The Issue Whether an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by ordinance number 92-029 has rendered the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, St. Lucie County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenors, Brian Charboneau and Kathy Charboneau, are the owners of a parcel of real property located in the County, which is the subject of the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The parties stipulated that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Okeechobee County, on the north by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County. Geographically, the County consists of approximately 600 square miles, or approximately 384,000 acres. Approximately 513 square miles, or approximately 328,320 acres, of the County are unincorporated and subject to land use planning by the County. The significant man-made features of the County include Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Highway 70 and the Fort Pierce International Airport. The airport is operated by the County. There are two incorporated areas within the County: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The majority of urban development within the County is located within these municipalities and consists mainly of detached, single-family residential dwellings and multifamily units. The estimated permanent population projected in the Plan for the County in 1990 was approximately 151,700. Including seasonal population, the estimated population for the County for 1990 was approximately 182,400. The majority of the County's land area is used for citrus production. The majority of the agricultural land use in the County is located within the County's unincorporated area, to the west of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, which both run generally north and south through the County. As a result of recent cold weather in areas of Florida north of the County, citrus production in the County has increased in recent years by approximately 35,500 acres between 1978 and 1992. Major natural divisions of the County are the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (including barrier islands), the Eastern Valley and the Osceola Plain. Adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. On January 9, 1990, the County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Plan applies to, and governs growth within, the unincorporated area of the County. The Plan excludes areas within the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. (Unless otherwise specified, any further reference to the County constitutes a reference to only the unincorporated areas of the County subject to the Plan.) The Plan was based, in part, on an earlier comprehensive plan adopted by the County in 1975 pursuant to the former Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan were adopted by the County by ordinance. Data and analysis submitted by the County to the Department with the Plan was not adopted by the County by ordinance. The Department reviewed the Plan and on March 21, 1990, filed a Statement of Intent to find the Plan not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A notice of the Department's determination was published in a local newspaper. The Department determined that the Plan was not "in compliance", in part, because of a conclusion that the Plan allocated twice as much land area to residential land use categories as data concerning the expected population of the County for the year 2015 justified. The Department, therefore, concluded that the Plan was not based on data and analysis, and did not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County and the Department entered into settlement negotiations which resulted in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in October of 1990 disposing of the Department's objections to the Plan. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department agreed that it would find the Plan "in compliance" if the County adopted certain remedial amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The terms of the agreement were subsequently carried out. See DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments were adopted in part due to the Department's concern about the the proliferation of urban sprawl. This concern was addressed through the remedial amendments by adding certain development controls and requiring clustering of residential development on lands classified agricultural. The remedial amendments also included Policy 1.1.2.4 and Policy 1.1.2.5. Policy 1.1.2.4 is quoted, infra, in finding of fact 123. Policy 1.1.2.5 provides: Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-agricultural uses to protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with enforcement of nonagricultural development or creation of nuisances by agricultural operations. DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments also include Objective 1.1.5 and related policies governing development within the Urban Service Area. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflect a long-term planning period of twenty-five years, ending with the year 2015. In the Introduction of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan (DCA exhibit 1 and St. Lucie County exhibit 1), there is a general description of the Future Land Use Element: The Future Land Use Element has been divided into a series of sections which analyze the existing patterns of development within the community, portray future patterns of develop- ment and recognize unique or special areas within the community that should be considered in future land use determinations. Integral to the success of the Comprehensive Plan are the Goals, Objectives, and Policies which will be used to direct the location and intensity of development for the variety of uses necessary for a healthy and diversified community. Page 1-1, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes the following "major development philosophy": Over the years, the County has been requested to approve development proposals that would permit the encroachment of urban uses in areas previously used for agricultural purposes. Many of these areas are outside of what may be considered the communities existing urban form or pattern. As discussed later in this element, the cost of providing the necessary community services to these development sites is becoming an increasing community concern. . . . Page 1-6, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan goes on to recognize the importance of citrus production: The major use of land within the unincorporated areas of the County is agriculture. Well over 60 percent of the County is presently used for the production of citrus, cash crops or ranching activities. These agricultural activities account for St. Lucie County being ranked among the top citrus producers in the State of Florida, contributing substantially to the local and regional economy. Page 1-11, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Sixteen general categories of future land use are identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan: Agriculture: 5 and 2.5. Residential: Estate, Suburban, Urban, Medium, High. Residential/Conservation. Conservation-Public. Commercial. Industrial. Public Facilities. Transportation/Utilities. Historic. Mixed Use. Special District. The density of development for the residential categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per acre for Estate, 2 units per acre for Suburban, 5 units per acre for Urban, 9 units per acre for Medium and 15 units per acre for High. The density for residential use of the agriculture categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per 2.5 acres for Agriculture-2.5 and 1 unit per 5 acres for Agriculture-5. Population estimates contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan are based upon estimates of population of the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The Plan indicates that the County has determined that the University's "high" projections appear to reflect more accurate population projections for the County. The projections concerning population contained in the Future Land Use Element and in this Recommended Order are based upon those "high" projections. Based upon the Plan's data and analysis projections, it is estimated that the permanent population of the entire County was 135,715 in 1988 and 318,650 in 2015. With the seasonal population added, based largely on agriculture related increases in population, the population was estimated at 154,141 in 1988 and 382,380 in 2015. Thus, the estimated increase in the population for the entire County from 1988 to 2015 is 182,935 permanent residents and 219,522 permanent and seasonal residents. In the County alone, the permanent population is estimated to be 54,226 in 1988. For the year 2015, the estimated permanent population is 93,045. With the seasonal population added, the population for 1988 is estimated at 65,119 and 111,654 for the year 2015. Therefore, the estimated total increase in population for the year 2015 is 38,779 permanent residents and 46,535 permanent and seasonal residents. For the year 1988, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes an estimate that the existing acreage being used for residential purposes was 16,900 acres. The Plan's Housing Element includes an estimate of only 12,369 acres of residential land use in 1988. To determine projected residential land use needs for the year 2015, the Future Land Use Element provides the following: For the purpose of determining the future land use needs in the community, a ratio has been established which is based upon current (1988) development conditions. This ratio was determined by dividing the seasonal population of the County in 1988 by the estimated amount of land consumed by broad land use category type. . . . Page 1-22, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Actually, the ratio was determined by dividing the permanent population of the County in 1988, and not the seasonal population, by the estimated amount of land being used for residential purposes. The ratio of population in 1988 to residential acreage use in 1988 results in an estimate of the historical, minimum amount of residential acreage used in the County per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is concluded in the Plan that 312 acres (16,900 acres in residential use in 1988 divided by 54,226 permanent residents in 1988), or .312 acres per person have been used historically for residential purposes. Based upon the estimate of land in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element of the Plan, the ratio is .228 (12,369 acres in 1988/54,226 1988 population). Applying the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 to the projected seasonal population in the year 2015 of 111,654, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan estimates that the total residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will be 34,836 acres: 111,654 x .312 = 34,836. The estimated total residential acreage needed in the year 2015 based upon the estimated residential acreage in 1988 contained in the Plan's Housing Element is 25,457 acres: 111,654 x .228 = 25,457. If the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 is applied to the projected increase in permanent population by the year 2015 of 38,779, the additional residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will only be 12,099 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 28,999 acres of residential land for permanent residents by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 12,099 projected need). Using the Plan's Housing Element ratio of .228 and the projected increase in permanent population results in a conclusion that there will be a need for an additional 8,841 acres of residential land. Based upon the projected population growth in permanent and seasonal residents for the year 2015 (46,535 increase in seasonal population) and applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people (.312), the projected additional acreage needed for residential use by the year 2015 is 14,518 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 31,418 acres of residential land for the seasonal population by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). Applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people to determine projected additional residential acreage need and using the projection of acreage in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element, there is a need for only 26,887 total acres of residential land (12,369 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). In the Plan, the County applied the historical residential ratio of .312, which is based upon 1988 permanent population, to the total projected 2015 permanent and seasonal population of 111,535 and concluded that there is a need for a total of 34,836 acres for residential use in 2015. This amounts to a total of 17,936 additional acres (34,836 - 16,900). Based upon the calculations contained in findings of fact 33 through 37, the Plan's projection of additional residential acreage is incorrectly high. Whether the Plan's higher estimate of need is used does not, however, appreciably affect the following determinations. Therefore, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the Plan's incorrect estimate of additional residential acreage needed will be used. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflects the County's conclusion that there are approximately 70,989 acres of land in the County available for residential use, not including potential residential development of land designated for agricultural use of one dwelling per 2.5 acres or per 5 acres, and excluding land involved in three amendments to the Plan, including the subject amendment. The 70,989 acres includes acreage already in residential use in 1988 (16,900 acres) and vacant acreage available for residential use through the year 2015. It is estimated in the Plan that there are 2.34 people per dwelling unit in the County. The remedial amendments to the Plan the County agreed to adopt did not remove any of the 70,989 acres of land allocated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use, modify densities, or modify the agricultural classifications of the Future Land Use Map. The Plan designates a portion of the County as an Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The Urban Service Area is generally described, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . This area represents the preferred regions for development at urban intensities. The area indicated is the most likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided by either a municipal utility or a privately operated regional enterprise. The intent of the urban service area designation is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability of the community to meet its service needs. The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather, it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of this plan [to 2015]. . . . . Page 1-40, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The western boundary of the Urban Service Area runs generally north and south along the western boundary of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. Future Land Use Objective 1.1.4 and Policies 1.1.4.1 through 1.1.5.9 deal with the Urban Service Area. Objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Objective provides: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development shall be directed to areas where the provision of urban and community services/facilities can be ensured. Page 1-59, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. In pertinent part, the Policies related to Objective 1.1.4 provide the following: Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, through the development of density bonus and incentive programs in the Land Development Regulations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary before encouraging/supporting the conversion of property in the agricultural and suburban areas to higher intensity urban uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the adopted levels of service within this plan. Policy 1.1.4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the ser- vices and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.4.3 Encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the incorporation of the following into the County's Land Development Regulations: The establishment of minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments; The establishment of minimum open space ratios of 30 percent or greater in all planned unit developments including within the PUD documents assurances on the part of the developer that such areas will remain as open space to protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities. The establishment of minimum open space standards; The establishment of provisions ensuring the long term preservation of remaining open spaces; The establishment of a mixed use district combining residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other income producing uses providing significant functional and physical integration among uses; The establishment of minimum standards for the provision of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip capture; and, The establishment of specific requirements to provide efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in planned unit developments. Policy 1.1.4.4 Provide for the calculation of gross residential density on lands that lie above the mean high water elevation. Provide for the ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous property. Pages, 1-59 through 1-62, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Plan indicates that the Urban Service Area is likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided. There is no firm commitment in the Plan, however, to provide central water and sewer services for development within the Urban Service Area. Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Plan provides that urban development activities are restricted to the Urban Service Area. The Policy also provides that "urban development activities" include "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre . . ." for purposes of the Policy. The densities of Policy 1.1.5.1 for residential development are more dense than what is generally considered as an "urban density". The land located outside of the Urban Service Area is classified almost exclusively as Agriculture-2.5 or Agriculture-5. There are a few areas which abut the Urban Service Area boundary line which are classified for residential use, including a few small parcels which were in existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The Plan does not indicate the current or future existence of urban development within the Urban Service Area. A wide range of development densities and intensities are provided for in the Plan for the Urban Service Area. With regard to development in the Urban Service Area, the Plan provides, in part, the following: It is the position of St. Lucie County that in order to permit the mechanics of the free market system to operate openly, there must be a choice in where to locate future development. Offering the possibility of various development areas, when located within the defined urban service area, is not supportive of a pattern of urban sprawl. Page 1-24, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Amendments to the Plan. Since the determination that the Plan was "in compliance", the Plan has been amended three times, including the subject amendment. One amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 2.1 acres of land from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlong Amendment"). Another amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 9.57 acres of land from Residential Urban to Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Hayes Amendment"). Finally, the subject amendment amends the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 164 acres of land owned by the Intervenors from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Amendment"). The Charboneau Amendment. On September 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance No. 92-029 approving the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, as adopted by the County, is effective only if it is ultimately determined that the amendment is "in compliance". After review of the Charboneau Amendment, the Department determined that it was not "in compliance". This determination was reflected in a notice which the Department caused to be published and in the Department's Statement of Intent of November 11, 1992. The Charboneau Amendment modifies the future land use classification of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate. Agriculture-2.5 allows residential use of the property of no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. Residential Estate would allow residential development of the property of one unit per acre. The Charboneau Property and the Surrounding Area. The subject parcel consists of approximately 164 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Property"). The Charboneau Property is generally rectangular shaped with several parcels of land in the southern portion of the parcel which are not included in the Charboneau Amendment. Those "out parcels" retain their future land use designation of Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. The Charboneau Property represents approximately five one-hundredths of one percent of the 328,230 acres of unincorporated land in the County. The northeastern portion of the Charboneau Property consists of cleared land used for grazing a small number of cattle. The remainder of the property is not being actively used for agriculture or other purposes and is covered by pine flatwood and palmettos. The Charboneau Property is located in approximately the geographic center of the County. It is outside, but on the fringe, of the major development areas of the County. The Charboneau Property is bounded generally on the east by Gentile Road, a two-lane dirt road running north from State Road 70. State Road 70, also known as Okeechobee Boulevard, is located to the south of the Charboneau Property. State Road 70 is a major east-west arterial road. It connects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 area, which are located within the Urban Service Area to the east of the Charboneau Property, with Fort Pierce. Access to the Charboneau Property is off Gentile Road. The Charboneau Property is located to the west and outside of the Urban Service Area designated by the Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Charboneau Amendment, the parcel of property generally contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property was also located outside the Urban Service Area. The boundary of the Urban Service Area had been located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel and the