL 17.00.00 DIRECT GROWTH TO IDENTIFIED URBAN INFILL, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREAS WITHIN BROWARD COUNTY IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL, REDUCE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON RURAL LANDS, MAXIMIZE THE USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CENTRALIZE COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES. POLICY 17.02.02 Local land use plans should include policies to provide for adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents of identified urban infill, urban redevelopment and downtown revitalization area(s). In its totality, the Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 17.00.00 and may further it. By limiting development in the CHHA and the western portions of the County, the Amendment effectively encourages significant future growth to the urban infill areas and older downtown areas. The area encouraged for growth under this goal and policy is consistent with Area C, and targeted for the densest development and redevelopment. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 17.02.02. Area B as a Coastal area is not particularly economically suitable for affordable housing. By encouraging development away from the CHHA, the Amendment may promote a wider range of housing opportunities through redevelopment in the Eastward Ho! corridor. Moreover, the Amendment provides that applications of flex units for affordable housing, Regional Activity Centers and special residential facilities are exempt from the Amendment’s restrictions in specified situations should affordable housing units be developed in Area B. Even if the Amendment were construed to be inconsistent with any of the above-discussed plan provisions, there are several other portions of the Plan that the Amendment furthers by encouraging development away from the CHHA and the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County. Those provisions include Objective 9.03.00, which requires developing and implementing land use controls to protect and enhance the County's beaches, rivers, and marine resources, and Policy 9.05.09, which requires considering the impact land use plan amendments have on wetland resources and minimizing those impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Objective 9.07.00 reads: Protect identified floodplains and areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. The Amendment advances this objective by limiting development in the CHHA (Area B), which is subject to storm surge, as well as limiting development in the western portion of the County (Area A), which has many flood-prone areas. Consistency with Section 163.3177(11)(c) The City alleges that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(11)(c), Florida Statutes, which reads: It is the further intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans and implementing land development regulations shall provide strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other strategies for urban revitalization. To the extent this statute is a substantive compliance criteria, the Amendment is consistent with this statute. By promoting development in Area C, the Amendment will help achieve the goal of maximizing existing facilities through redevelopment, urban infill and urban revitalization. Consistency with the South Florida Regional Policy Plan The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SFRPP) is the regional policy plan adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. It is adopted by reference in Rule 29J-2.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Amendment is consistent with provisions in the SFRPP, particularly those related to land use, public facilities, natural resources, and emergency management. The Amendment is consistent with Strategic Regional Goal 2.1, which requires directing development and redevelopment to areas least exposed to coastal storm surges and where negative impacts on the environment are minimal. The Amendment is consistent with several of Goal 2.1's implementing policies, including Policies 2.1.2 (reducing allowable densities on barrier islands and in the Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area), 2.1.3 (restricting development, redevelopment, and public facility construction in the CHHA), and 2.1.4 (directing development away from environmentally sensitive lands). The Amendment also furthers Strategic Regional Goal 7.1 by directing future development away from the areas most vulnerable to storm surges. Viewed in its entirety, the Amendment is consistent with the SFRPP construed as a whole. Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions in the State comprehensive plan: Sections 187.201(15)(a) and (b) and 187.201(16)(b)(5), Florida Statutes. Goal (15)(a) recognizes the importance of preserving natural resources and requires development to be directed into areas which can accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. Implementing Policies (b)1., 2., and 5. requires the encouragement of efficient development, the separation of urban and rural uses, and the consideration of impacts on natural resources and the potential for flooding in land use planning. As discussed in earlier findings, the Amendment is consistent with such directives. The Amendment furthers Goal (15)(a) and Policies (b) 1., 2., and 5. Policy (16)(b)(5) reads: Ensure that local governments have adequate flexibility to determine and address their urban priorities within the state urban policy. The Amendment coordinates the policy for prioritization of urban development. Development is promoted in areas away from the CHHA and environmentally sensitive lands in the west. This is accomplished through the use of a cap on flexibility units. Local governments may choose to utilize less than the full extent of their available flexibility units or use alternative mechanisms to achieve higher densities. The use of flexibility units is only one method for controlling densities. If a local government needs more density to address its planning goals than is allowed by the Amendment, it may request a Future Land Use Map amendment. Additionally, local governments may avoid the Amendment's limits by maximizing density by the use of affordable housing developments, Regional Activity Centers or special residential facilities. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy (16)(b)(5). The Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan construed as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Broward County in Ordinance No. 1999-26 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rule promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 12th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Goldstein, Esquire City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jose R. Gonzalez, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Governmental Center, Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Jordan, Acting General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact In June, 1982, Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact to be called "F.E.C. Park of Industry and Commerce" to be located in Dade County, Florida. On June 23, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County adopted Resolution Z-114-83, a Development Order approving with conditions the development proposed by Florida East Coast Railway Company. A copy of the Development Order was transmitted to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 1983. By letter dated July 8, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, the Assistant Director of the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County advised that: In compliance with Section 380, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing , herewith, a copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 23, 1983, approving a development of regional impact applied for by Florida East Coast Railway Company to permit the development of the above-described property for an industrial park complex involving a district boundary change from GU (interim) to IU-C (Industry-Controlled) and an Unusual Use to permit two lake excavations. By letter dated July 19, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs responded to receipt of the copy of the Development Order as follows: We have received the copy of the Florida East Coast Railway Development Order you sent on July 8 in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statues[sic]. However, to fulfill the requirements of the law, the Development Order must he signed and include all exhibits. Therefore would you please he kind enough to provide the Department with a signed copy of Resolution #Z-114-83. . . . By letter dated July 27, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on August 1, 1983, Dade County advised that: In accordance with your letter of July 19, 1983, and our telephone conversation of this date, I am enclosing, herewith, a certified copy of Resolution Z-114-83; as I explained to you on the telephone, the Board of County Commissioners does not sign its resolutions. The only significant difference between the copy of the Development Order received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, and