The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County by Ordinance No. 14-030 (“Proposed Amendments”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (“Alerts”), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Palm Beach County. Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all of the 3,788.6 acres (“the Property”) which are the subject of the Proposed Amendments, with the exception of two parcels totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law. Background FLUE Objective 1.1 establishes a unique Managed Growth Tier System “to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities and direct the location and timing of future development.” The Property is located in the County’s Rural Tier and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as “antiquated” because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago before modern community planning concepts and growth management laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25-acre residential lots, laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics, familiarity, and social intercourse, because the Acreage is not a community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the provision and use of public services. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000-acre area known as the Central Western Communities (“CWC"). The CWC has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the County for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There are many residential lots, but few non-residential uses to serve the residents. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery- Judge Groves (“Callery”), obtained an Agricultural Enclave (AGE) future land use designation for essentially the same area as the Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of development, and implementing principles (“the 2008 Amendments”). Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to 2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the 2008 Amendments. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, which submitted a Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013, and a revised application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County adopted the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use designation of 53.17 acres (“the outparcels”) from RR-10 to AGE, and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase intensity to two million square feet of non-residential uses, 200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150-room hotel and a 3,000- student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing Principles. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add 53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not “in compliance” because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards; do not comply with the agricultural enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl; are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and create inconsistencies within the Comp Plan. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008 Amendments that address future development of the Property. In several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments already authorize future development of the Property in a manner which Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed under the 2008 Amendments. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies 2.2.5-d, 2.2.5-e, and 2.2.5-f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1). The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments. The Proposed Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future development of the Property than simply a land use designation and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive plans. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments lack adequate standards because they refer to the use of “appropriate new urbanism concepts,” which Petitioners say is vague. New urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering, mixed-use development, rural villages, and city centers. See § 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance, new urbanism creates more “livable” and “sustainable” communities. The term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” used in the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in section 163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism, which can be used in combination. Which concepts are “appropriate” depends on the unique opportunities and constraints presented by the area to be developed. Use of the term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” in the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development standards applicable to the Property. It does not create vagueness. Petitioners contend the proposed amendments of Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Service Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards. Agricultural Enclave Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section 163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency with section 163.3164 is not a component of an “in compliance” determination. Furthermore, the Property is already designated Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). The inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis. Petitioners contend the increases in density and intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis of the need for non-residential uses in the CWC. Population projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See § 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014). Petitioners make several claims related to the availability of public utilities and other services to the Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, emergency and police either already exists or is contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development authorized by the Proposed Amendments. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is defined in section 163.3164(51) as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” Petitioners contend the Property does not qualify for the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory presumption. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five of the 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses. Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concepts and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the CWC. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discussed below. There are ample data and analysis which show the Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. Respondents’ characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of urban sprawl is not unreasonable. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Compatibility Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are “incompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding communities and adjacent agricultural and other land uses.” Protection of Petitioners’ lifestyle cannot mean that surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while providing large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to protect adjacent land uses. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in the Acreage. The proposed distribution of land uses and large open space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition. They would provide substantial protection to adjacent neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would likely see only open space, parks, and low-density residential uses. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land uses than the 2008 Amendments. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that Petitioners and other persons living near the Property would be beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use and be served by the office, commercial, government, and recreational uses that will be available nearby. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses. Internal Consistency The Comp Plan’s Introduction and Administration Element and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with some of the statements. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not adequate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the area, protection of quality of life and integrity of neighborhoods, prevention of “piecemeal” development, and efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5-d allows land uses which are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural Tier policies that would otherwise apply. Under the County’s Managed Growth Tier System, the tiers are the “first level” land use consideration in the FLUE. Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier policies for agricultural enclaves, in general, or for the Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue. The County has shown there are unique considerations involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-3 because they encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-6 because they do not protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence shows that agricultural and equestrian uses are enhanced by the Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-b, which addresses criteria re- designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re-designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-c, which requires the review of the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review. Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state law. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-d, which states a tier shall not be re-designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re- designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-a, which requires the County to protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-d, which generally prohibits subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any parcels. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which addresses the designation of “sending areas” for Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or that would be created by the Proposed Amendments. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-l, which requires the County to provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential designations. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4-b, which provides that the TDR program is the required method for increasing density within the County. The County applies this policy only to density increases in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to receive TDRs. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies, which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recreation, and civic uses. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or manmade constraints of the area. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that transportation infrastructure and other public services could not be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show otherwise. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the increased density and intensity authorized by the Proposed Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the increases were needed to create a sustainable community where people can live, work, shop, and play. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.2 and some related policies, which require development to be consistent with land use designations in the Comp Plan. Petitioners’ evidence failed to show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to include “new urbanism” concepts as required by section 163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5-i. The evidence presented by Respondents proved otherwise. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies, which address the provision of utilities and other public services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show that public services are available or planned and can be efficiently provided to the Property. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as explained above. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014-030 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Tara W. Duhy, Esquire Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by Suwannee County ordinance number 94-02, on June 9, 1994, (the Amendment) is "in compliance" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). (It must be found to be "in compliance" if the County's determination that it is "in compliance" is at least "fairly debatable.")