Charboneau Property are separated by Gentile Road. In conjunction with the adoption and transmittal to the Department of the Charboneau Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners of the County initiated, directed and ratified a relocation of the Urban Service Area boundary approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This placed the Urban Service Area boundary at Gentile Road. This modification in the Urban Service Area was consistent with the Plan, which allows a modification of the boundary of the Urban Service Area of up to 1,500 feet without plan amendment. As a consequence of the modification of the Urban Service Area, most of the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property is contiguous to, but still outside, the Urban Service Area. On the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a canal. The canal is approximately thirty feet wide, although the width of the water in the canal is less. The canal is approximately six feet deep. To the north and northeast of the canal are citrus groves in active agricultural production. The property (hereinafter referred to as the "Coca- Cola Property"), is owned by Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Property is classified as Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan. Except for certain small pockets of property which border on the Charboneau Property which are described, infra, the property to the north, northwest and west of the Charboneau Property are used predominantly for citrus. Most of this property consists of large tracts of corporate-owned land. To the north of the Coca-Cola Property are also large tracts of property owned by government agencies. To the northeast of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the University of Florida which is used for citrus research. To the northwest of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the United States Department of Agriculture. The County also operates a livestock farm in the area. To the northwest of the Charboneau Property and to the west of the portion of the Coca-Cola Property abutting the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property known as Fort Pierce Gardens. Fort Pierce Gardens is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The future land use classification of Fort Pierce Gardens is Agriculture- 2.5. The lots in Fort Pierce Gardens range in size from one acre to five acres. There are a few houses already constructed and a few more houses under construction in Fort Pierce Gardens. Development of Fort Pierce Gardens is less than half complete. Adjacent to the western boundary of the Charboneau Property is a tract known as Pine Hollow Subdivision. Pine Hollow Subdivision is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. It is approximately the same size as the Charboneau Property. The future land use classification of the parcel is Agriculture-2.5. Pine Hollow Subdivision consists of 110 platted lots that are being developed in phases. The first phase consists of thirty lots which are still under development. A County maintained road has been constructed in phase one. Development of the other phases has not begun. The remaining portion of the tract has three rough-cut dirt roads. The subdivision is less complete than Fort Pierce Gardens. Lots in Pine Hollow Subdivision are slightly larger than one acre. Homes in the subdivision will use wells and septic tanks. To the west of Pine Hollow Subdivision and Fort Pierce Gardens is a large area of land used for citrus. These lands are designated Agriculture-2.5 and Agriculture-5. To the south and southwest of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property with an airstrip which has been used by crop-dusting airplanes. The airstrip is oriented in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The airstrip and the parcel of land to the south of the Charboneau Property and north of State Road 70 is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the future land use map. The airstrip is not currently being used for crop-dusting aircraft. Improvements have recently been made to the airstrip, however, which evidence an intent to use the airstrip in the future for crop dusting activities. Hearsay evidence corroborates this finding. The land to the south of the Charboneau Property and south of State Road 70 is in use for citrus production. The parcel between the Charboneau Property and State Road 70 is named Walsh Farms. The property to the south and southeast of State Road 70, while currently used for citrus production, is designated Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map, allowing development of two dwelling units per acre. This property is, however, located inside the Urban Service Area. To the east of Gentile Road is a parcel of property approximately the same size, north to south, and about half the size, east to west, as the Charboneau Property. This parcel has been developed as what was characterized as rural ranchette. There are approximately eighteen large lots of four to five acres up to ten to twenty acres. The lots in the parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Ranchette Property"), have single-family homes constructed on them and the lots also have some citrus and horses. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the Ranchette Property was being used for commercial agricultural purposes. The parcel is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the Future Land Use Map. One parcel of approximately 2.5 acres located within the Ranchette Property was the subject of the Furlong Amendment. To the immediate east of the Ranchette Property, bounded on the south by State Road 70 and on the east, in part, by the Florida Turnpike, is an area designated as Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map. The area, which lies within the Urban Service Area, is largely undeveloped at this time except for a development known as Hidden Pines. Hidden Pines is a vested subdivision. Hidden Pines consists of lots of approximately one acre. The homes on these lots are served by wells and septic tanks. The subdivision is nearly completely built-out. Approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Charboneau Property is the center of an area immediately to the north of where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 cross. From this point, the Florida Turnpike travels to the northwest, and closest to the Charboneau Property, from the crossing with Interstate 95. Interstate 95 travels to the northeast, and furthermost from the Charboneau Property, from the crossing. Immediately to the north of the crossing State Road 70 intersects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 in a generally east-west direction. The western boundary of this area is approximately two-thirds of a mile from the southeast corner of the Charboneau Property. There is an interchange of the Florida Turnpike immediately to the north of the crossing and just to the south of State Road 70. There is also an interchange of Interstate 95 to the north of the crossing at State Road 70. State Road 70 becomes a six-lane arterial road to the east of the Florida Turnpike. There are no level of service deficiencies on this portion of State Road 70. The area within and immediately outside the area north of the crossing, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike, is designated as the Okeechobee Road/I-95 Mixed Use Activity Area. The area may be used for varied, compatible commercial uses and residential use up to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Activity Area is currently being developed. There are hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants and an outlet mall already in existence in the area. Another outlet mall is being constructed. Reynolds Industrial Park, consisting of approximately 200 acres, is being developed. To the northeast of the Charboneau Property and the Coca-Cola Property to the east of Gentile Road is an area designated Residential Estate. This area is within the Urban Service Area and currently is undeveloped. Part of the property is used for citrus production. In summary, the area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property, is designated for agricultural uses except for Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision. Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision are isolated islands of development within an area actively used for agriculture purposes. Insufficient Data and Analysis to Justify an Increase in Residential Acreage by the Designation of the Charboneau Property As Residential Estate. In the Department's Statement of Intent, it was concluded that the Charboneau Amendment is not "in compliance" based upon the lack of data and analysis to support the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture- 2.5 to Residential Estate with a designated density of one dwelling per acre. Currently, the Agriculture-2.5 classification of the Plan allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, or a total of approximately 65 residential units on the Charboneau Property. The Plan, however, requires that any non-agricultural development of over twenty units within an Agriculture-2.5 classification must maintain open space of at least 80 percent of the project site in order to retain some viable agricultural use of the property. Residential Estate does not require clustering of units or open space. A total of approximately 163 residential units, one per acre with no open space, or a maximum of an additional 98 residential units can be constructed on the Charboneau Property if the Charboneau Amendment is approved. When the Charboneau Amendment was submitted to the Department for review, the County failed to provide any data or analysis in support of a potential increase in residential units of 98 units or the change in classification of the appropriate use of the Charboneau Property from agricultural to residential. For example, no analysis of the number of acres in the County which are available for development at one unit per acre was performed by the County. The data and analysis of the Plan and, in particular, the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, allocate a total of 54,089 acres for new residential development in the County through the year 2015 to accommodate the need for residential property for projected increases in population (70,989 total acres available - 16,900 acres in use in 1988). If the acreage used for residential purposes in 1988 evidenced by the Housing Element is used, the Plan allocates a total of 58,620 acres for new residential development (70,989 total acres available - 12,369 acres in use in 1988). Based upon the Plan, there is a need for only 17,936 additional acres of residential property to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. See finding of fact 38. With 54,089 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 17,936 additional acres, there are 3.01 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. If the Housing Element historical ratio of use is used, there are only 13,088 acres of residential property needed to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. With 58,620 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 13,088 additional acres, there are 4.47 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. Applying the historical ratio of residential use to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 12,099 acres for residential use by the year 2015. Finding of fact 35. This projection represents 4.47 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (54,089 projected acres/12,099 projected need). Applying the historical ratio of residential use based upon the Housing Element of the Plan to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 8,841 acres for residential uses by the year 2015. Finding of Fact 35. This projection represents 6.63 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (58,620 projected acres/8,841 projected need). Although approved by the Department, the evidence in this case proved that the Plan contains a designation of sufficient land in the County through the year 2015 to more than adequately meet the reasonably anticipated need for residential property. In fact, the Plan over-allocates land well in excess of any reasonable expectation of the amount of property needed to meet such needs. Even based upon the Plan's projections, the County has allocated more than 3 times the land needed to meet the County's own projections for the need for residential land for the year 2015. While the existing provisions of the Plan are not subject to review, when asked to consider an amendment providing for an increase in residential property, the existence of excessive residential property should not be ignored. In this case, to ignore the realities of the excessive allocation of land for residential purposes in the County contained in the Plan and approve the classification of additional property as residential, would simply exacerbate an already existing excessive allocation. The conclusion that there is excessive land available for residential purposes already contained in the Plan is supported by the population per unit in the County of 2.34. If it is assumed that the 54,089 acres of land available for residential development in the County are developed at a low density of one unit per acre, there will be adequate residential land available for an additional 126,568 people: 54,089 acres, or 54,089 units, x 2.34 people per unit = 126,568 people. Based upon a projected permanent and seasonal population increase by the year 2015 of 46,535 people, there is available for residential use 2.71 times the acreage available to meet future residential needs. In light of the fact that residential property may be developed at much higher densities pursuant to the Plan, assuming development of one unit per acre is conservative, and the number of people that may be accommodated is much higher than 126,568 people. Although not reflected in the Plan, there has been a removal of some property classified as residential property from residential use since the adoption of the Plan. The County has acquired 94 single-family homes on 100 acres designated for Residential Estate use. The 100 acres are located to the east of the Ft. Pierce International Airport and were acquired for noise abatement purposes. The homes on the property have been demolished. An additional 90 homes on land classified Residential Urban will also be acquired and demolished. The State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, has also acquired property known as the Avalon tract. The property is located on Hutchinson Island, in the northeast corner of the County. This property had been designated Residential Urban and could have contained approximately 450 units. Even with the removal of the property near the airport and the Avalon tract from the residential property inventory, the Plan contains an excessive allocation of property for residential needs through the year 2015. Based upon the foregoing, data and analysis has not been submitted by the County to justify an increase in residential property or property which may be developed at an increased density. There is already an over-allocation of property for residential land use and, even with the reductions of property near the airport and the Avalon tract, the addition of the Charboneau Property will only result in a Plan with greater over-allocation of land for residential purposes or increased densities. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The ill effects of urban sprawl include inequitable distribution of the costs of development and of providing services, inefficient use of land, unnecessary destruction of natural resources, loss of agricultural lands and increased commuting costs and the resulting pollution. In November 1989, the Department published a Technical Memorandum which describes the Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl". The Department's policy has been further refined and is reflected in proposed amendments to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, proposed Rule 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with, and represent, the Department's policy concerning urban sprawl. The Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl", as set out in the proposed rules and as contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, is consistent with the definition of "urban sprawl" most commonly employed by professional planners. The Department's proposed rules concerning urban sprawl do not have the effect of law. They have not yet been finally adopted. The proposed rules have not been relied upon, however, by the Department or the undersigned as "law" in this case. The proposed rules concerning urban sprawl have only been relied on as an expression of the Department's policy. The Department's policy concerning urban sprawl, as evidenced in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, and as modified by the Department's proposed rules, is reasonable. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum is: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" as evidenced by the proposed rules is as follows: (140) "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in rural areas or areas of interspersed rural and generally low- intensity urban uses, and which are characterized by: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which are not functionally related to adjacent land uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities and the use of areas within which public services are being provided. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patters: (1) leapfrog or scattered development; (2) ribbon or strip commercial or other development; and (3) large expanses of predominantly low intensity and single-use development. Page 21, DCA exhibit 18. There are several indicators as to when a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The indicators, which are memorialized in the Department's proposed amendment to Rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), Florida Administrative Code, are whether a plan amendment: Promotes or allows substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity or single use developments in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes or allows significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are suitable for development but can be expected to remain undeveloped for the balance of the planing period. Promotes or allows urban development to occur in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments but which are bordered on either side by rural land uses, typically following highways or surface water shorelines such as rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Fails to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, endangered or threatened species habitat or habitat of species of special concern, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails to protect agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture. This includes active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant unique and prime farm- lands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Increases disproportionately the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm- water management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation bet- ween rural and urban uses. Fails to promote and support infill development and the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Pages 38-40, DCA exhibit 18 Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the County and the Department which led to the determination that the Plan was in compliance, objectives and polices were added by the County to the Plan to insure that the Plan discouraged the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan, by directing that development primarily take place within the Urban Service Area, evidences an intent on the part of the County to discourage urban sprawl. See page 1-40 of St. Lucie County exhibit 1 and finding of fact 43. Applying the indicators of urban sprawl to the Charboneau Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Charboneau Amendment does not discourage urban sprawl: The Charboneau Amendment allows the development of 164 acres of land as a low-density, single-use development of one dwelling unit per acre despite the lack of need for any additional residential development in the County. It allows urban development in rural areas at a significant distance from existing urban areas while leapfrogging over less dense and undeveloped land within the Urban Service Area more suitable for such development. It allows urban development in an area that is primarily used for agricultural purposes and, consequently, fails to protect agricultural areas. It fails to maximize the use of existing or future public facilities and services by allowing urban development outside of the Urban Service Area. At some time in the future, the residents of the Charboneau Property can reasonably be expected to expect public facilities and services. It will increase disproportionately the costs in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services because the Charboneau Property is located outside the Urban Service Area. It fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. It fails to promote and support infill development and redevelopment. The Charboneau Amendment does not, by itself, create urban sprawl. No development of the Charboneau Property will occur simply because the Charboneau Amendment is found to be "in compliance" until development orders are issued by the County. These facts do not, however, support the suggestion that the Plan will not fail to discourage urban sprawl as a result of the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, even though contrary to Objective 1.1.2 and the Policies thereunder which discourage urban sprawl, if found in compliance, will cause the Plan to contain provisions which not only fail to discourage urban sprawl. It will cause the Plan to include provisions which encourage urban sprawl. Inconsistency with Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan. Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that comprehensive plan elements be consistent with each other and that future conditions maps reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the plan elements. The Department has alleged, and proved, that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and, therefore, creates an inconsistency within the Future Land Use element. Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan provides the following: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan provides the following: The County shall include in its land development regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non- agricultural land uses in a rational and orderly manner. such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: is compatible with adjacent land uses; maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie County soil survey; is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; is consistent with comprehensive develop- ment plans; will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Policy 1.1.2.4 was added to the Plan as part of the settlement entered into between the Department and the County during the review of the Plan. Based upon data contained in the Plan, there were approximately 211,428 acres out of a total of 330,402.7 acres in the County in 1988 devoted to agricultural use. This amounts to approximately 63.9 percent agricultural use. The area outside the Urban Service Area is: . . . recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. . . . Based upon the entire area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property and the property surrounding the Charboneau Property, the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate would create an incompatible use of the Charboneau property. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of the general impact of the conversion of agriculture lands to non-agriculture lands throughout the State of Florida. Of the State's 10.9 million acres of land, approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of farm land are lost to other uses yearly. Contributing to this problem is the fact that, as one parcel is converted to non-agricultural uses, the adjacent property values increase and farmers become discouraged. This impact contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land. To reduce the impact on adjacent agricultural lands caused by the conversion of agricultural land, a clear demarcation between rural and urban land uses should be designated. The Urban Service Area of the Plan serves this purpose in the County Although the evidence failed to prove that agricultural lands adjacent to the Charboneau Property will no longer be used for agricultural purposes upon the conversion of the Charboneau Property or that such a phenomenon has occurred in the County in the past, concern over such impacts are evidenced and recognized by Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. of the Plan. The Charboneau Amendment ignores these concerns. It is, therefore, concluded that the Charboneau Amendment will detract from the continued viability of property outside the Urban Service Area for agricultural uses. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires that a development "maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands." The Charboneau Amendment, even if the domino impact of the conversion of other acreage from agricultural uses may not occur, does not maintain such viability. The Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 because it allows the conversion of agricultural property in an agricultural area (with two parcels of existing, inconsistent uses), outside the Urban Service Area and at a density that is considered an urban density: The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses does not maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. The Charboneau Property contains soils that are approximately equally suited for agricultural purposes or residential purposes. Wells and septic tanks are used on subdivisions in the area and similar soils exist in areas being used for the cultivation of citrus. The Charboneau Amendment is consistent with other portions of Policy 1.1.2.4. While Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan specifically only require that the County adopt land development regulations to govern the conversion of agricultural lands, the Objective and Policy also contain substantive provisions which must be contained in those regulations. Therefore, even though the Charboneau Amendment may not specifically impact the County's compliance with the requirement that it "adopt land development regulations," the substance of the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Objective and the Policy of the Plan and would create an inconsistency in the Plan if found to be "in compliance." Inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Goal 16 of the State Comprehensive Plan and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 16 are as follows: (16) LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. . . . . Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. Converting the Charboneau Property to a non-agricultural classification outside the Urban Service Area is inconsistent with Policy 1 of Goal 16. The existence of the inconsistent uses of Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow, which were allowed because of their existence before the effective date of the Plan, does not justify further exceptions in the area outside the Urban Service Area designated for rural land uses. The existence of a nonconforming use does not justify further nonconforming uses. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. In its Statement of Intent, the Department has alleged that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Regional Plan Policy 16.1.2.2. Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan provides, in part, the following: Land use within the Region shall be consistent with State, regional, and local Future Land Use Maps. . . . Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan goes on to provide for a Regional Future Land Use Map and defines the land use categories to be included in the regional map. Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan provides the following policy statement concerning Goal 16.1.2: Future land use maps of government comprehen- sive plans shall be based upon surveys, and data regarding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population, the character of undeveloped land, the availability of public services, the ability of government to provide adequate levels of service, and the need for redevelopment. The provisions of Policy 16.1.2.2 are also contained in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. As found in more detail, supra, the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 16.1.2.2 because of a lack of data necessary to support an increase in residential land or increased density in the County and because it fails to promote redevelopment by infill or revitalization within the Urban Service Area.
The Issue The general issue for determination in this case is whether Amendment 00-D1 to Sumter County’s comprehensive plan (the “Plan Amendment”) is "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Sections 163.3161 through 163.3217, Florida Statutes. (All statutory references are to the 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) The initial Petition to Request Administrative Hearing (Petition) alleged numerous reasons why the Plan Amendment should be found not "in compliance." But from the time of the initial Petition--through the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, opening statement at final hearing, and Proposed Recommended Order (PRO)--Petitioners reduced the number of reasons why they contend that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" to the following: simultaneous conversion of Future Land Use (FLU) from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with parts of the County's Plan's; alleged lack of demonstrated need for land use allocations contrary to Section 163.3177 and Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 (all rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code); conversion of FLU from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with the Plan's Policy 4.6.1.1 (the so-called "90% rule"); and alleged failure to discourage urban sprawl contrary to Rule 9J-5.0006(6). These are the only compliance issues that still have to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, Intervenor contends that Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID) does not have standing.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor, the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc., owns land in the northeast part of Sumter County on which Intervenor plans to construct a mixed-use development of regional impact (DRI) known as the Villages of Sumter. The proposed DRI will encompass approximately 4,679 acres and is anticipated to contain: 11,097 residential dwelling units; 1,250,000 square feet of commercial area; 250,000 square feet of office area; 157,000 square feet of institutional area; 120,000 square feet of hotel (300 rooms); 100,000 square feet convention center; 23,500 square feet of movie theater (8 screens); 512 acres of golf courses (126 holes); 8 marina slips; 602 acres of wildlife management and Kestrel foraging areas; 162 acres of lakes, 162 acres of roads, 31 acres of parks and buffers; and 227 acres of stormwater and open space. The proposed DRI will feature neighborhood and town centers and will extensively utilize clustering, open spaces, and buffering as part of its design. It is anticipated that the Villages of Sumter DRI will have an internal vehicle capture rate of over 60%--i.e., over 60% of vehicle trips starting in the DRI will not go outside the DRI. The DRI will provide water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. Eighty percent of the residents in the Villages of Sumter DRI will have to be occupied by persons 55 of age or older, and no one under 19 will be permitted to reside within this DRI. When Intervenor filed its Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the Villages of Sumter DRI, Intervenor also requested the subject Plan Amendment to accommodate the DRI, including a change in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and FLUM from Agricultural use to UEA and PUD. The ADA itself served as a major part of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. (Another major part of the data and analysis was the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) prepared by the County in 1995.) The western part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel (i.e., the Villages of Sumter DRI) will be the western part of the southern boundary of a related DRI developed by Intervenor known as the Tri-County Villages. From there, the Tri-County Villages DRI extends north to the southern border of Marion County and east to the western border of Lake County. (Towards the east, the northern boundary of the DRI drops just a little south of the southern border of Marion County.) Tri- County Villages is a large mixed-use DRI. It includes residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. Prior to the Tri-County Villages DRI, Intervenor or its predecessor also developed other related mixed-use DRIs to the east in Lake County. SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 to oppose the Tri- County Villages DRI and 1994 comprehensive plan amendments adopted to accommodate the Tri-County Villages DRI. SCAID, T. Daniel Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd filed a petition initiating Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, T. D. Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd vs. Department of Community Affairs and Sumter County, DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM, to oppose DCA's determination that the County's 1994 amendments were "in compliance." SCAID, Farnsworth, and Weir are collaterally estopped to deny facts established in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM (SCAID I). (Latham and Roop are not estopped.) See Conclusions of Law 63-64, infra. In any event, all Petitioners agreed to official recognition of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM. Among the facts established by adoption of the Recommended Order by the Final Order in SCAID I was the history of the earlier DRIs, the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the comprehensive plan amendments required by the Tri-County Villages DRI: [¶4] [I]ntervenor [Villages] is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. [¶5] In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. [¶6] In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. [¶7] In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. [¶8] On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. [¶9] The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. [¶10] The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. [¶11] Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. SCAID I, 17 F.A.L.R. 4527, 4531-32 (Dept. Community Affairs Aug. 1995). (The Recommended Order may also be found on WESTLAW at 1995 WL 1052949.) At its inception, the Tri-County Villages DRI was projected to build-out in approximately 2015. When the Tri- County Villages DRI first began construction in late 1992, the developer pulled 24 building permits. In 1993, the County issued 406 residential building permits, 365 of which were pulled for the Tri-County Villages DRI. In 1997, the developer pulled 1,052 building permits for the Tri-County Villages DRI. To date, approximately 13,000 homes have been built in the Tri- County Villages DRI. Based upon present projections, the Tri- County Villages DRI is anticipated to be substantially built-out in 2003-04, 12 years ahead of its initially projected build-out date of 2015. Presently, there are numerous cultural and recreational activities, shopping options, medical and governmental services available to residents within the Tri-County Villages DRI. While still designated as a UEA and PUD on the County's FLUM, the Tri-County Villages DRI in fact is a self-contained urban area, especially in the context of Sumter County. Sumter County is mostly rural. According to the 1995 EAR, the County's permanent (non-seasonal) population was projected to be: 38,961 for 1998; 56,000 for 2005; and 64,200 for 2010. The unincorporated portion of the County contains 334,903 acres, approximately 99,436 acres of which are state- owned conservation lands, and approximately 202,000 acres of which are agricultural lands. There are five municipalities in the County--Wildwood, Bushnell (also the County seat), Center Hill, Coleman and Webster. None are as urbanized as the Tri- County Villages DRI. Simultaneous Conversion Objective 7.1.2 of the County's comprehensive plan provides in pertinent part: Upon adoption of this plan, Sumter County shall . . . provide for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area boundary and insures retention of agricultural activities, preserves natural resources and discourages urban sprawl. In pertinent part, the County Plan's Policy 7.1.1.2(e) provides that the County's land development regulations governing PUDs should be based on and consistent with the following standards for densities and intensities: Within the Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 8 residential units per gross acre in residential areas and 6 units per gross acre in commercial areas are allowed. . . . . Outside of an Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 4 residential units per gross acre in residential, commercial and agricultural areas are allowed. Policy 7.1.5.1 allows PUDs "in the following land use districts and at the following densities/intensities of use": 8 dwellings per gross acre in "Residential Areas Inside UEA"; 6 dwellings per gross acre in "Commercial Areas Inside UEA"; and 4 dwellings per gross acre in "Res./Comm. Uses Outside UEA." Petitioners contend that the foregoing objective and policies somehow combine to preclude the simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD; they appear to contend that these policies necessitated an intermediate conversion to UEA. (Protection of agricultural lands was raised in a more general sense, but this precise issue was not raised prior to final hearing.) But Petitioners argument not only is not persuasive, it is not even easily understood. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even without prior notice of this precise issue, one of the County's expert witnesses in land planning persuasively testified that the cited objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even Petitioners' expert land planner ultimately agreed that there is nothing in the Florida Statutes or Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 to prevent conversion of agricultural uses to more urban uses. Demonstrated Need As reflected in previous Findings of Fact, the subject Plan Amendment is for a highly mixed-use PUD. Of the many mixed uses involved, Petitioners focus on the allocation of land for residential use in their challenge to the demonstration of need for the Plan Amendment. In this context, demonstrated need refers to the existence of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the need for additional allocation of residential dwelling units on the FLUM. Petitioners assert that the methodology utilized by the County to project need is flawed. Determination of the need for a certain allocation of residential densities starts with a projection of population on the planning horizon (2020). In doing so, all available data and analysis must be considered. (Petitioners also assert that Policy 7.1.2.5(b)1. of the County's comprehensive plan requires such an analysis "utilizing professionally accepted methods," but that policy speaks to additional densities and allocations of land use for developments proposed in agricultural areas, while the Plan Amendment in this case converts the agricultural land to UEA and PUD.) For the purpose of analyzing whether there is a demonstrated need for this Plan Amendment, the County's planner, Roberta Rogers, relied upon need projections made in conjunction with the preparation of the County's EAR. The EAR, prepared in 1999, included a projection of the County's population for the 2020 planning horizon. The EAR projected that the permanent population of unincorporated Sumter County, by the year 2020, will be 79,475. (The total County permanent population is projected to be 94,205.) One of the purposes of an EAR is to provide data and analysis for comprehensive plan amendments. In preparing the population projections reflected in the EAR, Rogers began her analysis by referring to the projections for Sumter County formulated by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR"), as reported in 1996. The 1996 BEBR Report actually reflected projections made in 1995. BEBR publishes yearly reports that state both the estimated current and the projected future populations for each Florida county. The population projections reflected in BEBR Reports are based upon historical trends of 10-15 years' duration. Because the development in the Tri-County Villages DRI is a relatively recent phenomenon, Rogers believed that reliance upon the BEBR projections alone would have resulted in a significant under-projection of the County's future population. As a consequence, Rogers added an annual rate of growth of 1000 building permits per year through 2005 and 500 permits per year through the remaining portion of the planning period for the Tri-County Villages and the Villages of Sumter. Her approach was a conservative approach, since the actual number of building permits issued for the Tri-County Villages DRI in the past two years has significantly exceeded 1000 per year. Rogers conferred with BEBR, prior to completing her analysis, and was assured that her approach was appropriate. Such an adjustment for the Villages is particularly appropriate since the Villages cater to a very specific segment of the population, i.e., persons 55 and above. Over the twenty- year planning horizon relevant to the Plan Amendment, the population of persons in Florida aged 55 and above will increase dramatically as the "baby boomer" population ages. The demand for residential housing for these senior citizens will show a similar dramatic increase. Henry Iler, the Petitioners' land planning expert, took the contrary position, opining that no additional growth factor should be added to the 1996 BEBR projections. However, Dr. Henry Fishkind, an expert in demography who was involved in the original development of the BEBR population projection methodologies, directly contradicted Iler's opinion, concluding instead that Ms. Rogers' methodology was appropriate. As Dr. Fishkind stated that [Sumter] county has experienced a dramatic structural change to its population growth and development because of the Villages, and that has altered the characteristics of its population growth. In light of that, the use of past trends, which is what the bureau [BEBR] does, is simply extrapolate past trends, would not be appropriate, for it would not have taken into account that major structural change. Ms. Rogers identified the structural change, she measured its amount, and then she added on to the bureau's projections, which were extrapolations of the past trends. That's a very appropriate adjustment, and it's the kind of adjustment that econometricians and economists make on a regular basis. DCA's analysis concurred that the high absorption rates in the Tri-County Villages DRI had to be taken into account. To have ignored the explosion of growth in the Tri- County Villages DRI, particularly in view of the generally accepted expectation that the population to be served by the Tri-County Villages and by the Villages of Sumter will experience tremendous growth, would have resulted in an inaccurate population forecast. Even Iler had to concede that he was aware of building permit data being used to project population figures. It is simply not his preferred methodology to use such information. Thus, Rogers' projection of the County's total population for the year 2020 appropriately incorporated all available and relevant data and was formulated using an accepted methodology. While not part of their PRO, Petitioners previously attacked the County's population projections by questioning the continued success of the Villages to attract out-of-state retirees. Primarily through Weir's testimony, they attempted to raise the specter of a reduction of sales and Intervenor's subsequent financial ruin. But there was no credible evidence to support Petitioners' prophecy of doom. On the evidence presented in this case, it would be more rational from a planning standpoint to expect the Villages to continue to be a marketing and financial success. Having reasonably projected future population, it was then incumbent upon the County to determine how many dwelling units would be needed to accommodate anticipated housing needs. This determination was made by Gail Easley, an independent planner retained by the County to assist Rogers in preparation of the EAR. Easley performed this calculation for the County. Easley used 2.46 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the County, a figure taken from the BEBR reports (not from 1990 census information, as Iler incorrectly surmised.) There was no evidence that a number other than 2.46 was appropriate. It would not be appropriate for the number of dwelling units needed in the future to be calculated simply by the division of the anticipated population by the average household size. Rather, it is appropriate to apply a "market