the one received on August 1, 1983, is a certificate signed by a Deputy Clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Dade County certifying that the latter copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83 was a true and correct copy of the original of that document. Since at least 1946, Dade County has adopted and codified its zoning actions in the following manner. After the Board of County Commissioners acts on zoning applications at a regularly scheduled zoning meeting, zoning resolutions are prepared by Mr. Chester C. Czebrinski, who is in attendance at the meetings. Mr. Czebrinski is an attorney and is the Assistant Director of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. He is also legal counsel to the Department and is a Deputy Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. He has performed the functions described herein since 1946. While in attendance at the zoning meeting, Mr. Czebrinski records the action of the Board of County Commissioners on zoning applications noting any conditions adopted by the Board. In preparing the zoning resolution, he uses information obtained from the Clerk of the County Commission as to the resolution number, the names of the Commissioners who made and seconded the motion, and the vote on the resolution. When such resolutions are prepared, they are never re-submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for any further action or review. Copies of final zoning resolutions prepared by Mr. Czebrinski are sent to the Clerk of the County Commission (two original copies), other county departments, to the applicant, and to the attorneys of record. The purpose of transmitting the resolution to those departments and persons is to notify them of the official final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional copies of resolutions are also placed in the zoning hearing file. All such resolutions transmitted contain a transmittal date on the face of the resolution. The purpose of the transmittal date is to commence the appeal period within which an appeal may be taken to circuit court from the action of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. All such resolutions transmitted by Mr. Czebrinski are unstamped, uncertified copies of the final zoning resolution. Upon receipt of the transmittal of two copies of the resolution from Mr. Czebrinski, the office of the Clerk of the Board stamps both with the name of the deputy clerk, who for the past eleven years has been Raymond Reid. The letters on one stamp (the large stamp) are larger than the letters on the other, smaller stamp. The copies stamped with the large stamp are also stamped with the county seal. This copy is retained by the Clerk and is never certified. The other copy, stamped with a small stamp, is not stamped with the county seal. This copy is sent to Mr. Czebrinski with a separate certification by the Clerk on a separate page attached to the back of the resolution. Upon request, the Clerk's office will provide a copy of the zoning resolution retained by it. Such a copy is never certified, even for a state agency, unless a specific request for certification is made. An individual requesting certification is required to pay the Clerk a fee of one dollar. Section 2-1, Rule 1.05, Dade County Code, is interpreted and applied by Dade County not to require certification of the resolution physically retained by the Clerk and not to require certification of any copies of that resolution unless a specific request for certification is made. If Mr. Czebrinski receives a request for a copy of a zoning resolution, he provides one of the additional unstamped copies made prior to transmittal of the Clerk. If a certified copy of the resolution is requested, Mr. Czebrinski would make a copy of the resolution with the certification and then place a further certificate on it indicating that it was a copy on file with his office. The above procedures are for normal zoning actions of the Board of County Commissioners and differ from untypical procedures utilized for Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) resolutions (which are certified by the Building and Zoning Director) and for resolutions pertaining to county airport matters, which are prepared by the County Attorney's office. Where a resolution encompasses an order of the Board of County Commissioners for a Development of Regional Impact, Mr. Czebrinski prepares a resolution in the manner described above and distributes it to all of the previously mentioned parties, and in addition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Mr. Czebrinski has had responsibility for transmitting copies to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, since the adoption of the state law. The resolutions transmitted have been blank, uncertified copies. Each copy is accompanied by a transmittal letter which is signed by Mr. Czebrinski. Although in a few instances the files of the Department of Community Affairs contain items where the typical County Commission zoning procedure was not applicable, this was because either the special procedure of the ZAB or airport zoning applied, because the Department has specifically requested a certified copy in an isolated case, or because the Department had received a transmittal from a non-county source. On September 12, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission objecting to various portions of the Development Order.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner Henry A. Wenz (Wenz) is a resident of Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Petitioners Hart Land & Cattle Co., Inc., R. L. Hart, and Clyde E. Hart are residents of, own property in, or own or operate businesses in Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Respondent Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Respondent Volusia County, which is a charter county, is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan under Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. Volusia County is a charter county. Volusia County is located on the Atlantic Coast and is bounded by Flagler and Putnam Counties to the north, Brevard and Seminole Counties to the south, and Lake County to the west. The east boundary runs about 47 miles along the coastline, and the west boundary includes about 75 miles along the St. Johns River before running along lakes to the north and south. Volusia County contains 14 incorporated areas. Only four of these incorporated areas are in west Volusia County: DeLand, which is the County seat; Lake Helen; Orange City; and Pierson. The coastal area contains the remaining 10 incorporated areas, including the county's principal city, Daytona Beach. Public Participation By Resolution No. 86-105 adopted August 7, 1986, Volusia County established various requirements for notice and public hearings in the comprehensive planning process. Acknowledging that the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission serves as the local planning agency (LPA), pursuant to Volusia County Ordinance 80-8, as amended, Resolution No. 86- 105 directs the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department to accept, consider, preserve, and respond to written public comments. Following the adoption of Resolution No. 86-105, the LPA commenced a process designed to ensure that citizens with a wide range of interests could make substantial contributions to the comprehensive planning process. The LPA formed five citizens' committees, known as Citizen Resource Committees, to consider planning questions corresponding to each of the elements required to be included in the comprehensive plan. Each committee comprised about 20 members, and the chair of each committee was a member of the LPA. 1/ Membership of each Citizen Resource Committee was diverse. For instance, members of the land use committee included homeowners, developers, and environmentalists. The diversity of membership was the result of the LPA's efforts to solicit nominations for membership from a broad range of civic, trade, or professional associations. In all, the LPA asked 150 organizations to make nominations and 62 organizations did so. In the case of the land use committee, for example, members were nominated by, among others, such groups as the League of Women Voters, Association of Condominiums, West Volusia Home Builders Association, and Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc. Each Citizen Resource Committee met about nine times from July, 1988, to May, 1989. Prior to these series of meetings, the LPA conducted a meeting to explain the comprehensive planning process. Each meeting of the LPA or Citizen Resource Committee was open to the public and announced by news releases published in numerous local news media. During the nine months that the Citizen Resource Committees met, Volusia County amended Resolution No. 86-105 to require that all planning materials given to the Citizen Resource Committees, LPA, or County Council be available for review by the public. Adopted February 2, 1989, Resolution No. 89-27 made planning documents available for copying by the public at cost. Following the completion of the work of the Citizen Resource Committees, the LPA then