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Fla. Stat. (1993). Petitioners reside in Suwannee County, Florida. Many own property adjacent to the parcel, which is the subject of the Amendment. Although, Petitioners put on no evidence that any of the Petitioners attended either the transmittal or the adoption hearing and made either written or oral objection to the Amendment, counsel for the Department and the County have stipulated that the Petitioners did attend these hearings and objected to the Amendment. Therefore each of the Petitioners is an "affected person" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Suwannee County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Fla. Stat. (1993). General Description of the County Suwannee County is a rural county located in the north central Florida. Live Oak is the County seat. The Suwannee County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) was originally adopted and found to be in compliance in 1992. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Plan at that time designated the parcel which is the subject of the Amendment in the Agricultural-1 land use category, (less than or equal to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres). The Proposed Amendment This case involves a parcel of land approximately 320 acres in size, which is located on SR 90, approximately 6.5 miles east of Live Oak (the Parcel). On February 1, 1994, Suwannee County (County) held a public hearing for the purpose of amending the FLUM to change the designation of the Parcel on the FLUM from Agriculture-1 to Public use. The purpose of the amendment was to authorize the construction of a prison by the State Department of Corrections on the Parcel. Pursuant to Section 163.3184, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994), the proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for review. The Department's Initial Review On April 14, 1994, the Department issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (ORC report). The Department set out three objections to the Amendment in the ORC. The first, related to Policy I.2.2 of the Plan, which set forth the types of public uses that were permitted under the Plan's existing public use category in rural lands. The text of the Plan would allow a community college and other "urban type uses" on the site. Department staff felt this might encourage the conversion of adjacent lands, and at the hearing, characterized the proposed Amendment as promoting "urban sprawl." The second issue raised in the ORC dealt with wetlands. The Department was concerned that under Policy V.2.4 of the Plan, public uses were not included among those uses which had to "set back" 35 feet from wetlands. The Department was concerned that the proposal to amend the FLUM to allow public use on the site would adversely affect wetlands, because under the existing Plan, the setback restriction from wetlands would not apply to public uses. The third concern raised in the ORC report involved the "public facilities analysis." The Department staff testified that the County had not taken into account the most intense use authorized by the Amendment in doing the analysis of impacts on public facilities and services. The County's Response to the ORC and Adoption of the Amendment The County held a public hearing to consider the ORC objections, and on June 9, 1994, it adopted the Amendment with changes to address the Department's ORC report. To respond to the concerns about urban sprawl, the County amended Policy I.1.6 dealing with Public Land Use Classification (in urban development areas). This portion of the Amendment reads as follows: Lands classified as public consist of public buildings and grounds and other public facil- ities, (including sewer facilities, solid waste facilities, drainage facilities and potable water facilities), public health facilities (to include hospitals, which shall be allowed in urban development areas), and educational uses (to include universities and community colleges, which shall be allowed in urban development areas); and Public uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. (Underlined portions were added.) That portion of Policy I.2.2 dealing with the Public Land Use Classification (in rural areas) was amended as follows: Lands classified as public consist of public buildings and grounds and other public facil- ities, (including sewer facilities, solid waste facilities, drainage facilities and potable water facilities), public health facilities (do not include hospitals, which shall be allowed in urban development areas only), and educational uses (not to include univer- sities and community colleges, which shall be allowed in urban development areas only); (Underlined portions were added.) This amendment mitigates against urban sprawl. Policy I.2.2 dealing with the Public Land Use Classification (in rural areas) was also amended to state as follows: Public uses shall be limited to an intensity as follows: less than 5 acres- 1.00 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 5 acres, but less than 10 acres- .75 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 10 acres, but less than 20 acres- .50 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 20 acres, but less than 40 acres- .25 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 40 acres, but less than 80 acres- .10 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 80 acres, but less than 160 acres- .075 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 160 acres, but less than 320 acres- .050 floor area ratio greater than or equal to 320 acres- .025 floor area ratio The above mentioned floor area ratios for public uses in rural areas addressed the Department's concerns about the inadequate public facilities