factor" (or multiplier) in order to ensure that there is a choice of types of housing and to accommodate lands that are not actually useable for residential construction. Even Petitioner's expert, Henry Iler, agreed that the use of a market factor was appropriate in order to ensure sufficient housing supply and to avoid an increase in housing prices. Easley furnished Rogers with the market factor for the EAR. The market factor chosen by Easley was 1.5, a factor she viewed as conservative and as appropriate for a jurisdiction that is beginning to urbanize. In more rural counties, a higher market factor, such as 2.0, should be used. While Iler implied that a lower marker factor would be more suitable, the record clearly established that the market factor used by Easley fell within the range of reasonable choices. (In SCAID I, the ALJ expressly found, in paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order, that the 1.87 market factor used by the County on that occasion was reasonable and actually low compared to factors used for other comprehensive plans that had been found to be "in compliance." As reflected by this Finding of Fact, facts and circumstances bearing on the choice of a market factor for Sumter County have not changed significantly to date. Cf. Conclusion of Law 64, infra.) Applying the 1.5 market factor to the projected population and average household size, the County determined that 62,274 dwelling units will have to be accommodated during the twenty-year planning horizon. (This includes 48,461 units in permanent housing, 9,113 in seasonal housing, and 4,700 in transient housing.) The County then allocated those dwelling units in various land use categories. Much of Petitioners' PRO on this point was devoted to criticizing parts of the evidence in support of the demonstration of need. They state the obvious that Easley did not perform a demonstration of needs analysis for the Plan Amendment in the EAR, but that was not the purpose of the EAR; nonetheless, the EAR contained valuable data and analysis for use in the demonstration of need analysis for the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also questioned DCA's reliance on the DRI ADA in conducting its demonstration of need analysis, based on the timing of the ADA and Plan Amendment submissions and decisions; but it is not clear what it was about the timing that supposedly detracted from DCA's demonstration of need analysis, and nothing about the timing made it inappropriate for DCA to rely on the data and analysis in the ADA. Petitioners criticized Rogers' reference to up-to-date building permit information that was not offered in evidence; but this information only further supported Rogers' demonstration of need analysis. Petitioners asserted that one of Intervenor's witnesses may have overstated residential sales in the Tri- County Villages DRI (1,750 sales a year versus evidence of 1,431 building permits for 1999); but the witness's statement was not used in any of the demonstration of need analyses. Finally, Petitioners attacked one of Intervenor's witnesses for an alleged "conflict of interest, a lack of professional integrity and an indication of bias"; but the basis for this allegation supposedly was evidence that the witness worked for the County while also working for Intervenor or its predecessor for a few years in the late 1980's, not enough to seriously undermine the credibility of the witness's testimony in this case (which in any event had little or nothing to do with the demonstration of need analyses.) It is at least fairly debatable that the County's demonstration of need was based on relevant and appropriate data, and professionally acceptable methodologies and analyses. Likewise, it at least fairly debatable that the County's projections regarding housing needs, the growth in the retirement population, and the absorption rates achieved in the existing Tri-County Villages DRI adequately support the allocation of 11,000 dwelling units permitted by the Plan Amendment. So-called "90% Rule" The County's Plan Policy 4.6.1.1 provides: The County shall maintain approximately 90% of its land area in land uses such as agricultural (including timberland, mining and vacant), conservation, and open (recreation, open space etc.) land uses for this planning period. (Emphasis added.) This policy is found in the Utilities Element of the County's comprehensive plan under a goal to protect and maintain the functions of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas in the County and under an objective to protect the quantity of aquifer recharge. Although couched as an approximation, the policy has been referred to as the "90% rule." Based on the evidence presented in this case, it is at least fairly debatable that the subject Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.6.1.1. The primary debate had to do with the proper treatment of certain "open space" provided in the Tri-County Villages DRI and the Villages of Sumter DRI-- 1,032 acres in the former and 2,135 acres in the latter. This "open space" consists of golf courses, preserves, wetlands, parks/buffers, and some stormwater/open spaces. Petitioners' expert refused to count any of this acreage for purposes of the so-called "90% rule" because, while the FLUE and FLUM have Agricultural, Conservation, and Recreation land use categories, there is no category designated "Open Space." (Meanwhile, there is an entire element of the plan entitled "Recreation and Open Space.") The witnesses for the County and DCA counted those 3,167 acres. They reasoned persuasively that the policy's express mention of "open space" (as opposed to a specific land use category designated "Open Space") supports their position. They also argued persuasively for the logic of including "open space," which serves the objective of the policy to "protect quantity aquifer recharge quantity," even if there is no specific land use category designated "Open Space." Counting the 3,167 acres of "open space" in the two DRIs, the percentage calculated under Policy 4.6.1.1 exceeds 90% for existing land uses. Omitting that land, as well as another 500 acres that should have been counted, Petitioners' expert calculated 88.96%. Petitioners' expert also calculated a lower percentage (85.34%) by using land uses he projected for the end of the planning period. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that it was not clear that Policy 4.6.1.1 should be interpreted in that manner. If so interpreted, it would be possible for all plan amendments reducing agricultural, conservation, and open FLUs to be prohibited even if existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" for another 20 years. It is at least fairly debatable whether such a result is logical, or whether it is more logical to wait until existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" before prohibiting further FLUE and FLUM amendments. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. They attempted to prove seven urban sprawl indicators. But their evidence was far from sufficient to establish any beyond fair debate. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity, low density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. To the contrary, while gross residential density may be relatively low (2.4-2.6 units per gross acre), the Plan Amendment PUD provides for highly mixed-use development, not single-use development, and densities in residential areas within the PUD are significantly higher (up to 5.6 units per acre), especially for Sumter County. Petitioners also did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development, or that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. To the contrary, the evidence was that part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel coincides with the western part of the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the Villages of Sumter PUD will be an extension of the Tri-County Villages DRI, which already has all the characteristics of an existing urban area. The reason why the eastern part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel does not coincide with the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI is the existence of land in between which is already in use and not available to become part of the Plan Amendment PUD. Development will not be in a radial or ribbon pattern like (usually) commercial development along main roadways; nor will development be isolated. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Obviously, conversion of agricultural land eliminates such land from agricultural use. But the Plan Amendment protects adjacent agricultural land by phasing development starting from existing urban areas in the Tri-County Villages DRI by mixing in open and recreational uses throughout the Villages of Sumter PUD and by providing some additional buffer between the periphery of the PUD and adjacent agricultural lands. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. Indeed, Petitioners' land use planning expert admitted at the hearing that he "didn’t have the time or expertise, really, to try to evaluate this particular question." To the contrary, the evidence was that the Plan Amendment PUD will include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. In addition, impact to schools will be minimal or non-existent due to the character of the PUD as a retirement community. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. To the contrary, the evidence was that clustering, open spaces and buffering in the Villages of Sumter PUD will provide a clear enough separation between rural and urban uses. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment discourages or inhibits in-fill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Specifically, Petitioners argued that in-fill in the City of Wildwood will be discouraged. But the evidence was to the contrary. Not only would development of the kind envisioned in the Plan Amendment PUD be unlikely to occur in Wildwood, sufficient land is not available for such a development there. Actually, the Plan Amendment might encourage in-fill in Wildwood, where service providers for the Villages of Sumter might be expected to reside. SCAID SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 by a small group of Sumter County citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of Sumter County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. SCAID has about 80 members, who are not required to pay dues. The majority of SCAID's members live in Sumter County, including all of the individual Petitioners in this case. SCAID is not incorporated but has by-laws drafted in 1995 or 1996. The by-laws provide for election of officers for one-year terms, but SCAID has not had an election of officers since 1994. Petitioner, T. Daniel Farnsworth, is and always has been SCAID's president. The evidence was that, when former SCAID member James Boyd resigned, Petitioner Linda Latham was appointed to replace him as secretary. SCAID has held just two meetings since its inception. Approximately 15-20 persons attended each meeting. Most communication with members is by regular and internet mail. Financial contributions are solicited from time to time for litigation efforts initiated by SCAID. Farnsworth, on behalf of SCAID, submitted comments on the Plan Amendment to the County between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. Farnsworth and Weir also testified on behalf of Petitioners at final hearing. The other individual Petitioners did not.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, under Section 163.3184(9)(b), the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order that Sumter County's Amendment 00-D1 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Jane M. Gordon, Esquire Jonas & LaSorte Mellon United National Bank Tower Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2204 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburg, Florida 34749-0327 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Council Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Findings Of Fact NOTICE In compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, notice of the hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 2, 1992. A news release containing notice of the hearing was given to the media on September 21, 1992, and October 21, 1992. A copy of the public notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executives of the local authority responsible for zoning and land use planning in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the public notice was posted at the site in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, notice was published on September 25, 1992, in the Miami Review, a newspaper of general circulation in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. LAND USE AND ZONING CONPLIANCE The proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility, as set forth in its Site Certification Application, will be within the confines of the certified site of the existing resource recovery facility. Hence, that existing site carries a presumption that its current use is consistent with land use considerations. The site of the proposed expansion is consistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Dade Master Plan) pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1985. More particularly, the site has a land use designation of "Institutional and Public Facility" on the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Dade Master Plan. The "Institutional and Public Facility" designation permits the construction and operation of a resource recovery facility. Also, the proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with: Objective 5 and Policies 5-A and 5-B as set forth in the interpretive text to the Land Use Element of the Dade Master Plan; Objective 3 and Policies 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F of the Conservation Element of the Dade Master Plan; and Policies 1-K and 4-B of the Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Elements of the Dade Master Plan. The existing site is presently within the GU interim district. Resolution R-569-75, which granted county approval for the existing site, satisfies the need to show compliance with the zoning ordinance. The proposed expansion of the Dade County Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with the zoning code found in Chapter 33 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County as well as Resolution R-569-75.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order determining that the site of the proposed Dade County expansion of its resource recovery facility is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMNENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4672EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicant, Dade County Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1); 5(2); 6(4); and 7(5). Proposed finding of fact 1 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross McVoy, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 215 South Monroe, Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1859 Stanley B. Price, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 100 Southeast 2nd Street Suite 3600 Miami, Florida 33131-2130 Representing the Applicant Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Gail Fels Assistant County Attorney Metro Dade Center, Suite 2800 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Representing Dade County Lucky T. Osho Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Toni M. Leidy Attorney at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Representing SFWMD Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson IV Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 630 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director Sam Goren, Attorney at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Representing South Florida Regional Planning Council David M. DeMaio Attorney at Law One Costa del Sol Boulevard Miami, Florida 33178 Representing West Dade Federation of Homeowner Associations Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Jim Smith Governor Secretary of State State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Honorable Tom Gallagher Attorney General Treasurer and Insurance State of Florida Commissioner The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Honorable Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Miami's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 12550 on June 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On December 31, 2003, Intervenor submitted an application to the City for an amendment to the FLUM which would change the land use designation on a 7.91-acre tract of property from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial. The property is located at 1818 and 1844 Northwest North River Drive, Miami, and is situated on the north side of the Miami River. It is bordered by Northwest North River Drive to the north, the Miami River to the south, and a recently renovated condominium development known as Serenity to the east. At one time (the specific date is unknown), the property was used as a boat repair facility and commercial marina. The property is currently unused. The application was submitted concurrently with an application for a zoning change in connection with Intervenor's intent to develop a mixed use project on the property. The applications were reviewed by the City's Planning and Zoning Department (Planning Department). The Planning Department recommended that the applications be approved. In doing so, it determined that the land use change furthers the objectives of the Plan, and that the land use pattern in the neighborhood should be changed. On April 7, 2004, the City Planning Advisory Board voted 4-3 in favor of recommending approval of the application. However, that vote constituted a denial due to the failure to obtain five favorable votes. Both the FLUM and zoning applications were initially presented for first reading to the City Commission (Commission) on April 22, 2004. At that meeting, the Commission voted to approve both applications. The applications were again presented to the Commission on June 24, 2004. At that time, Balbino's application for a major use special permit was also presented to the Commission. After consideration, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 12550, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation on the property, as requested by Intervenor. (It also granted the rezoning request and approved the issuance of a major use special permit.) The Ordinance was signed by the City's Mayor on July 7, 2004. Because the amendment is a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it was not reviewed by the Department. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. On August 5, 2004, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the FLUM amendment generally alleging that the amendment involved a use of more than ten acres and therefore was not a small scale development amendment, that the amendment was internally inconsistent with other provisions in the City's Plan, and that the amendment was not supported by adequate data and analysis. After an intervening appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which involved the timeliness of their Petition, on March 1, 2006, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition which added additional grounds for finding the amendment not in compliance. On August 17, 2006, Intervenor, who is the contract owner of the property, petitioned to intervene in this proceeding. That request was granted on August 18, 2004. The Parties Durham Park is a non-profit corporation comprised of approximately ninety homeowners who reside within the Durham Park area. It lies on the south side of the Miami River across from Balbino's property. According to its president, Horacio Aguirre, every homeowner is automatically a member of the association but no dues are assessed. A list of members is not maintained. At the hearing, Mr. Aguirre acknowledged that the association is not engaged in any business and does not own any property. Although its corporate purpose is not of record, the association occasionally meets to discuss issues that "impact the neighborhood," including the amendment being challenged here. No minutes of meetings are kept. Once, in September 2003, the association published a newsletter. Mr. Aguirre appeared before the City Commission on behalf of Durham Park and offered comments in opposition to the plan amendment. Ann Stetser resides in a ten-story condominium at 1700 Northwest North River Drive, which is on the north side of the River and just east of the subject property. The Serenity condominium development lies between her condominium and Intervenor's property. Ms. Stetser offered oral or written comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment. Therefore, she is an affected person and has standing to bring this challenge. Mr. Payne resides in the City of Davie in Broward County but owns and operates a tug boat company known as Towing and Transportation, which is located in the Lower River portion of the Miami River. Mr. Payne submitted timely comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment and thus is an affected person with standing to bring this action. Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is a private, non- profit trade association comprised of approximately fifty-five members, each of which is a private business. Its mission "is to protect the working river." The executive director of the association, Fran Bohnsack, appeared before the City Commission on behalf of the association and offered comments in opposition to the proposed amendment. The parties agree that Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is an affected person and has standing to participate. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It initially adopted the Plan in 1989. The Plan has been amended from time to time. Balbino is the contract purchaser of the subject property. Balbino submitted comments concerning the amendment to the City at its meeting on June 24, 2004, and is an affected person with standing to participate in this proceeding. Relevant Provisions of the Plan The section of the Plan entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various land use categories in the Plan. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 13-16. It describes the Industrial land use category as follows: Industrial: The areas designated as "Industrial" allow manufacturing, assembly and storage activities. The "Industrial" designation generally includes activities that would otherwise generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact unless properly controlled. Stockyards, rendering works, smelting and refining plants and similar activities are excluded. Residential uses are not permitted in the "Industrial" designation, except for rescue missions, and live-aboards in commercial marinas. The section also describes the "General Commercial" land use classification as follows: General Commercial: Areas designated as "General Commercial" allow all activities included in the "Office" and the "Restricted Commercial" designations, as well as wholesaling and distribution activities that generally serve the needs of other businesses; generally require on and off loading facilities; and benefit from close proximity to industrial areas. These commercial activities include retailing of second hand items, automotive repair services, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots and garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, warehousing, distribution and transport related services, light manufacturing and assembly and other activities whose scale of operation and land use impacts are similar to those uses described above. Multifamily residential structures of a density equal to R-3 or higher, but not to exceed a maximum of 150 units per acre, are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents. This category also allows commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels for transients. Finally, the section describes the "Restricted Commercial" land use category as follows: Restricted Commercial: Areas designated as "Restricted Commercial" allow residential uses (except rescue missions) to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions; any activity included in the "Office" designation as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, and often located along arterial or collector roadways, which include: general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar in nature to those uses described above, places of worship, primary and secondary schools. This category also includes commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels as permissible. The Plan is based on a pyramid structure. See Joint Exhibit 2, Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map, page 13, paragraph 4. That is, each land use classification permits all land uses within previously listed categories, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Plan. Therefore, with the exception of residential uses, all uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial designation are permitted under the Industrial classification. The Restricted Commercial category is a logical designation for the property because of its proximity to residential neighborhoods. Those residential properties would clearly be more detrimentally affected by industrial activities that may generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact, which are now authorized under the Industrial designation. The Miami River The Miami River runs northwest to southeast for more than five miles from the Miami International Airport to Biscayne Bay (the mouth of the River). For planning purposes, it includes three sections: the Upper River, the Middle River, and the Lower River. Although the demarcations of those sections are in dispute, the best evidence of the appropriate demarcations of the three sections is found in the Miami River Master Plan (Master Plan), which was adopted by the City in 1992. See Joint Exhibit 1. The Master Plan clearly depicts the geographic scope of the Mid-River (or Middle River) as extending west to Northwest 27th Avenue and the Up River (or Upper River) as being that portion of the Miami River lying west of Northwest 27th Avenue. Based on these demarcations, the Lower River would run from the mouth of the Miami River to the 5th Street Bridge, the Middle River from the 5th Street Bridge to Northwest 27th Avenue, and the Upper River from Northwest 27th Avenue westward. It is undisputed that Intervenor's property is located on the Middle River. The parties agree that Restricted Commercial is a reasonable land use designation for the Middle River. Petitioners' expert witness also agreed that the Middle River "is supposed to be a mix of residential." In its discussion of the Middle River, the Master Plan provides: The Mid-River area contains most of the existing housing located along the Miami River. The wide variety of dwelling types, ranging from single family homes to high- rise apartment/condominium buildings, are mostly occupied by middle-income households. This is an important segment of the population for the City to retain in order to support the local economy and tax base. A number of opportunities remain for development of new housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the density of existing developed lots. New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water dependent uses. In the proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district (See page 1.14) residential development could be permitted as an accessory use to a marina. The property is located within the referenced proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district. According to the Master Plan, the strategy for the Middle River is to "[b]ring the neighborhoods back to the river." The Master Plan further provides that "[d]iverse residential neighborhoods interspersed with commercial districts make the Mid-River unusual. The strategy is to develop centers of activities at strategic locations that will become gateways to the river and give identity to the neighborhoods." In contrast, the Master Plan describes the Up-River as "a working river." It also notes that "[m]arine industries in the Up-River area create a busy, economically vital district that is important to preserve. The challenge is to protect these industries from displacement by non-water-dependent uses and to nurture growth in marine industries without negatively impacting nearby residential neighborhoods." In describing the Upper River, the Master Plan provides: The character of the river changes dramatically west of NW 27th Avenue bridge. In fact, it is not really the river there; it is the man-made Miami Canal (and the Tamiami Canal branching off to the west). In contrast to the gently curving paths and irregular edges of the natural river, the canal banks are rigidly straight and significantly closer together at 90 feet. The most striking difference in the up-river area is the change in land use. The Miami Canal is almost entirely industrial in character, with commercial shipping being the predominant use. Most of the larger cargo vessels on the Miami River are loaded and unloaded in this area, resulting in an incredibly busy, narrow river channel. Due to the industrial nature of the up-river corridor, many of the urban design recommendations made for the mid-river and downtown areas are not applicable. The emphasis in this area should be to promote growth in shipping and related industries and to provide adequate roadways for the vehicles and trucks associated with these businesses. Allapattah The property is located in a community development target area known as Allapattah. Community development target areas are neighborhoods to which the City directs community block grants for revitalization. In need of revitalization, Allapattah has deteriorated over time and is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the City. Allapattah has been designated as a neighborhood development zone, a designation used in connection with community development programs. Also within the Allapattah neighborhood, and less than one mile from the subject property, is an area known as the Civic Center. The Civic Center includes Jackson Hospital, Cedars Hospital, the Justice Building, the County Jail, and government offices. More than 25,000 persons work in the Civic Center area. The area continues to expand. Urban Infill Area It is undisputed that the property is located within an urban infill area. Among the purposes of an urban infill designation are the promotion of the efficient use of infrastructure, including transportation and the prevention of urban sprawl. The Civic Center area is a major transportation hub and includes a metro rail station that is located approximately a five-minute drive from the property. The property is also served by several bus routes. As to urban sprawl, the amendment will fulfill a need for housing for persons who work in the Civic Center area. By doing so, the amendment is also expected to promote job creation. The Size of the Parcel Petitioners first contend that the parcel actually comprises 10.41 acres and therefore exceeds the threshold size (ten acres or fewer) for small scale development amendments. Petitioners point out that the approved companion rezoning and special permit encompasses 10.41 acres, while the application for the FLUM amendment is for 7.91 acres. Petitioners argue that the total area encompassed by the rezoning and special permit applications is the correct number to use in determining the actual size of the parcel. The application for the FLUM amendment included a site drawing on which the surveyor certified that the "NET TOTAL LOT AREA" of the property is 7.91 acres. This acreage includes upland and submerged lands and comprises all of the land under Intervenor's ownership and/or control. (Slightly more than one- half of the 7.91 acres is upland property, while the remainder is submerged land in the Miami River where Balbino will construct a marina.) The site drawing also includes areas adjacent to the property (from the boundaries of the property to the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way and the centerline of the Miami River) and the surveyor's calculation of the sizes of those areas. The sum of the acreage of those areas and of the property is referred to as the "gross total lot area." To determine the size of the property for a future land use map amendment, for at least the last twenty-two years the City has employed the "net lot area" concept. Under that concept, defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant may only seek a future land use map amendment with respect to property under its ownership or control, and the only property on which a land use classification is changed as a result of such an application is that which is within the ownership or control of the applicant. Approval of an application for a future land use map amendment does not result in a change in land use classification for lands not within the ownership or control of an applicant, such as a public right-of-way. Petitioners seek to contravene the City's longstanding use of net lot area in determining the size of property subject to a future land use map amendment by contending that it is the gross lot area that should be considered in determining the size of the property subject to the FLUM amendment. By doing so, however, they are improperly attempting to apply a zoning concept to the City's Plan process. More specifically, the concept of "gross total lot area" is relevant only for use in a mathematical calculation of "floor area ratio." Floor area ratio is a mathematical calculation pursuant to which the City determines the square footage of buildings that may be built on a particular piece of property. The City's Zoning Ordinance permits a property owner to include portions of the acreage of adjacent rights-of-way, bays, parks, or other open spaces in the floor area calculation. The floor area calculation will not be affected by the FLUM amendment. The City's net lot area approach is the correct methodology to be used in determining the size of the parcel. Therefore, the map amendment involves or uses only 7.91 acres and was properly considered by the City as a small scale development amendment. Consistency of the Amendment with the Plan At the hearing, Petitioners failed to present any evidence bearing on the consistency (or lack thereof) of the amendment with the following Plan objectives and policies: LU- 1.2.3, LU-1.3.1, HO-1.1, HO-1.2, SS-1.4, SS-2.1, SS-2.2, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, SS-2.1, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, PR-1.1, PR-1.4, CM-1.1, CM-2.1, CM-4.2, NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-3.2, and CI-1.3. Accordingly, Petitioners' challenge to the amendment based upon alleged inconsistencies with these objectives and policies must fail. Remaining for consideration are allegations that the amendment is inconsistent with Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.3.6, and Objectives LU-1.2, LU-1.3, LU-1.6, SS-2.2, PW-1.2, TR-1.1, PA- 3.3, CM-3.1, CM-4.1, NR-1.3, NR-2.1, and CI-1.4. Goal LU-1 in the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that a goal of the Plan shall be to: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts; and (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources. The property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. By eliminating the potential for development on the property of industrial uses that may generate "excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact," the amendment will enhance the quality of life in those surrounding neighborhoods. The Allapatah neighborhood, in which the property is located, is a declining area. The amendment is therefore consistent with subpart (2) of Goal LU-1, which is concerned with the redevelopment and revitalization of declining areas. Petitioners have also alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (3) of the Goal because it will negatively impact marine industrial uses along the Miami River. However, no persuasive evidence to support this contention was offered. Subpart (4) is not relevant to this case because it pertains to the downtown area and the property is not located in that part of the City. As to subpart (5), Petitioners offered no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the concept of the promotion of the efficient use of land. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the amendment will minimize land use conflicts by placing a land use classification on the property that is consistent with adjacent residential areas. Petitioners failed to offer any evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (6), which pertains to the protection and conservation of natural and coastal resources. FLUE Objective LU-1.2 provides that one of the objectives of the Plan is to: Promote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas. Because the property is in the Allapatah neighborhood, which is a declining residential area, the amendment will promote redevelopment and revitalization of that area and is therefore consistent with the Objective. FLUE Objective LU-1.3 provides as follows: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). The concurrency analysis performed by the City shows that approval of the amendment will not result in a failure of existing public facilities to meet or exceed applicable LOS minimum standards. At the same time, the new Restricted Commercial land use category permits the types of land uses that Objective LU- 1.3 seeks to encourage, namely, commercial and office uses. FLUE Policy LU-1.3.6 provides: The City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles. Particular emphasis is on, but not limited to, Southeast Overtown/Park West, Latin quarter, Little Haiti, Little River Industrial District, River Corridor, the Garment District and the Omni area. In considering the amendment, the City gave particular significance to the fact that the Restricted Commercial designation would allow greater flexibility in the development of the property. Such greater flexibility is consistent with the promotion of a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities. The mix of uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will promote urban infill and serve to prevent urban sprawl. As such, the amendment is consistent with Policy LU-1.3.6. FLUE Objective LU-1.6 provides as follows: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the City to ensure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This Objective (and its underlying policies) is not relevant because it pertains specifically to land development regulations. Even so, there was no evidence to show that the amendment is inconsistent with the Objective. Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.2 and Natural Resource Conservation Objective R-2.1 are identical and provide as follows: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the City. Petitioners presented no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with either Objective. Rather, they asserted that in evaluating the amendment application, the City failed to do an independent analysis to address the availability of potable water. (The City relied on information provided by Metro-Dade County.) The City's concurrency analysis revealed that potable water supplies will be available to the City even after the amendment becomes effective. Petitioners also failed to provide any evidence that the potable water usage under the Restricted Commercial classification would exceed that which may occur under the Industrial land use classification. Further, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence that there is a potable water deficiency in the City, or that the amendment would cause one. Finally, there was no evidence that the reliance on information provided by other local governments was unreasonable. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 provides as follows: All arterial and collector roadways under County and State jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency. All other City streets will operate at levels of service that are consistent with an urban center possessing an extensive urban public transit system and characterized by compact development and moderate-to-high residential densities and land use densities, and within a transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA). The City will monitor the levels of service of all arterial and collector roadways to continue to develop and enhance transportation strategies that promote transit and minimize the impacts of the TCEA. Petitioners contend that the concurrency analysis performed by the City assumed that an unreasonably high percentage of persons accessing the property would use a form of transportation other than an automobile. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that he had no expertise in traffic analysis, and that the City's analysis was performed by persons who did. Because the challenge is based on criticism that is not supported by credible expert testimony, the assertion must necessarily fail. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-3.1 provides as follows: Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(137) defines "water-dependent uses" as "activities which can be carried out only on, in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for water-borne transportation including ports or marinas; recreation; electrical generating facilities; or water supply." Witness Payne, who is a tug boat captain, stated that the United States Coast Guard requires vessels over five hundred gross tons to "leave the port, seek shelter" in the event of a hurricane and that Intervenor's property is a destination for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane. Because the land use on the property is Industrial, there is no requirement that a marina or any other water-related facility be located on the property as an available site for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane, even in the absence of the amendment. In addition, the Restricted Commercial land use category permits commercial marinas; therefore, the amendment in no way prevents the property from serving as a destination for boats over five hundred gross tons seeking shelter. Finally, because the property can already be developed in such a manner that it would be used by large numbers of persons (e.g., offices and malls), there is no basis upon which to conclude that the amendment will have any impact on the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property by hurricanes. Natural Resources Element NR-1.3 provides as follows: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora. Although the parties agree that there are manatees in the Miami River, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence identifying locations along the Miami River where such manatees are found, or any evidence that the amendment would have any impact on those manatees. It is fair to conclude that by eliminating the potential for development that might include such uses that involve noise, fumes, smoke, and hazardous wastes, this will enhance the status of native species of flora and fauna. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.4 provides as follows: Ensure that public capital expenditure within the coastal zone does not encourage private development that is subject to significant risk of storm damage. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, this Objective does not provide that the City should discourage development in the coastal zone. For example, there are other areas of substantial development within the coastal zone, such as Brickell Avenue. The amendment does not trigger the expenditure of public funds for capital improvements. This is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of development permitted under the Industrial and Restricted Commercial land use classifications. Due to the intensity of development allowed under either land use classification, there is no basis upon which to conclude any development under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will require any greater infrastructure expenditures than development under the Industrial land use classification. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable that the map amendment is internally consistent with other provisions of the Plan. Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment "is not based on the best available, professional acceptable, existing data," as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005 and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. However, they failed to offer any evidence that the City failed to consider any relevant data in existence at the time the amendment was adopted, or that the City failed to appropriately react to that data. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the City had sufficient data and analysis available at the time the amendment was adopted to justify its approval. For example, the staff considered data provided by Balbino in its application package; data (such as potable water and wastewater transmission capacities) supplied by Metro-Dade County; the Miami River Master Plan; maps; the target area plans for Allapattah; the current Plan, including the extensive data and analysis supporting the Plan found in Volume II; and other related information, including support by citizen groups from the Allapattah area. In response to that data, among other things, the staff performed a concurrency management analysis concerning the availability of public facilities and levels of service (although actual levels of service cannot be determined until the City knows what is going to be built on the site), and it performed a land use study focusing on the area around the subject property and the compatibility of uses in the area with the new land use designation. A summary of the staff's efforts are found in a fact sheet and analysis package which accompanied the amendment. One of Petitioners' primary criticisms on this issue is that the City relied upon Metro-Dade County to provide certain data pertaining to concurrency matters (traffic and potable water). However, Petitioners failed to prove that this data was insufficient to support the adoption of the amendment or that it was unreasonable to rely on that information. Moreover, at least with respect to traffic, small scale amendments are exempt from the requirement that plan amendment applications be accompanied by a traffic concurrency study. Petitioners also contend that the City ignored certain data which shows that the amendment disrupts the existing land use pattern supporting water-dependent uses. As noted above, however, the City performed an extensive land use study to consider, among other things, these very concerns and concluded that the new land use designation is compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the challenged plan amendment is supported by professionally acceptable data and analysis, and that the City reacted to that data and analysis in an appropriate manner. The Port of Miami River Petitioners also argue that the Port of Miami River Sub-Element must be considered in determining whether the amendment is in compliance. This Sub-Element is found within the Plan's Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element. It is an optional element not required under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan defines the Port of Miami River as: Simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent, privately-owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a "port facility" within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of the shipping concerns as the "Port of Miami River" was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pump outs. The private shipping companies identified as comprising the Port of Miami River are listed in Volume II of the Plan. The location of each of those companies is also shown. See Joint Exhibit 3, Section VIII, page 35. An updated list is found in the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. (A few companies are located outside the City's boundaries in unincorporated Dade County.) None are located on 18th Avenue, where the subject property is found. Over the years, the City has consistently interpreted this Sub-Element as applying only to properties that are listed in Volume II of the Plan. Because Intervenor's property is not included within the definition of the Port of Miami River, in reviewing the application, the City adhered to its long-standing interpretation that the Sub-Element was not applicable or relevant to the analysis of the amendment's consistency with the Plan. See Monkus, supra at 33- 34. Under the majority opinion in Payne II, however, the Sub-Element appears to be relevant and is "intended to apply to the 'uses along the banks of the Miami River", and not just to specific companies named in the definition.3 Even so, only Objective PA-3.3 would require consideration.4 That objective reads as follows: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County's Port of Miami. Petitioners failed to present any evidence concerning a lack of coordination activities relative to the FLUM amendment. Coordination does not mean that adjacent local governments or other interested persons have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments. City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 191 at *34, DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Rather, the City needs only take into consideration input from interested persons. Id. at *35. The City established that pursuant to its Resolution No. 00-320, before any resolution, ordinance, or issue affecting the Miami River is considered, the City Manager is required to inform the Miami River Commission (MRC) of that impending matter. The MRC serves as a clearinghouse for all interests of the Miami River, including residential, economic, and industrial interests, as well as the other entities listed in the Objective. See §§ 163.06 et seq., Fla. Stat. The evidence shows that the MRC was notified before the amendment was considered, and that it provided a recommendation to the Commission. At the same time, Petitioners, their expert witness (Mr. Luft), and other interested persons were also given an opportunity to provide input into the process before the amendment was adopted. Therefore, the requirements of the Objective and Sub-Element have been met. Other Issues Finally, in their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Petitioners contend that "[t]he FLUM amendment renders the Port of Miami River Sub-Element (goals, objectives, and policies) vague, ambiguous, permissive, and without measurable and predictable standards." They also assert that the amendment "is an over-allocation of residential land use and is not economically feasible." Because these issues were not specifically raised in the Amended Petition or the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, to the extent they are not otherwise discussed above, they have been waived. Even if the issues had been adequately pled, there is insufficient evidence to support these claims.
Conclusions For Petitioners: Andrew W. J. Dickman, Esquire Law Offices of Andrew Dickman, P.A. Post Office Box 771390 Naples, Florida 34107-1390 For Respondent: Rafael Suarez-Rivas, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33130-1910 For Intervenor: Paul R. Lipton, Esquire Pamela A. DeBooth, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3224 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1838
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 small scale development plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2006, 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 16th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Town of Pomona Park (Town) through enactment of Ordinance No. 01-7 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact The Town's current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Exhibit H) depicts the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel as fronting on the western shore of Lake Broward and being within a primarily residential land use area that encompasses most of the Town's land area lying west of Lake Broward and northeast of Highway 17. The parcels immediately to the north and south of the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel are in Low Density Residential future land use, which allows densities up to two units per acre; the lake is to the east. The eastern five acres of the 13-acre subject parcel, including the lake frontage, were not included in the amendment; only the western eight acres were changed to Agricultural land use, which allows densities up to one unit per five acres (unless occupied only by the owner's family members, in which case densities up to one unit per acre are allowed). The property owner, Town Council member Barry Fouts, had previously requested to have the entire 13-acre parcel changed to Agricultural land use but withdrew that request. Fouts testified that, in requesting the same change for only eight acres of his parcel, he took into consideration that keeping the request under 10 acres would avoid review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Several parcels near the Fouts parcel, including some of the parcels across the street to the west, are designated for Agricultural future land use. However, those parcels across the street to the west of the subject parcel are actually being used for residential rather than agricultural purposes. The nearest parcel that might be considered to be in actual use for agricultural purposes is a horse farm located approximately one quarter mile to the north. However, the present Town Clerk testified in her capacity as Town zoning officer that a horse farm (or an exotic bird breeding operation) is not to be considered an agricultural use because the animals are not being raised for human consumption. Fouts has voluntarily provided some visual buffering along his property line, but there is no requirement in the Plan Amendment that it be maintained in the future, nor would visual screening be particularly effective in protecting nearby Residential properties against noises and odors produced by some common types of agricultural livestock. The Plan Amendment was not initiated by the Town; rather, it was requested by the subject parcel's owner, Barry Fouts, whose request for a change in land use stated that his purpose was to bring his "established agricultural activities, which include horse and bird breeding" into conformity with "Putnam County [sic] zoning recommendations." Fouts gave no other reasons for wanting the change. The former Town Clerk (and zoning officer) testified that there were no restrictions on keeping any type or number of animals in Residential future land use, that Fouts could engage in horse and bird breeding without changing the future land use or zoning, and that there was no need for the land use change. No survey, study, or analysis of the Plan Amendment is reflected anywhere in the Town's files relating to the Plan Amendment, and it is found that there were none. When the Plan Amendment was presented to the Town Council for consideration, all that the former Town Clerk and present Town Clerk presented to the Town Council was a one-page note prepared by the former Town Clerk relating Fouts' desire to continue with his agricultural activities, including horse and bird breeding. At final hearing (with the assistance of leading questions on cross-examination by the Town's attorney), the present Town Clerk and former Town Clerk testified that, notwithstanding the absence of any written survey, study, or analysis, they made a site visit and recalled reviewing the Plan Amendment in relation to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the FLUM, as well as analyzing and considering the need for more agricultural land use within the Town's municipal boundaries and the desirability of keeping residential development and septic tanks away from the lake, in arriving at a recommendation to approve the land use change. Regardless whether any such analyses actually occurred by the time of adoption of the Plan Amendment, they clearly were presented as part of the evidence at final hearing. The analysis presented at final hearing that the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for more land area to be designated for Agricultural future land use was based on an erroneous reading of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town in 1991. The analysis presumed that, under the plan, 1220.3 acres of agricultural land use was "desired" (compared to less that 600 acres in actual agricultural use in 2001). This presumption was based on parenthetical references to 1220.3 acres next to the word "Agricultural" in two places in the plan. But it is clear from a fair reading of the plan that, in designating Agricultural future land use, the plan transferred all 648.6 acres in the "Vacant or Undeveloped" existing land use category to the Agricultural future land use category "for lack of a better land use designation," in addition to the 571.7 acres of existing agricultural land use, for a total of 1220.3 acres. (Other future land use designations mirrored 1991 existing land use.) There was no intention to indicate a need for 1220 acres of agricultural land use in the Town. To the contrary, the plan projected a need for 170 additional housing units through 2001 and stated that "[m]ost of the Town's . . . agricultural and vacant/undeveloped land is suitable for development." Consistent with that, the evidence showed that in the vicinity of the subject parcel most if not all of the parcels designated for Agricultural land use are actually being used for residential purposes and not for agriculture. If anything, it would seem that in 1991 the Comprehensive Plan anticipated a need to designate more acreage for Residential future land use and less for Agricultural. Even if the Comprehensive Plan reflected a perceived need for 1220 acres of actual agricultural use, 1220 acres already is designated for Agricultural future land use, and no reason was given for designating additional acreage for the category. Finally, this part of the Town's analysis makes no sense in light of the undisputed testimony of the Town Clerk, as zoning officer, that "agricultural use" consists of the raising of plants or animals for human consumption. The evidence was clear that the horses, cows, and exotic birds on the Fouts property are not for human consumption. It was not clear from the evidence what the 15-20 chickens on the Fouts property are used for. The analysis that the Plan Amendment was to protect Lake Broward from septic tanks associated with residential land use also is shallow and faulty. While it is true that allowable development densities are lower in the Agricultural future land use category, the five acres of the Fouts parcel that were nearest the lake were not included in the amendment but remained in Residential future land use. Second, the present Town Clerk testified that there never have been any negative effects on the lake from septic tanks, which are regulated, whereas she had no way of knowing whether the unregulated effects of agricultural runoff might be worse than any effects from septic tanks. Objective A.1.1 provides that the Town "shall coordinate future land uses with . . . adjacent land uses, . . . through implementing the following policies . . ..". In this case, the immediately adjacent land uses are designated on the FLUM as Residential, and most if not all of the nearby parcels that are designated Agricultural are actually being used for residential purposes. But Petitioner did not allege that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with any of the policies listed under Objective A.1.1, and the evidence did not prove any such inconsistencies. Policy A.1.3.2 requires that the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code shall require buffering and separation between land uses of different densities or intensities of use sufficient to ensure compatibility between uses and also requires the elimination of non-conforming land uses. In this case, the Plan Amendment did not provide for separation or buffering between the newly designated Agricultural future land use and the directly adjoining Residential properties, but neither did it have any effect on the Policy requiring the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code to require such buffering and separation. Policy A.1.9.3.C.1 provides in pertinent part: "Residential land use is intended to be used primarily for housing and shall be protected from intrusion by land uses that are incompatible with residential density." The Plan Amendment intrudes a small area of Agricultural future land use into an area that is primarily designated for Residential land use and that is in actuality almost exclusively used for residential purposes. The sounds and smells associated with at least some types of agricultural activity, such as the pasturing and raising of livestock and poultry, are capable of adversely affecting nearby residents and are incompatible with residential land use. Policy A.1.9.3.C.4 provides in pertinent part: "Agricultural land is intended to be used primarily for pasture, grove operations or silviculture with possibly some row crops." In this case, the evidence shows that the primary purpose of the Plan Amendment was to allow the landowner to breed horses and operate an exotic bird breeding facility. The Town Clerk, as zoning officer, has taken the position that those activities do not fit within the definition of agriculture. But the Plan Amendment itself is not inconsistent with this Policy.
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 Town's small-scale amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 01-7 is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Padgett, Esquire 3 North Summit Street Crescent City, Florida 32112-2505 Michael W. Woodward, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 323999-0001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Palm Beach County Ordinance 2018-031 (“Ordinance”) is internally inconsistent with Palm Beach County’s 1989 Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”), and is, therefore, not “in compliance” with section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes (2018); and whether the Ordinance fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land or for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations as required by section 163.3177(1), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation. Petitioner submitted written comments, recommendations, or objections to the County on October 30, 2018, during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. The County exercises land use planning and zoning authority throughout unincorporated Palm Beach County. The Ordinance is a countywide, County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment that would revise the FLUE to modify provisions for residential future land use designations. On July 13, 2018, the County Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing to review the proposed Plan Amendment and made recommendations to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”) pursuant to chapter 163, Part II. One member of the public spoke in support of the amendment. The staff report that contained staff analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Planning Commission prior to its deliberation. On July 20, 2019, Petitioner served a letter regarding the proposed Plan Amendment on Melissa McKinlay, Mayor and member of the Board. July 20, 2019, was three days prior to the date of the transmittal hearing for the proposed Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that the comments were received by Respondent on or after the date of the transmittal hearing. The July 20, 2019, letter stated that Petitioner “represents property owners located within the Palm Beach Farms plat in communities known as the Pioneer Road Neighborhood, the Gun Club Road Neighborhood, Monmouth Estates, and the Ranchette Road Neighborhood . . . . [Petitioner] has been active since early 2011 seeking to preserve the rural character of these communities.” Despite the foregoing, there was no competent substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to substantiate that Petitioner represented owners of property in any neighborhood other than the Pioneer Road neighborhood. On July 23, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing to review the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and authorized transmittal of the proposed Plan Amendment to the state land planning agency and review agencies pursuant to chapter 163, Part II. The Board further directed staff to work with residents in the rural enclaves and to return with stronger language at the adoption hearing. Ten members of the public spoke in support of the Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that Petitioner, or any other person, spoke or presented written comments at the transmittal hearing in opposition to the Plan Amendment. The staff report and analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Board prior to its deliberation. The state land planning agency issued a letter dated August 31, 2018, stating that the Agency “identified no comment related to important state resources and facilities within the Department’s authorized scope of review that would be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted.” There were no other state agency comments received regarding the Plan Amendment. Subsequent to the transmittal public hearing, County staff worked with representatives from the Pioneer Road neighborhood and revised the language of the Residential Future Land Use amendment. On October 29, 2018, Petitioner sent a letter regarding the proposed Plan Amendment to Mayor McKinlay, service of which was apparently accepted by Denise Neiman, County Attorney. The evidence suggests that service was made on October 30, 2018, prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. On October 31, 2018, the Board adopted the Ordinance. The staff report and analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Board prior to its deliberation. Five members of the public spoke in support of the Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that Petitioner, or any other person, spoke or presented written comments in opposition to the Plan Amendment, other than the October 29, 2018, letter described above. Existing Conditions The Pioneer Road neighborhood is approximately 550 acres of mostly Rural Residential property, interspersed with properties used for non-intensive commercial uses, such as plant nurseries and landscaping services. The Pioneer Road neighborhood contains between 175 and 220 developed home sites, many of which engage in light-scale personal agricultural uses (e.g., fruit trees, gardens, chickens, etc.). The neighborhood is served by private potable water wells and septic tanks. The Pioneer Road Area includes the Pioneer Road neighborhood, the Gun Club Road neighborhood, and surrounding low density Rural Residential enclave neighborhoods, and is but one of several neighborhood areas potentially affected by the Plan Amendment. Other rural neighborhood areas affected by the Ordinance include the State Road 7/Lantana Road Area and the Hyopluxo Road Area, each of which include a number of rural enclaves. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment is intended to revise the FLUE to modify provisions for the Future Residential Land Use designations. The Amendment, as described in the staff Final Report, is designed to: Recognize that there are Rural Residential areas within the Urban Suburban Tier that provide a valuable contribution to the housing diversity and lifestyle choices in the County. Establish that Agricultural Residential zoning is consistent with the urban residential future land use designations in the County. Recognize and support agricultural operations within residential future land use designations, including supporting the cultivation of agriculture and keeping of livestock. Provide additional specificity on the non- residential use location requirements in residential land use designations to ensure protection of residential neighborhoods. Allow Residential Multifamily Zoning on parcels with Medium Residential, 5 units per acre, future land use for properties using the Transfer of Development Rights or Workforce Housing Programs. The Plan Amendment applies countywide, and not to any specific neighborhood or property. Current neighborhood plans are considered when there are site-specific amendments. As related to Rural Residential enclaves, the Plan Amendment “will establish policy statements to direct growth away from those areas, or towards their edges,” and “will establish that the AR Zoning district is consistent with the urban residential zoning districts.” The Plan Amendment is also designed to “[r]ecognize and support agricultural operations within residential future land use designations, . . . including in the Urban Suburban Tier,” and restrict commercial vehicle activity and more intensive non-residential uses in residentially zoned areas except along major thoroughfares. Petitioner’s Challenge In its Amended Petition, Petitioner stated that the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan “appear to recognize the existence and offer protection for the continuation of these Rural Residential Enclaves”: REVISE Policy 2.2.1-p: Rural Enclaves in Urban Service Area Application of Rural Standards. The County recognizes that there are long established rural residential enclave communities and homesteads in locations within the Urban/Suburban Tier that have Low Residential future land use designation. The County supports the continuation of those rural areas in order to encourage a high quality of life and lifestyle choices for County residents. In addition, within these areas In the Urban/Suburban Tier, the County may apply the ULDC standards for rural residential development as follows: in low density areas in Urban Residential future land use categories; on parcels presently used for agricultural purposes; or on parcels with a Special Agricultural future land use category. NEW Policy 2.2.1-w: The County shall adopt specific overlays in the Comprehensive Plan and/or Unified Land Development Code to protect the character of rural enclaves identified though the neighborhood planning process.[2/] Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.1-j, which is unchanged by the Plan Amendment, provides that: Table 2.2.1-j.1 establishes the consistent residential zoning and planned development district for the Residential Future Land Use Designations. In addition, within the Urban/Suburban Tier of the Glades Tier, the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Production zoning districts are consistent with all residential future land use designations. As amended, Table 2.2.1-j.1 provides as follows: Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use - Zoning Consistency1 Future Land Use Designation Consistent Zoning Zoning District Planned Development Agricultural Reserve AGR AGR-PUD Rural Residential AR4, RE5 RR-PUD, MHPD, RVPD Western Communities Residential AR PUD Low Residential AR4, RE, RT, RTS, RS PUD, TND, MHPD Medium Residential AR4, RE, RT, RS, RTU, RM/RH2 PUD, TND, MHPD High Residential AR4, RE, RT, RS, RM, RH PUD, TND, MHPD Congregate Living Residential3 RM PUD, TND, TMD, MUPD, MXPD3 The disputes raised in the Amended Petition were in “[t]he footnotes and caveats” to Table 2.2.1-j.1, which “will permit significant increases in future density, intensity and designs in a manner that will permanently and negatively alter the historic rural and unique character of these neighborhoods.” As pled, “the following three provisions completely undermine any effort to preserve the Rural Residential Enclaves”: REVISE Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use – Zoning Consistency: Note No. 2 (RM District): The RM district is consistent with the MR-5 designation only for those areas properties that were zoned RM or RH prior to the Plan’s August 31, 1989 adoption or are 3+ acres utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights and/or Workforce Housing Program. REVISE Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use – Zoning Consistency: Note No. 4 (AR Zoning) A lot with AR that was legally subdivided shall be considered a conforming lot. Properties with AR zoning with a residential future land use designation in the Urban/Suburban Tier are not required to rezone when subdividing for a residential use provided that the newly subdivided density is a maximum of 1 unit per acre, or when developing a non-residential use that is allowed in AR. Policy 2.2.1-n Non-Residential Uses Criteria. NEW Subsection (5). More intense non-residential uses may be allowed in residential zoning districts along major thoroughfares and roadways that are not residential streets. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner alleged that the following deletion renders the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and inconsistent with the Plan Amendment: 4. DELETE Language from FLUA Regulation Section Land Development Regulations in the Urban Service Area, Urban/Suburban Tier. The County may apply the ULDC standards for rural residential areas in the Urban/Suburban Tier in low density areas in the Residential future land use designations which are used for agricultural purposes, or on parcels with a Special Agricultural (SA) land use category. Areas within the Urban Service Area/Suburban Tier may be suitable for agricultural use throughout the implementation period of the Plan. It is not the intent of the Plan to encourage premature urbanization of these areas; however, agricultural uses are expected to convert to other uses consistent with the Plan when those agricultural uses are no longer economically viable. Agricultural uses permitted in the residential land use designation must be compatible with the protection of the residential lifestyle and quality of life. Table 2.2.1-j.1, footnote 2 In its Amended Petition, Petitioner alleged that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is inconsistent with new Policies 2.2.1-w and 2.2.1-p of the Plan Amendment. However, in his testimony, Mr. Crosby focused exclusively on the alleged inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-w, not mentioning or otherwise offering evidence regarding inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-p. As amended, revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, applies only to “RM/RH” zoning districts, and provides that “[t]he RM district is consistent with the MR-5 [Medium Residential/5 units per acre] designation only for those properties that were zoned RM [Residential Multifamily] or RH [Multifamily Residential High Density] prior to the Plan’s August 31, 1989 adoption, or when properties of 3 or more acres in size within an MR-5 designation qualify for a higher density through the Transfer of Development Rights and/or Workforce Housing Program density bonus programs.” The plain language of revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, establishes that it applies only to the MR-5 future land use designation, and only to properties that were either zoned as RM or RH before August 31, 1989, or that qualify for the listed density bonus programs. The three-acre threshold was established to prevent single lots in established MR-5 neighborhoods from increasing density out of character with the neighborhood. Prior to the amendment of footnote 2, if a property owner proposed new development on property with an MR-5 land-use designation and more than three acres of land and proposed to utilize Transfer of Development Rights or the Workforce Housing Program for a density increase, the property owner was limited to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The amendment allows the application of the density bonus in an RM zoning district. Revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is designed to foster infill development on MR-5 designated parcels that may be too small to be developed as a PUD. Furthermore, footnote 2 does not bypass the requirements of the Land Development Code Article 5 Density Bonus Programs, and applicants are still required to comply with those application review and approval processes. Finally, Petitioner’s expressed concern is the effect of the Plan Amendment on AR designated rural enclave communities such as the Pioneer Road neighborhood. Amended footnote 2 does not apply to AR zoning districts. Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w, or that it improperly increases density. Furthermore, Petitioner, having failed to offer any evidence as to revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2’s, inconsistency with revised Table 2.2.1-p, failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. Table 2.2.1-j.1, footnote 4 In its Amended Petition, Petitioner alleged that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with new Policies 2.2.1-w and 2.2.1-p of the Plan Amendment. However, in his testimony, Mr. Crosby focused exclusively on the alleged inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-w, not mentioning or otherwise offering evidence regarding inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-p. Petitioner argues that the footnote allows property owners to immediately subdivide their property to one unit per acre without review, rezoning, or going through the typical process if they are in the AR zoning district. As to the alleged inconsistency with new Policy 2.2.1-w, neither footnote 4, nor any other provision of the Plan Amendment, creates a specific overlay that can be compared for consistency with the authority for, but not the implementation of, the creation of future overlays. Petitioner failed to demonstrate, through competent, substantial evidence, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with new Policy 2.2.1-w of the Plan Amendment. As to the alleged inconsistency between revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, and new Policy 2.2.1-p, the evidence demonstrated that the County implemented the Managed Growth Tier System to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities, and to direct the location and timing of future development within five geographically specific Tiers -- Urban/Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and the Glades. Table 2.2.1-g.l of the FLUE establishes maximum density for Residential Future Land Use Designations. The lowest density designation in the Urban/Suburban Tier is Low Residential, one unit per acre (LR-1) designation, which allows up to one unit per acre. According to existing Table 2.2.1-j.l, the AR zoning district is not currently consistent with Low Residential (LR), Medium Residential (MR), and High Residential (HR) Future Land Use Designations. As set forth in Table III.C, LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations are allowed within the Urban/Suburban and Glades Tiers. Through a review of County records, it was determined that there were thousands of acres of land currently zoned AR in the Urban/Suburban Tier. Thus, under the existing tiered land use designations, those AR zoned parcels were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Plan Amendment revised Table 2.2.1-j.l to add AR zoning districts as being allowable in LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations, thus making AR zoning districts consistent in the Urban/Suburban Tier. Revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, applies to AR zoning districts within the Rural Residential (existing), and the LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations (added). The requirement for AR zoned properties to rezone with a maximum LR-1 density of one unit/acre is eliminated because such properties, with the proposed Plan Amendment, will be consistent with LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations within the Urban/Suburban Tier and, thereby, maintain their agricultural residential uses. Proposed Policy 2.2.1-p recognizes that there are established rural residential enclaves within the Urban/Suburban Tier that have an LR Future Land Use Designation, and affirms the County’s support of the continuation of those rural areas. Allowing properties with LR Future Land Use Designations to subdivide up to one unit/acre does not increase density, as the LR Future Land Use Designation currently allows up to one unit/acre without the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.2.1-p is unchanged in establishing that the County may apply its Uniform Land Development Code (“ULDC”) standards for rural residential development in low density and agricultural future land use categories. Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w, that it improperly increases density, or that any existing County subdivision regulations would not apply. Furthermore, Petitioner, having failed to offer any evidence as to revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4’s, inconsistency with revised Table 2.2.1-p, failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. Policy 2.2.1-n.5. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is designed to direct more intense non-residential uses allowed in residential areas to properties “along major thoroughfares and roadways” and away from residential streets. In its Amended Petition and Mr. Crosby’s testimony, Petitioner alleged that revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is inconsistent with new policy 2.2.1-w regarding the adoption of specific overlays to protect “the character of individual rural enclaves identified through the neighborhood planning process.” As indicated previously, the Plan Amendment did not create a specific overlay to compare for consistency with the authority for, but not the implementation of, the creation of future overlays. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is designed to direct allowable non-residential uses to the periphery of residential communities “along” the major thoroughfares, which is not the same as “in proximity” to major thoroughfares. Pursuant to proposed Policy 2.2.1-n.5., local residential streets are not to be subject to commercial vehicle activity (other than home businesses), and more intense non-residential uses in residentially-zoned areas will be limited to those with access to major thoroughfares. The more restrictive language is intended to protect residential neighborhoods in any Managed Growth Tier. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. cannot be read in isolation from other provisions of Policy 2.2.1-n, including the existing requirements that non-residential uses, when being permitted, be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that their density and intensity be comparable and compatible with the adjoining residential area, and revised Policy 2.2.1-n.6., which requires conditions of approval of the non-residential uses “to ensure compatibility with surrounding residences.” Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w. Deleted Language Petitioner failed to offer any evidence as to the language deleted from the FLUA Regulation Section to demonstrate that it rendered the Plan Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner therefore failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. County’s Evidence The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section I.C. “County Directions,” paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 15. The Plan Amendment promotes the protection of established neighborhoods, fosters agriculture uses, establishes that existing rural neighborhoods within the Urban/Suburban Tier cannot be replaced, and will manage growth in a manner to protect these areas. The County demonstrated that the Plan Amendment is designed and intended to direct growth towards activity nodes and centers and along major thoroughfares, and promote redevelopment and urban infill in appropriate areas of the County. The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section II., Objective 1.1 “Managed Growth Tier System” by maintaining a variety of housing and lifestyle choices, enhancing existing communities, protecting land for agriculture, and providing opportunities for agriculture. The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section II., Objective 1.2 “Urban/Suburban Tier - Urban Service Area,” Policy 1.2-a by protecting the character of rural enclaves through the promotion of agriculture and home-based commercial uses that are compatible with the neighborhoods, while directing increased density away from the center of rural neighborhoods.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Benjamin Crosby, Qualified Representative Palm Beach Farms Rural Preservation Committee, LLC 7425 Wilson Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33413 Troy W Klein, Esquire Law Office of Troy W. Klein, P.A. Suite 1B, Barristers Building 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 For Respondent: Kim Phan, Esquire Jason Tracey, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office Suite 359 300 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by Palm Beach County as Ordinance 2018-031, on October 31, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and that Petitioner’s challenge was not brought for an improper purpose as defined in section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, or section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2020.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, Amendment No. 98-3, is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Alliance"), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. The Alliance was organized in July 1998 primarily to respond to proposed land use designation changes for the property that is the subject of this proceeding and for other property. The Alliance has three officers (a President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and an eight-member Board of Directors. The officers and directors of the Alliance all reside in Martin County, Florida. The members of the Board of Directors are from different neighborhoods in Martin County. The Alliance maintains a mailing list of approximately 500 individuals who are considered "members" of the Alliance. These individuals have all expressed interest in the activities of the Alliance, but have not taken any formal steps to join the Alliance, such as paying dues or completing an application for membership. In fact, the Alliance does not collect dues or have a membership application. Petitioner, Mary A. Merrill, is an individual who resides in an area of unincorporated Martin County, Florida, known as "Hobe Sound." Ms. Merrill serves as President of the Alliance. During the process of adopting the amendment which is the subject of this matter, Ms. Merrill and the Alliance made comments and objections. Respondent, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. The County is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County, and on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a portion of Okeechobee County. Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Partnership"), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. The Land Partnership's general partner is Hobe Sound Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Company") and the limited partners are a number of trusts organized for the benefit of various members of the Reed family. The Land Partnership is the owner of the property which is the subject of this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The County's Comprehensive Plan. General The County has adopted a comprehensive land use plan as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Martin County Florida Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 1999/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The Future Land Use Element The Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE"), consisting of the following: Section 4-1, "Background Information"; Section 4-2, "Analysis of Land Use Features"; Section 4-3, the "Future Land Use Map and Map Series"; Section 4-4, "Goals, Objectives and Policies"; Section 4-5, "Performance Standards"; and Section 4- 6, "Implementation Strategies." Sections 4-1 and 4-2 consist of what the County refers to as "narrative" sections which the County gives less weight to in determining whether an amendment to the Plan is "in compliance" than it gives Section 4-4, which contains the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. These narrative sections of the Plan, however, are not "data and analysis." They were adopted as a part of the Plan. See the second unnumbered page of the Plan. The FLUE establishes 13 separate and distinct land-use categories. These land-use categories determine the uses to which property subject to the Plan may be put. The Plan's Future Land Use Map and Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), depicts all property subject to the Plan and depicts the land use category assigned to all property in the County. Among the land use categories established in the FLUE pertinent to this proceeding is the "Institutional" land use category. To distinguish this category from the "Institutional- County" land use designation of the FLUE, the category is referred to as the "General Institutional" category. Property designated as General Institutional is subject to the following sub-categories or intensities of use: "retirement home, churches, schools, orphanages, sanitariums, convalescent, rest homes, cultural organizations, military, colleges, hospitals, federal, municipal, utilities, and rights- of-way." Section 4-4.M.1.h.(3). of the FLUE, provides the following Policy governing the use of General Institutional property: General Institutional - The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities such as, but not limited to schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. . . . While Institutional use is reserved for the above uses, this shall not prohibit for- profit medical offices and other ancillary facilities owned by a non-profit hospital as long as they are part of a Planned Unit Development. . . . . . . . The Plan also establishes land use categories in the FLUE for the residential use of property. All land which is designated for residential development on the FLUM is subject to Section 4-4.M.1.e. of the FLUE: The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resource and plan for fiscal conservancy. There are seven types of designated residential land use categories created by the Plan. Those uses include the following: 10 units per acre for "high density;" 8 units per acre for "medium density;" 5 units per acre for "low density residential;" 2 units per acre and 1 unit per acre for "estate density;" .5 units per acre for rural areas. There is also a "mobile home density" category. The lowest density of .5 units per acre is reserved for those areas that are designated as rural. The estate density categories are used for areas are located "generally on the fringe of the urban service districts and generally are not accessible to a full complement of urban services." Sections 4-4.M.1.e.(1) and (2) of the Plan. Of primary pertinence to this proceeding is the residential land use designation of "Low Density Residential." Residential land designated "Low Density Residential" is limited by Section 4-4.M.1.e.