conducted six public workshops between June 14 and June 27, 1989. Large display advertisements were published in local newspapers of general circulation preceding at least some of these meetings, including the June 14 and 19 meetings where it was announced that the LPA would consider certain named elements for recommendation to the County Council. The LPA ultimately recommended the draft elements to the County Council. On July 7, 1989, the County Council held its first public workshop on the proposed plan. Over the next two months, the County Council conducted nine such workshops, at least some of which were announced by large display advertisements in local newspapers of general circulation. Minutes and notes of these workshops indicate that Council members regularly solicited comments from members of the public in attendance. The County Council conducted nine public workshops or hearings from July 7, 1989, through August 29, 1989. The County Council workshops culminated in the transmittal hearing, which took place on September 7, 1989. The hearing was announced by large newspaper display advertisements that satisfied all requirements of law. After transmittal of the proposed plan and receipt of the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA, the County Council announced by large display newspaper advertisements that a hearing would be conducted on February 22, 1990, to receive public comments and adopt the comprehensive plan. The notice satisfied all requirements of law. The County Council received extensive public comments at the February 22 hearing and continued the hearing to March 8. Again receiving extensive public comment at the March 8 hearing, the County Council continued the hearing to March 15. The County Council adopted the comprehensive plan at the March 15 hearing, although Ordinance No. 90-10, which adopts the plan, indicates that the plan was adopted at a public hearing on March 10, 1990. 2/ Ordinance No. 90-10 adopts the goals, objectives, and policies, but not the supporting data and analysis. Traffic Circulation Element Data and Analysis In preparing the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE), the County first inventoried the existing road system to determine capacity, demand, and overall system performance. To assist in this effort, the County Council retained (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., which issued a report in September, 1989, analyzing the availability of transportation facilities and services to serve existing and future demands (Kimley-Horn Report). The Kimley-Horn Report serves as part of the data and analysis on which the plan was based. Beginning with 1987 conditions, Kimley-Horn noted that the County required nearly $68.2 million of road improvements to attain level of service C on all roads. 3/ To evaluate future needs, Kimley-Horn used a standard traffic forecasting formula and socio-economic data provided by the County Planning Department. After identifying numerous traffic analysis zones and validating the model for the subject forecasting purposes, Kimley-Horn ran ten model runs. In designing various network alternatives, Kimley-Horn considered level of service standards in light of factors such as the requirement of concurrency, the goal of urban in-fill, and the "[d]irect correlation between urban size and acceptance of some highway congestion as a trade off for other urban amenities and cost considerations." Kimley-Horn Report, page 17. The West Volusia Beltline would be located in southwest Volusia County between U.S. 17/92 and 1-4. Comprising several segments, the beltway's southernmost segment is from Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard. Apparently while Kimley-Horn was preparing its report, Volusia County adopted a Five-Year Road Program, which includes certain projects from a 2010 financially feasible plan for the coastal area. The Five-Year Road Program, which will cost $94.7 million for right-of-way acquisition and construction, will require $52 million from the County, or $59.3 million after taking into consideration the effect of inflation. From north to south, the Five-Year Road Program includes the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all under County jurisdiction: Kepler Road to Taylor Road (1.0 mile)--construction of two lanes; Taylor Road to State Route 472 (2.3 miles)--construction of two lanes; and State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile)--addition of two lanes to the two existing lanes. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that, during the five-year road program, the County will have revenues of only $49.2 million available for road construction without regard to inflation but assuming increases in population and tourism. The report discusses various options, such as raising impact fees, raising the share of gas taxes devoted to construction versus maintenance, and accelerating road projections to negate the effect of inflation. The County- estimated revenues are 6-17% short of estimated costs. In any event, the projected revenue shortfall during the Five-Year Road Program should have no effect on the three West Volusia Beltway projects. The Kimley-Horn Report ranks all of the five-year projects based on relative importance. All three beltway projects are in the top ten, and the cumulative construction costs expended through the first ten projects is $28.8 million, which is well within available revenues of $49.2 million. Assuming that the Five-Year Road Program is timely completed, Kimley- Horn calculated 1995 levels of service by applying County-supplied socioeconomic data to existing traffic models. The result, displayed on Figure 11 in the Kimley-Horn Report, discloses an insignificant segment of U.S. 17/92 in the downtown area at level of service F and, especially relative to east Volusia County, little system mileage at level of service E. Based on the analysis described in the preceding paragraphs, the Kimley-Horn Report concludes that county-wide roadway operating conditions in 1995 are excellent in that, out of 895.3 system miles, only 21.4 miles are predicted to operate at Level of Service F. This represents 2.39 percent of the county's system miles. In the same light, 52.86 miles fall at Level of Service E condition representing 5.9 percent of the total system miles. Overall, approximately 92 percent of the county-wide roadway system-miles is predicted to operate at Level of Service D or better in 1995. Kimley-Horn Report, pages 58-60. Table 28 of the report, which divides the County into 11 geographic areas, prioritizes road segments for construction after 1996 based on volume-to- capacity ratios projected for 1995 after completion of the base network. 4/ Table 28 projects no excessive use of segments in west Volusia County. The average volume-to-capacity ratios in west Volusia County are projected as follows: for the area north of DeLand--0.40; for the area south of DeLand--0.60; and for the area west of Deltona--0.75. Although the last area contains three segments with ratios over 0.90, the West Volusia Beltline would, in 1995, have a volume-to-capacity ratio of only 0.44. Designing a 2010 network, Kimley-Horn analyzed additional highway segments selected from a financially feasible plan and various alternatives previously considered in the report. These segments, which are listed in Table 19 of the report, exclude all of the roads contained in the Five-Year Road Program. The total cost, including right-of-way acquisition, construction, and inflation, is $1.38 billion, with the County's share at $510 million. From north to south, the 2010 network contains the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all projected to remain under County jurisdiction: State Route 44 to State Route 472 (5.6 miles)--addition of four lanes to two lanes in the existing or base network; State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile) --addition of two lanes to four lanes in the existing or base network; and Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard (3.0 miles)--construction of four lanes where none exists in the 1995 network. However, the 1995 level of service projections properly ignore those segments of the West Volusia Beltway included in the 2010 network, including the new four lanes south of Graves Avenue, because these segments are not part of the existing or base network. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that gas taxes and impact fees available to the County to fund the County's system improvements from 1996 through 2010 will total only about $278 million. Assuming that future state contributions will equal past contributions, the Kimley-Horn Report estimates that state revenues for system improvements will total about $272 million from 1996 through 2010. The total County and state contributions are projected to be about $550 million for 1996 through 2010, which would leave a projected combined state/County deficiency of $338 million. The Kimley-Horn Report recommends that the County update the TCE once the projected revenue shortfall materializes following the construction of the base network in 1995. Specific items to be considered include the adjustment of level of service standards, identification of new revenue sources, and adjustment of permitted densities and intensities in the affected areas. The Kimley-Horn Report concludes that the plan updating process should be viewed as an on- going, iterative process whereby road needs, available revenues and finally financial analysis merge... This process is designed to provide a dynamic and on-going planning tool that can be used to provide an on-going monitoring and updating program for the transportation system in Volusia County. Kimley-Horn Report, page 83. Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. Bicycles and Pedestrians TCE Objective 2.1.1 states that, prior to 1996, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient motorized transportation system." TCR Objective 2.1.2 states that, prior to 1995, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system." TCE Policies 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.2 state that, prior to October 1, 1990, the County "shall develop regulations for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians within all new development proposals" [sic]. TCE Policy 2.1.2.1 states that, prior to 1993, the County "shall coordinate with the MPO to develop a County-wide bicycle facilities plan." The Capital Improvement Program schedules all significant capital projects to be undertaken for the six years between 1990-1995. An adopted part of the plan, the Capital Improvement Program contains a summary of road projects beginning at page C-243. The table shows, by year and amount, expenditures for all capital road projects, including the above-described segments of the West Volusia Beltway without significant alterations. Also included are $1.17 million for constructing bike paths in fiscal year ending 1990 and $180,000 for constructing bike paths in the following year. Beginning in fiscal year ending 1991 and through the end of the covered period, the table shows that the County intends to spend about $370,000 annually constructing bike paths/sidewalks and, in the first two years, $860,000 in widening bike paths. 2. Level of Service Standards for Roads The objectives and policies under TCE Goal 2.2 set the level of service standards applicable to roads in the County. TCE Objective 2.2.1 states: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Volusia County shall establish peak hour level of service standards and prior to 1996, Volusia County shall achieve and maintain standards for peak hour levels of service on the thoroughfare system. TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 establish the peak hour level of service standards for state-and County-maintained roads. The level of service standards for state-maintained freeways and principal arterials, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are D and C, respectively. The level of service standards for state-maintained minor arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are E and D, respectively. TCE Policy 2.2.1.6 sets the level of service standards for County-maintained arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, at E and C, respectively. With respect to the reduced level of service standard allowed on County roads in urbanized areas, TCE Policy 2.1.1.7 explains that the County "shall expend County transportation funds in a manner which encourages compact urban development." TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 permit certain exceptions to the general level of service standards. A major exception is that the level of service standards apply only to road segments that are neither backlogged nor constrained. By means of this exception, the County distinguishes between roads operating at or above 5/ their adopted level of service standards and capable of widening, which are subject to the general level of service standards, and roads that are, at the time of plan adoption, operating below their adopted level of service standards or are incapable of widening, which are backlogged or constrained, respectively. The plan defines a backlogged road as one operating at a level of service standard below the minimum adopted by the County Council. However, a road operating below its designated level of service standard is not a backlogged road if it is a constrained facility or if it is scheduled for capacity improvements in the five-year road program of the Florida Department of Transportation or the County Council. 6/ Plan Element 20, Paragraph 14. A constrained road is one to which two or more lanes cannot be added due to physical or policy barriers. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 41. TCE Policies 2.2.1.7 through 2.2.1.9 identify backlogged road segments. TCE Policy 2.2.1.10 requires that the actual level of service standard for each identified backlogged road segment be raised by one standard by 1996. TCE Policy 2.2.1.11 requires that the level of service standards for each identified backlogged road segment attain, by 2001, the general standards set forth in TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6. For constrained roads presently at their adopted level of service standards, TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides that, barring acceptable mitigation, the County shall not allow further development after the constrained road reaches the applicable level of service standard. 3. Concurrency Requirements The introduction to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) links the concepts of level of service and concurrency. The introduction, which is not an adopted part of the plan, notes: "The existing service level was used as a benchmark for most of the proposed service level standards found in this draft [sic] element." The introduction acknowledges: Adjusting service levels [and] facility costs to projected revenue allocated to capital facilities is part of the [planning] process. If revenue allocated to pay for capital costs is insufficient, then either service levels have to be reduced or additional revenue raised or created to support the desired level of service. CIE Policy 15.1.1.3 prohibits the issuance of a development order for development that would degrade the level of service standard below the adopted standard, unless the plan specifically permits such a degradation. CIE Policy 15.3.1.1 states that the level of service standards adopted in the plan apply to all development orders issued after October 1, 1990. The issue of vested rights, which is generally reserved for land development regulations, is addressed to some degree in the plan. CIE Policy 15.1.1.7 requires orders for developments of regional impact, if issued after October 1, 1990, to be subject to the plan's concurrency requirements. CIE Policy 15.3.4.3 contemplates the reduction of level of service standards due to the effect of vested development; however, a plan amendment is required in such cases. Recognizing the importance of vested development in terms of demand on public facilities, CIE Policies 15.5.4.6, 15.5.5.1, and 15.5.5.2 require a study of reserved capacities and inventory and analysis of capacity remaining after the demands of vested development have been met. CIE Objective 15.5.1 states that the concurrency provisions adopted as part of the plan will become effective October 1, 1990. Other concurrency provisions are to be included in land development regulations. CIE Policy 15.5.1.1 identifies those facilities, including roads, for which concurrency is required. CIE Policy 15.5.1.3 states: The required facilities shall be in place and operating or estimated to be operating at a minimum service level established in this Comprehensive Plan at the time a building permit is issued, or a building permit is issued subject to the condition that the required facilities shall be in place prior to issuing of that final development order. A final development order is a building permit. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 52. CIE Policy 15.5.1.4 states that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are under construction or under contract for acquisition at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.5 adds that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are the subject of a binding contract executed for the construction or acquisition of the required facilities at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.6 states: New developments may meet the test for capacity and concurrency if they can be supported by the construction of specific facilities and the expansion of facility capacity by specific projects contained in the first year of the Capital Improvements five year schedule of programmed improvements (Capital Budget), following the issuance of a final development order. This policy shall pertain to the following facility categories: roads ... Specific conditions for the timing of private development and completion of the above facility categories shall be part of an enforceable development agreement and shall be part of the County's development review process when land uses and their densities/intensities are first proposed. Specific timing and phasing of these facilities in relationship to the issuance of building permits and other final development orders shall be delineated in [various land development regulations]. However, CIE Policy 15.5.2.2 requires: The following facilities shall be available to coincide 7/ with approval of building permits for developments that are to be built during a single phase: roads ... It shall be the intent of this policy to ensure that the above-mentioned facilities and services needed to support such development are available concurrent with impacts created by such developments... Specific timing and phasing conditions related to the above concurrency facilities shall be identified in greater detail in [various land development regulations]. Dealing with development projects designed to take place over several years, CIE Policy 15.5.2.3 provides in part: In these cases, programmed improvements from the Five Year Schedule of Improvements shall be included as part of the concurrency determination as long as their availability coincides with the impact of such a multi- year, multi-phase development. CIE Policy 15.5.2.4 addresses the situation in which necessary public or private facilities are delayed. If the delayed facility "may imperil the public health, welfare and safety," the County "may impose delay requirements on any permits it has issued so that public facility availability may be approximately concurrent with the impact of new development." Just as the backlogged and constrained roads are subject to special level of service standards, so too are they subject to special concurrency provisions. These provisions are contained in the policy cluster under CIE Objective 15.5.3. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1 describes the process by which the County will monitor levels of service on backlogged roads. The process begins with documenting as a benchmark the traffic counts on these roads prior to the adoption of the plan. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.b provides that each backlogged road "shall not be allowed to degrade its operational service standards ... by ... more than twenty (20) percent of the peak hour bench mark [traffic] counts ... " 8/ The monitoring provisions require the County to use generally accepted traffic modeling procedures to project the number of trips generated by proposed developments and the likely distribution of these trips. Regarding backlogged roads, CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.e states: The County shall not approve any additional final local development orders, (excluding vested properties) including building permits, once the percent threshold for projects within urban/urbanized area center(s) including municipalities is reached from final development orders only if such local development orders would generate trips in excess of ten/fifteen/twenty percent on a peak hour basis, unless a final development order is subject to the adoption and implementation of an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan. An Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following activities: turn lanes signalization incentives for employees to use mass transit where available van/car pooling programs staggered work hours CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.f states that the "goal" of the Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan is to achieve "100 percent mitigation of the impacts of a proposed development" and that, where applicable, the plan shall include participants besides the developer, such as "adjacent property owners, business establishments and homeowner associations." CIE Policy 15.3.4.8 states: The adopted Volusia County Five Year Road Program, reflected in the Capital Improvements Element's five year schedule of capital improvements[,] will provide the capacity necessary to relieve backlogged State roads. In the event that revenues collected from transportation (road) impact fees fall short of projections and the need arises to delay any of the identified capacity projects, Volusia County shall amend this element and the Traffic Circulation Element through coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation and performing [sic] speed delay studies to more accurately evaluate the level of service on the effected [sic] backlogged road. The County shall temporarily defer the issuance of development orders having direct impact on the facility which cannot be corrected through implementation of a Traffic Action Mitigation Plan as identified in 15.5.3.1(e) of this element, until such time that the level of service has been improved to the acceptable level. Any change in service level standards as a result of speed delay studies shall be done through a plan amendment. 9/ Awkward grammar in the first sentence of CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 precludes a finding as to what constrained facilities are addressed by this policy, but in general the policy provides that the County "may allow development to occur [on these constrained facilities] which will not increase peak hour traffic volumes by more than five or ten percent." Five-percent degradation is allowed for physically constrained state roads, and ten-percent degradation is allowed for policy constrained state roads. CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 requires the developer of the development impacting a constrained road to prepare a Traffic Analysis and implement an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, but only after an urbanized constrained state road has degraded to its minimum level of service, as set forth in the plan. At this point, "no further degradation will be permitted below the minimum approved local service levels set for constrained roads, that in 1989 were operating at or above the desired minimum service level." CIE Policy 15.5.3.2.d prohibits the County from denying a development order if the developer demonstrates a willingness to maintain service levels by entering into an enforceable development agreement including the implementation of either an Individual or Area-Wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, where the developer has demonstrated good faith to achieve 100 percent mitigation of the impact of such development. Payment of the road impact fee may not necessarily meet the 100% mitigation desired. For constrained County roads, the County "shall closely monitor" traffic volumes. Once the constrained road reaches its minimum acceptable level of service (C if nonurbanized, E if urbanized), TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides: "the County may not allow further development which cannot provide acceptable mitigative measures to the adverse traffic impacts of the proposed development." For development impacting either a backlogged or constrained road, TCE Policy 2.2.1.23 requires the developer to prepare an "Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan" covering those geographic areas specified as affected by relevant land development regulations. Other policies describe the traffic impact model in detail and procedural processes by which persons denied development orders may challenge the factual bases underlying the denial. CIE Policy 15.5.4.1 limits to two years the life of the concurrency determination for all public facilities for which concurrency is required, unless the County and applicant agree otherwise. In the latter case, however, the applicant must guarantee his financial obligations for public facilities by providing a cash escrow deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, prepayment of impact fees, prepayment of connection charges, or Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. CIE Policy 15.5.4.4.1 provides that "if concurrency and facility capacity is not available or cannot be made available through Policy 15.5.4.1(2)(a) ..., these findings shall be reasons for denial of such development orders." CIE Policies 15.5.5.7-15.5.5.9 add detailed requirements to the land development regulations concerning the concurrency management system and specifically the evaluation and monitoring necessary for the successful operation of a concurrency management system. 