(3). of the FLUE as follows: Low Density Residential Development. The low density residential designation is reserved for land accessible to existing urban service centers or located in the immediate expansion area. Densities permitted in this area shall not exceed five (5) units per gross acre. Review of specific densities shall be directed toward preserving the stability and integrity of established residential development and toward provided equitable treatment to lands sharing similar characteristics. Design techniques such as landscaping, screening and buffering shall be employed to assure smooth transition in residential structure types and densities. Generally, where single family structures comprise the dominant structure type within these areas, new development on undeveloped abutting lands shall be required to include compatible structure types on the lands immediately adjacent to existing single family development. Excessive Residential Property and the Active Residential Development Preference Planning System. Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that the County has designated an excessive amount of land for residential use. This section of the Plan indicates that, at the time the Plan was adopted, there was a projected need for 26,231 acres of land to accommodate the projected population of the County to the Year 2005. It also indicates that, as of the date of the Plan, 35,834 acres of vacant land had been designated for residential use, well in excess of the amount of land necessary to meet demand. Despite the requirements of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, requiring appropriate planning for residential needs within a local government's jurisdiction, the Plan was approved by the Department as being "in compliance" with the designation of an excessive amount of land for residential use in the County. Instead of requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with planning for future residential land use needs, the County and the Department entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifying that the Plan include a requirement that the County undertake the collection of more current land use data and refine the various land use predictive factors it had been using. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement also required that the County institute an Active Residential Development Preference Planning System (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP System"), to monitor the timing and location of residential development in the County. Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan provides a Policy dealing with future residential land use requirements for the County. The Policy reports the over-allocation of vacant land designated for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy specifically provides, in part: While the current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is, an active residential development "125% test" will be used in conjunction with location and land suitability requirements in the review and approval of future land use and/or project requests. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, location within the Primary, or Secondary Urban Service District; consistency with the Capital Improvement Element; protection of natural resources; and adequate provision of facilities and services at the adopted level of service. The Policy goes on to provide that residential development in the County will be maintained at 125 percent capacity through the ARDP System and describes other measures to reduce the amount of excessive residential property to be developed in the County. Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991. Consistent with Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan, the County has adopted the ADRPP System. Environmental Protection Considerations in the FLUE Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten the "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." Therefore, the Policy provides that any such development is to be planned to minimize the threat by "assuring that the environmentally sensitive and threatened habitats are preserved." The Policy also provides: Certain areas in Martin County are recognized and beginning to be identified by federal, state and local programs as environmentally sensitive. These areas provide special value in producing public benefits, including: recreational opportunities, life support services, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, scenic values, water purification, water recharge and storage, and sensitive habitats critical to the survival of endangered wildlife and plants. Urban development in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas can significantly reduce their environmental values. Additionally, there are important public health concerns associated with development in these areas, particularly in relation to potable water and waste disposal in low lying areas. . . . Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation. Coastal Management Element Section 8.4 of the Plan establishes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The area subject to this Element is described on maps adopted as part of the Element, including the map depicted in Figure 8-1. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal management area established by the Element. Section 8.4.A.2.a. of the Plan provides "land use decisions guidelines" requiring a consideration of the impacts of development on fish, wildlife, and habitat, including cumulative impacts. These guidelines, however, apply to development within the coastal management area established by the Plan. Conservation and Open Space Element Chapter 9 of the Plan establishes the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Element are set out in Section 9-4 of the Plan. Section 9-4.A. of the Plan establishes the following Goal: The goal of Martin County is to effectively manage, conserve and preserve the natural resources of Martin County giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries and wildlife with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon. Section 9-4.A.2.a. of the Plan requires that the County continue to enforce and improve its Wellfield Protection Ordinance. The Wellfield Protection Ordinance is intended to regulate land use activities within the zones of influence of major wellheads. Section 9-4.A.2.b. of the Plan provides the following: New potable water wells and wellfields shall be located in areas where maximum quantities of regulated materials (e.g. hazardous and toxic materials) do not exceed the proposed criteria of the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. At the time future wellfield locations are identified, establishment of incompatible land uses within the zones of influence of such wells shall be prohibited. Objective 9-4.A.9. of the Plan provides for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitat. Policy 9- 4.A.9.a. of the Plan provides the following: Land use decisions shall consider the effects of development impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat and the cumulative impact of development or redevelopment upon wildlife habitat. In cases where rare, endangered, threatened or species of special concern are known to be present, a condition of approval will be that a preserve area management plan be prepared at the time of site plan submittal. . . . To ensure adequate protection, protected plants and animals, which cannot be provided with sufficient undisturbed habitat to maintain the existing population in a healthy, viable state on site, shall be effectively relocated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Potable Water Service Element Chapter 11 of the Plan establishes a Potable Water Service Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 11-4. Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan provides that, by 1991, the County was to establish programs to conserve and protect potable water resources within the County. The specific components of the programs are provided. None of those provisions are relevant to this matter. Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 13-4. Section 13-4.A.1. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: Martin County will maintain existing ground water and surface water quality, improve areas of degraded ground water and surface water quality and prevent future contamination of ground water supply sources. Section 13-4.A.2. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: "Enhance the quantity of ground water recharge and maintain desirable ground water levels." The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, recognize the significance of ground waterrecharge and groundwater levels in the County. Preservation of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels is a significant goal of the County. None of the Policies established to carry out the foregoing Objectives specifically eliminate the use of vacant land located near wells for residential purposes. Plan Amendment Adoption Procedures Procedures for the adoption of amendments to the Plan are established in Section 1.11, "Amendment Procedures," of the Plan. Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan provides the following procedures for evaluating changes to the FLUM: In evaluating each land use map amendment request, staff begins with the assumption that the 1982 Land Use Map, as amended, is generally an accurate representation of the Board of County Commissioners and thus the community's intent for the future of Martin County. Based on this assumption, staff can recommend approval of a requested change providing consistency is maintained with all other Elements of this Plan if one of the following four items is found to be applicable. That past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses and there is adequate availability of public services; or That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. That the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need which enhances the health, safety or general welfare of County residents. In the event that staff can not make a positive finding regarding any of the above items, then staff would recommend denial. (Emphasis added). The Plan requires that the Director of the County's Growth Management Department, after review of a proposed amendment, submit recommendations to the Local Planning Agency for consideration. The Local Planning Agency is required to certify its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Miscellaneous Provisions of the Plan. Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that requires that the County revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. The County's Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement. The County and the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), entered into a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Agreement"). The Designation Agreement was entered into pursuant to Section 163.3244 of the Act. Pursuant to the Designation Agreement, the Department designated the County as a "sustainable community." Among other things, the designation of the County as a sustainable community eliminates the need for the County to have the Department review and comment on amendments to the Plan that affect areas within the urban growth boundary or "Primary Urban Services District" created by the Plan. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is a parcel of real property located in the Hobe Sound area of unincorporated Martin County. The Subject Property consists of approximately 24.5 acres of land. The land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM is General Institutional. The Subject Property is undeveloped, vacant land. It is comprised of sandy soils, native upland scrub habitat with native Sand Pine groundcover. The Subject Property was described in an Executive Summary of the proposed plan amendment considered by the County as follows: The parcel is located in an area considered to be one of the last contiguous large areas of native upland scrub habitat in Florida. Groundcover is almost entirely native Sand Pine with some primitive trails and small areas of disturbed land. Endangered species found on the parcel include the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoise. Sand Pine is considered to be endangered, unique or rare and the Comprehensive Plan policy 9- 4.A.7.f(2) states that "Where possible, increased conservation (twenty-five (25) percent of the total upland area) of native upland habitats which are determined to be endangered, unique or rare in Martin County, or regionally rare will be required by Martin County." The Subject Property is bounded on the north by Saturn Avenue, a two-lane residential street; on the south and west by undeveloped land; and on the east by U.S. Highway One, a multi- lane divided highway. The property to the north is designated Low Density Residential; the property to the east is designated for commercial uses; and the property to the south and west is designated General Institutional. While located relatively close to the Intercoastal Waterway, the Subject Property is not located on the "coast." The Subject Property was previously owned by the Hobe Sound Water Company, a privately owned water utility. At the request of Hobe Sound Water Company, the Subject Property was designated as General Institutional. No wells currently are located on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was acquired from the Hobe Sound Water Company by the Land Partnership. The undeveloped land located to the south of the Subject Property is owned by South Martin Regional Utilities (hereinafter referred to as "SMRU") and is utilized for a water plant and wells. SMRU acquired this land and the remainder of the land used by the Hobe Sound Water Company from the water company. There are five wells located on the property to the south of the Subject Property. The property to the west of the Subject Property is also owned by SMRU but is not being utilized for wells. The property acquired by SMRU was, and remains, designated as General Institutional. The Subject Property serves as a significant ground water recharge area because of the porous nature of the soils of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the Primary Urban Services District of the Plan. The Subject Amendment and Its Review. The amendment at issue in this proceeding was initiated by the Land Partnership after it acquired the Subject Property from the Hobe Sound Water Company. At the time of the acquisition of the Subject Property, the Land Partnership knew or should have known that it was designated for General Institutional use. The Land Partnership requested a change in the land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM from General Institutional to Low Density Residential or "the most appropriate land use designation." The proposed amendment was reviewed by the staff of the County's Growth Management Department. Among other things, the staff considered whether any of the four items specified in Section 1-11.C.2 of the Plan applies to the amendment. The staff determined that the first and fourth items listed in finding of fact 41 did not apply, that the second item was somewhat applicable, and that the third item applied to the amendment. The proposed amendment was also reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "TCRPC"). Comments concerning the proposed amendment were prepared by the TCRPC, but were withheld because review by the TCRPC is not required due to the sustainable communities designation for the County. The draft comments of the TCRPC, however, raised objections to the proposed amendment due to concerns over the potential endangerment to the wellfields in the area and the potential destruction of critical habitat and vegetation. No copy of the TCRPC's regional plan was offered in evidence in this case. Nor did anyone associated with TCRPC testify about the draft comments. The Department also informally reviewed the proposed amendment. Rather than prepare an Objections, Comments, and Review report on the proposed amendment, the Department prepared informal comments, which it provided to the County. Those comments were responded to by the County. Hearings to consider the proposed amendment were conducted by the Local Planning Agency. On January 21, 1999, the Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted. The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 98-3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The Amendment was adopted by the Board on September 28, 1999, as a part of Ordinance No. 553. The evidence failed to prove that any relevant procedure for adopting the Amendment was violated by the County. The Amendment changed the land use designation for the Subject Property from General Institutional to Low Density Residential on the FLUM. This designation would allow the development of the Subject Property for a maximum of 122 residential units. Data and analysis supporting a potential increase of 122 units of additional residential property did not exist when County adopted the Amendment. Nor does such data and analysis exist now. ARDP System Data. Since the implementation of the ARDP System the County has been collecting and analyzing data concerning residential development in the County. No timely annual update of that data and analysis had been prepared prior to the adoption of the Amendment. The most recent data available was from 1995. During the adoption process for the Amendment, at the request of a member of the Board, an ad hoc report containing data and analysis concerning residential development in the County was prepared and presented to the Board. A full and detailed report was prepared subsequent to the adoption of the Amendment. The report, the ARDP Memorandum of June 7, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP Memo"), was reviewed and approved by the Board. The report was also received in evidence during this de novo proceeding and has been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the ARDP Memo for the five-year period 2000-2004, there is a need for 6,252 residential units needed to serve population increases. The 125 percent cap of the ARDP System on new residential units allowed in the County is 7,816 units. This amounts to an additional 1,564 units authorized by the ARDP System over the actual number of units needed based upon population projections. The number of approved/unbuilt units and other offsets against the number of allowed new residential units for the County during this period totals 7,015 units. Consequently, there are 801 units (7,816 minus 7,015) available for development through the end of 2004. These available units are more than sufficient to cover the additional units which may arise as a result of the development of the Subject Property pursuant to the Amendment. For the five-year periods of 2005-2009 and 2010-2014, there are 6,314 and 6,578 units available for development through the end of these periods, respectively. Despite the foregoing, the approval of an addition of 122 units of residential property will increase an already excessive designation of property for residential use. The Impact of the Amendment. The most significant impact of the Amendment is to further increase the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the amount of the increase in the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. The Amendment will also negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals. Development of the Subject Property, however, as Low Density Residential or General Institutional has the potential for the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat. That negative impact is not inconsistent with what the Plan allows. The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a ground water recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of ground water in and around the Subject Property as a result of development. The only action that will preserve the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area would be to keep the property undeveloped. Neither the current land use designation of General Institutional nor the proposed land use designation of Low Density Residential will ensure that the Subject Property remains undeveloped. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the negative impacts of the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes "urban sprawl" as defined in the Plan. The Need for a FLUM Amendment. In order for the Amendment to be approved, since it is an amendment to the FLUM, it must be shown that one of the four items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan is met. The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment. The remaining two items of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan are: That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. While there has been an increase in the amount of development to the north of the Subject Property, the area immediately around the Subject Property has not changed. The evidence failed to prove that any change in the character of the area surrounding the Subject Property "has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. . . ." The second item listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan has not been met. The County's determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property: Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers. As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The latter two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property. Although the fact that the Land Partnership knew or should have known of the land use category of the Subject Property and the limitation of the uses to which it could put the property before it purchased it, it still appears reasonable to conclude that the third item of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan applies to the Amendment. I. Petitioners' Challenge. On October 28, 1999, the Alliance and Ms. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division challenging the Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Pursuant to the Amended Petition, Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act, the TCRPC's strategic regional policy plan, and portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners also alleged in the Amended Petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3194, and 163.3244 of the Act. These allegations are not relevant to the determination of whether the amendment is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Commission enter a final order finding that the Amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 David A. Acton Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administration Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-1197 Raymond W. Royce, Esquire Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-3208 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
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 Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