4. Financial Feasibility of Road Projects The final section of the CIE, although not formally adopted as part of the plan, is entitled, "An Introduction to the [CIE] Six Year Program: Fiscal Year 1989-90 to Fiscal Year 1994-95." This section begins: "The proposed [CIE]'s Five Year Program is feasible only to the extent that certain actions can be implemented prior to October 1, 1990." These actions include the following: approval of the one cent optional sales tax by May, 1990; increase of road impact fees to cover an estimated $6 million shortfall; and restriction of the funding of road safety and other road projects to sources other than existing gas tax revenues, such as the one cent optional sales tax, increased ad valorem taxes, or other sources. The introduction to the CIE concedes that the one cent optional sales tax is a key future revenue source to pay for improvements for facilities that either have no dedicated revenue source or that have revenue sources that have been used in the past but are no longer adequate to maintain or improve service levels into the future. Clearly without the One Cent Optional Sales Tax, the amount of Capital Improvements will have to be reduced in half. This will have severe impacts on service levels for ... roads ... The introduction reasons that ad valorem property taxes should not be used extensively for financing much of the required facilities because ad valorem taxes are needed to operate the newly constructed facilities and the seasonal population does not pay its fair share of the cost of facilities when they are financed by ad valorem taxes. Although not adopted as part of the plan, the data and analysis supporting the CIE contain useful background information concerning financial feasibility. Table 15-15 indicates that the County's share of the optional one cent sales tax would have been $81.3 million for the six-year period, 1990-95. Table 15-16 shows, for the same period, that capital road projects constitute about 24% of all capital expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program begins with a budget message from the County manager. Stressing the importance of the one cent optional sales tax, the message concludes that the only other viable Source of funding the County's infrastructure needs is the ad valorem tax. The total cost of road projects for 1990-96 is $122.6 million. Capital Improvement Program, page C-246. Of this sum, the local option sales tax was Projected to Provide $35.6 million. Id. During the same period, the County's capital expenditures are Projected to total $417.8 million. Capital Improvement Program, page B-2. Of this total, $249 million was Projected to be spent on facilities for which concurrency is required. Id. CIE Objective 15.3.1 places roads as the highest priority among all other facilities. The objectives and policies under CIE Goal 15.4 describe the funding Sources for capital projects. These Sources include user fees, impact fees, broad-based revenue sources, and debt Proceeds. Among user fees, CIE Policy 15.4.1.9 allocates the gas tax between maintenance and construction expenditures. CIE Policy 15.4.1.10 extends all gas taxes under the County's control to 2010. CIE Policy 15.4.1.11 directs the County to use "to the maximum extent possible" all other road user fees, such as toll roads, utility taxes, and special assessments. Addressing impact fees for roads, Objective 15.4.2 provides: Future development shall bear their fair share (a pro rata share) of not less than seventy (70%) percent of road facility costs including [right-of-way] as a result of their development in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards and other measurable objective standards. CIE Policy 15.4.2.6 requires the County to "verify that the impact fees are sufficient to cover the pro rata share of improvement costs necessitated by new development." CIE Objective 15.4.3 promises that the County will "rely primarily on the broadest revenue bases as possible for the funding of Capital facilities." CIE Policy 15.4.3.2 reserves the one cent optional sales tax for facilities for which no dedicated revenue sources exist. CIE Policy 15.4.3.3 restricts the County from using increases in the ad valorem tax millage rate for purposes other than operating costs associated with future additional capital facilities, unless other sources of funding are not available. CIE Policy 15.4.3.5 considers the alternatives if the one cent optional sales tax were not approved by the voters. In such a case, the County shall consider, among other measures, increasing the ad valorem tax millage rate to fund public facilities for which concurrency is required, creating special taxing districts, reducing service levels, increasing yet-to-be specified new revenue sources, and selectively using Community Development Districts. 10/ Relevant Provisions of the Regional Plan Policy 64.1 of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) provides: Local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation will set appropriate minimum levels of service for components of the regional roadway system under their respective jurisdictions. The ... Regional Planning Council will assist these bodies in developing their service standards, with the following level of service standards being used as guidelines in the determination of levels of service for individual components of the regional roadway system: In rural areas (Level of Service "C") * * * In urban fringe, urban residential areas, and outlying business districts (Level of Service "D") * * * In central business districts (Level of Service "E") * * * The minimum levels of service determinations will be based on the following criteria: Regional level of service guidelines: Existing conditions of each roadway: Planned programmed roadway improvements: Financial constraints: and Local Comprehensive Plans, and adopted DRI or other development orders. Level of service E on roads of the State Highway System are subject to the agreement of the local government, regional planning council, Florida Department of Transportation, and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Regional Plan Policy 64.5 provides: Access to minor arterials, major arterials and expressways shall be limited in order to maximize their traffic-carrying capacity and safety ... Regional Plan Policy 64.8 states: The principle of equitable cost participation shall be used as a guide in development approval decisions, including allocation of costs among private parties benefiting from or creating the need for transportation improvements, with consideration being given to: New development being required to pay its fair share as a condition for development approval, unless sufficient funds are available from other sources; Existing unmet needs being identified, to include the nature of the need and estimated cost of fulfillment; and Existing land uses and activities which benefit from better access being required to participate in the cost of the roadway improvement or new construction which results in the improved access in the form of user fees or special assessments. Provisions being made in local development orders to include the mitigation of adverse impacts on the state highway system. Regional Plan Policy 64.6 requires that traffic signalization, roadway signage, and operational capacities be designed "to optimize traffic flow and enhance the levels of service throughout the regional roadway network. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.5 provides in relevant part: Local governments are requested to undertake the following actions: Evaluate the feasibility and practicality of enacting ordinances capable of assessing existing landowners a proportionate share of costs associated with the elimination of unmet needs based on the provision of enhanced level of service benefits accruing from roadway improvements or new construction projects. Enact impact fee ordinances which are designed to cover the fair share cost of roadway improvements on local and state roadways except for that portion of deficient capacity already existing. Seek public review and comment on all new roadway construction proposals and widening projects. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.6 requests Metropolitan Planning Organizations to take certain actions and is thus irrelevant to the present case. Capital Improvements Element The financial feasibility of the entire plan, which is challenged by Petitioners Hart, has been considered to some extent in the findings concerning roads. These findings involve not only the financial feasibility of the Capital Improvement Program for roads, but the overall financial feasibility of the plan. As explained in the corresponding section of the Conclusions of Law, the optional one cent sales tax may be considered to a greater extent in determining the financial feasibility of the entire plan than it may be considered in the availability of scheduled capital projects in making concurrency determinations. The Capital Improvement Program, which schedules capital improvements for the six year period from 1990-1995, identifies, as noted above, $417.8 million in capital expenditures. Although the sources of funding are not collected in a single table like expenditures are, revenues are identified in numerous tables covering each of the numerous categories of public expenditures. In each case, revenues match expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program does not address alternative revenue sources to the optional one cent sales tax. However, CIE 15.4.3.5 describes revenue alternatives to the optional one cent sales tax. Future Land Use and Conservation Elements Data and Analysis The data and analysis accompanying the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) contain population tables prepared by the County, U.S Census, and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. The population projection for 2000, which is 506,000 persons, is the high-range projection prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Support Document #1-1, page 14. Among the factors considered in the land use suitability analysis are the type of soil, presence of wetland vegetation, and nature of the floodplain if the land is located in the 100-year floodplain. Support Document #1-5, page Analysis of these factors is incorporated into a suitability rating system, which is then projected onto maps. Id. The land use suitability analysis contains an extensive inventory of native habitats, soils, and existing land uses by region. The suitability rating system factors in other items such as the availability of central water and sewer and the presence of historic resources. Support Document #1-6 describes the process by which future uses are allocated to the land. Taking the projected population of the unincorporated part of the County, the analysis first allocates the population among six geographic planning areas. Determining the number of dwelling units needed to accommodate the projected population, the analysis generates data indicating the additional acreage required, by the end of the planning timeframe, to accommodate expected residential and nonresidential uses. A growth factor of 30% is then added to the residential and commercial categories due to high growth rates expected from the County's proximity to Disneyworld and the proposed Spaceport. Support Document 1-7 describes the process by which the land uses necessary to accommodate the previously described growth are designated on the future land use maps. Data and analysis supporting the future land use designations for forestry, agriculture, and environmental uses are found in Support Document #12- 1, which accompanies the Conservation Element. Based upon considerable data concerning wildlife and native habitats, the analysis concludes that "there are broad expanses of ecologically interconnected lands." Id. at page 12R-50. The analysis recommends that the plan establish a land use category within which urban development would be discouraged... Because growth should be directed towards those lands best able to accommodate future development, marginally suited lands for development should be placed in a Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA), as should interconnecting environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant lands. This would include ... inland swamp systems, riverine and estuarine flood plains, critical wildlife habitats, and endangered, rare or threatened ecosystems." The recommendation for the establishment of Natural Resource Management Areas (NRMA) explains further: The area within the NRMA should be divided into districts of special use, promoting activities which are compatible with natural resource protection. Among these divisions should be one which affords a degree of protection to natural systems which would assure their continued, uninterrupted preservation. Although several thousand acres of these lands are in public ownership, there is not enough public funds to purchase all the environmentally sensitive lands in the County, and therefore requires land use controls to ensure an adequate degree of ecological integrity. Because a major component of the value of natural communities is the ecological interrelationships with other natural communities, a highly effective way to protect ecological functions would be to form a natural areas network, or corridors. Land which falls within this network, referred to as Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC's), would be restricted to land use activities which inflict extremely small long term impacts on ecological functions, primarily a type of large lot conservation residential and passive types of agriculture, particularly silviculture. The corridors should include protected systems of wetlands, conservation lands and, where possible, rare and threatened upland communities such as mesic hammocks and longleaf pine-oaks. Because silviculture is the predominant use on the relic marine terraces, and that this use appears to be the most suitable for the terraces given the natural constraints of the land, a forestry district should be established within the NRMA. The intent of the forestry district would be to promote silvicultural pursuits and to keep this a predominant use on the relic terraces. This should be part of the NRMA because silvicultural activities typically have the least impact on natural resources other than public ownership, and thus should be encouraged on private landholdings. Other types of agricultural uses should be allowed in the forestry district to provide a certain amount of flexibility, but silviculture should be the predominant use. * * * Established agricultural areas which occur within the NRMA, particularly around Samsula should be considered an agricultural enclave within the NRMA, and should have the appropriate agricultural land use classifications. The enclave should allow room for a limited amount of agricultural growth. Id. at pages 12B-51 and 12B-52. Although the analysis concedes that the data are unavailable by which to map the vegetative communities at a sufficiently high level of detail, the mapping was scheduled to be completed by March, 1990. In the meantime, maps contained in the Support Document indicate generally the location of important vegetative communities, partly because of extensive reliance upon NASA infrared maps of wetlands and vegetation. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Various goals, objectives, and policies are relevant to Petitioners Hart's challenge to the relationship between the forestry, agricultural, and environmental designations and the operative provisions of the plan. Conservation Element Objective 12.2.1 is to "provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Toward that end, Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 provides that "[e]xisting, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning." These units are NRMA's. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 identifies specific areas to be included in NRMA. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to: promote land use activities compatible with the intentions of the NRMA through the establishment of special use areas, the boundaries of which to be determined by resource data including: ecological community mapping as stated in Policy 12.2.2.1, USGS Topographic maps; National Wetland Inventory maps; Florida Natural Area Inventory records; available wildlife data; and site specific field information if available. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC) and Forestry areas within NRMA's. The policy identifies these two designations as follows: ESC's shall include significant interconnected natural systems of environmentally sensitive lands, connected to and including conservation areas where possible. Land use activities shall be limited to conservation, silviculture utilizing Best Management Practices, and large residential lots with limits on land clearance. Proposed roads which encroach within ESC's shall minimize adverse impacts by: aligning the routes at the least sensitive areas (e.g., narrowest width of wetlands); requiring sufficiently sized bridging and culverts over wetlands to allow non-interrupted water flow and wildlife access; and posting low speed limits and/or caution signs. A forestry category shall be established which shall promote the continued and expanded use of silviculture in Volusia County. Because the mixed use concept is an integral component of forest management, the standards of this category shall not interfere with this practice, so long as silviculture remains the dominant use and best management practices are followed. The Future Land Use Categories, which are adopted as part of the plan, describe in more detail the ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture designations. Most significantly, the Future Land Use Categories set residential densities at one unit per 25 acres for the ESC designation, an average of one unit per 20 acres for the Forestry designation (but one unit per five acres may be permitted), and one unit per ten acres for the Agriculture designation. FLUE, pages 1-2 to 1-6. The general designation of NRMA's is intended to carry out FLUE Objective 1.2.1, which requires FLUE designations to "reflect the inherent capabilities and limitations of the existing natural features of the land." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 requires that, during the development review process, the County shall consider the site's topography, vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood hazard, and soils, as well as the location of the 100-year floodplain. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.3 states that "lands most suited for silviculture activities shall be [designated] under the Forest Resource subcategory of NRMA." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.4 limits the extent of intensive agriculture in any NRMA. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.5 restricts residential development in any Forest Resource area to one unit per five acres. FLUE Coal 1.4 is to "ensure that agricultural and silvicultural lands are protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses and remain a vital element of the County's economy." FLUE Policy 1.4.1.1B provides that urban growth is to be directed away from Agriculture areas. Miscellaneous Findings Petitioners Hart own 11/ 1000-1500 acres at County Road 415 and State Road 44 in the vicinity of Samsula (Samsula Land). They also own 2000-2500 acres just west of Edgewater, south of State Route 44, and mostly east of I-95, which is known as the Charles Sibbald Grant (Sibbald Land). About 500-700 acres of the Sibbald Land lie west of I-95. About three miles south of the Sibbald Land, Petitioners Hart own 6000-8000 acres that is divided almost equally by I- 95 and is known as the John Lowe Grant (Lowe Land). It is not possible to cross I-95 where it divides the land. The Sibbald Land and Lowe Land have no improved roads or other public facilities. Petitioners Hart acquired all of the land for investment purposes. The Samsula Land is mostly undeveloped and used largely for cattle and possibly timbering. The Sibbald Land is a contiguous block of land that has not been subdivided. Hart Land & Cattle Co. acquired the land in the early 1970's. Timber has been harvested on the smaller section of this land west of I-95. The trees have been harvested for about 50 years. Back in the 1940's, a turpentine business was operated on the land. Petitioners Hart have also mined shell for road bases and red sand for asphalt from the Sibbald Land. Petitioners Hart acquired the Lowe Land in 1980 or 1981. Consisting of numerous noncontiguous lots, the Lowe Land is part of a 14,000-acre subdivision known as Cape Atlantic Estates, which was subdivided into 6000-7000 parcels in the late 1960's. Cattle are kept on the northeast corner of the Lowe Land. The Lowe Land has contained improved pastureland for almost 70 years. The record provides no basis for findings of the extent to which land owned by Petitioners Hart is subject to the ESC, Forestry, and Agricultural designations; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have been denied proposed uses of their land; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have exhausted County administrative remedies, such as requesting field surveys, to obtain available relief from the impact of the NRMA designations; or other matters relevant to the taking claims of Petitioners Hart. However, the evidence fails to establish that Petitioners Hart have been denied all economically reasonable uses of their entire property or any individual parcel. Ultimate Findings of Fact Traffic Circulation Element 1. Data and Analysis The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis accompanying the TCE inadequately addresses existing levels of service and present and future system needs, as well as the need for new and expanded facilities. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis inadequately addresses projected levels of service based on future land uses and the relevant plans of other jurisdictions. The evidence is clear that the West Volusia Beltway is feasible, given the funding priorities assigned to its various projects in the plan. There is substantial evidence to support the transportation data and modeling on which the road networks are based. There is no significant evidence that the projected levels of service for any road segments are inaccurate due to an unjustifiable reliance on the traffic to be borne by the West Volusia Beltway or for any other reason. Petitioner Wenz alleged that TCE Policy 2.2.1.6, which establishes a level of service standard of E for County-maintained roads in urbanized areas, was internally inconsistent with the introductory language of the CIE concerning the use of existing level of service standards as benchmarks for most of the proposed level of service standards set forth in the plan. This allegation has been treated as raising the issue of supporting data and analysis. 12/ For roads, the analysis begins with the existing levels of service and then, as indicating in the introduction, adjusts service levels to correspond to projected revenues. If the use of the word "benchmark" were to imply an unvarying standard, then the sentence would impose upon the planning effort an unrealistic and, in the case of the County's urban containment strategy, unworkable limitation. Operative plan provisions should not be rejected because of lack of support from incompetent analysis. 2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible in terms of scheduled road projects. Roads receive the highest priority for capital spending in the County. Although the optional one cents sales tax required a referendum, the plan adequately identifies other potential sources of revenue to fund needed road improvements. The unavailability of the optional one cent sales tax means the loss of $35.6 million for road projects over the six-year period covered by the Capital Improvement Program. Representing about 29% of the road budget for these six years, the optional one cent sales tax can be replaced by other funds. Total capital spending over this period is projected at $417.8 million, of which $249 million is projected for facilities for which concurrency is required. The evidence does not establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the shortfall of $35.6 million, under these facts, renders the plan financially unfeasible as to roads. As the plan acknowledges, another factor supporting the financial feasibility of the plan as to roads is the concurrency provisions. 13/ The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to create a monitoring system to enable the County to determine whether it is adhering to the adopted level of service standards and whether public facilities are available. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to require development agreements to ensure that required facilities will be in place when the impacts of development occur. During periods of revenue shortfalls, timely concurrency determinations supported by an effective monitoring system and understandable level of service standards may help preserve financial feasibility. A concurrency management system breaks the cycle by which the impacts of development outpace the ability of a local government to finance needed infrastructure. To prevent the accumulation of infrastructure deficits, such as backlogged roads, a concurrency management system limits development whose impacts exceed the available capacity of facilities for which concurrency is required. In the absence of funding from the developer or a third party, a financially strapped local government no longer permits the proposed development and thus does not increase the backlog of needed public facilities. The portion of Petitioner Wenz's challenge to provisions governing development agreements also raises the issue of concurrency determinations, at least in the situation where the developer, rather than the County, is providing the required facilities. As to development agreements, CIE Policies 15.5.1.6 and 15.5.3.2.d provide for the use of enforceable development agreements to provide required facilities. CIE Policies 15.5.1.1 et seq. establish generally applicable concurrency requirements that adequately correspond, for the purpose of resolving the present claims, to the concurrency criteria in Rule 9J-5.0055. The concurrency determinations for developments impacting backlogged and constrained roads reflect a strategy of adjusting level of service standards, subject to clear standards and specific time limits, to provide time to eliminate deficiencies that have accumulated over the years. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that this strategy, when used in development agreements, precludes effective concurrency determinations or, when considered in light of the financial feasibility of road projects, renders the plan financially unsound. 3. Consistency with Regional Plan The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the Regional Plan. Most importantly, the plan's level of service standards are consistent with those contained in Regional Plan Policy 64.1, and the plan's sources of revenue are consistent with the principle of equitable cost participation in Regional Plan Policy 64.8. To the extent that the remaining Regional Plan provisions cited by Petitioner Wenz contain criteria against which the plan may be measured, no evidence suggests the existence of any inconsistencies. Capital Improvements Element The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible. Future Land Use Element 1. Data and Analysis 120. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the data and analysis fail to include a land use suitability analysis or that they fail to support, such as through the absence of accurate population projections, the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture. To the contrary, the land use suitability analysis is thorough, and the omission of these NRMA designations or equivalent conservation designations would itself have been unsupported by the data and analysis. 2. Maps and Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture, or any other designations contained on the future land use maps, are inconsistent with the operative provisions of the plan. Again, to the contrary, these NRMA designations graphically depict the text of relevant goals, objectives, and policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the petitions of all Petitioners. ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1991.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