analysis. Under this amendment, the effect of the reduced floor area ratios on a 320 acre site would be to limit the maximum lot coverage of a one floor building to 348,500 square feet. This also mitigates against urban sprawl. To respond to the Department's concerns about wetlands, the County amended Policy V.2.4, to make the 35 foot natural buffer apply to all public uses. After the adoption hearing, the County forwarded the amendment to the Department for a compliance review pursuant to Section 163.3184, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Final Department Review The Department decided that the Amendment, as adopted with the above mentioned text changes, satisfied the objections set forth in the ORC. On July 30, 1994, the Department issued a notice of intent finding the amendment in compliance. Prisons and Urban Sprawl It is at least fairly debatable whether the use of land for a prison (correctional institution) should be characterized as being either an urban use or a rural use. Prisons are qualitatively different from other typical urban or rural uses. Depending on the circumstances, prisons can be compatible in either rural or urban settings. It obviously can be expected that, if there is a prison on the Amendment Parcel, there will be a prison population and a prison staff. But it is at least fairly debatable whether prisons typically create much pressure for residential or commercial or any other kind of development outside the prison itself. Prisons generally do not attract a residential development. Most people had rather live elsewhere (as evidenced by the opposition of the Petitioners in this case.) Some of the prison staff will reside in residential facilities at the prison. Since the Amendment Parcel is only two and a half miles from Wellborn and only about six miles east of the city limits of Live Oak, it is at least fairly debatable whether any prison staff who do not reside in the prison's residential facilities would create pressure for additional residential housing adjacent to the prison rather than choosing to live in Wellborn or Live Oak. If any would prefer to live closer to the prison, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that they would create pressure for new housing construction rather than buy existing homes as they become available. If any did choose to seek to build new residences nearer the prison than Wellborn or Live Oak, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that they would choose to build homes different in character from the rural homes now existing in the area. It is at least fairly debatable whether the prison would result in any significant pressure for new development. It is at least fairly debatable whether a prison in a rural setting such as the Amendment Parcel should be expected to attract anything in the way of ancillary development more than perhaps a convenience store with gasoline pump and maybe a small food service facility. At least in rural settings, it is not unusual for prisons to be self- contained, i.e., to have their own water supply and on-site waste water treatment system and disposal. The prison planned for the Amendment Parcel is planned to be self-contained. As such, it is at least fairly debatable whether, in terms of "urban sprawl" considerations, the existence of a functional relationship between a prison in a rural setting and any rural uses in the vicinity should even be an issue. It is at least fairly debatable whether, requiring a prison in a rural county like Suwannee County to be located so as to be able to take maximum advantage of existing public facilities (such as water, sewer and fire), in order to minimize "urban sprawl," in effect would require all prisons to be located within or contiguous to urban population centers. In addition to the development controls in the Amendment itself which mitigate against urban sprawl (excluding hospitals, universities, and community colleges from, and limiting permissible floor area ratios in, Public Land in rural areas), the Suwannee County Comprehensive Plan discourages urban sprawl by establishing just four urban centers (the City of Live Oak, Wellborn, Branford, and Dowling Park) for urban development and urban land uses, while designating the rest of the County for rural uses.
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 dismissing the petition challenging the Amendment and determining that the Amendment is "in compliance." RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4704GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Proposed Findings of Fact 5-30. Proposed findings of fact 5-30 in the proposed recommended orders filed by both the Petitioners and by the Respondents are identical. (Paragraphs 1-4 of the proposed recommended orders are devoted to preliminary statement.) Proposed findings of fact 26-30 are rejected as being conclusions of law. The rest are accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 31-44. Rejected as being conclusions of law. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate to facts not proven or facts contrary to those found. Second sentence, subordinate to facts found. Accepted. Subordinate to facts not proven or facts contrary to those found. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that only Dahlstrom testified that the Amendment discouraged urban sprawl. Last sentence, rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found, or as conclusion of law. Otherwise, to the extent not conclusions of law, accepted and subordinate to facts found. Accepted and subordinate to facts found. Accepted. (But he also testified that the only public sewer and water facilities he knew of were in the City of Live Oak.) Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that he "refused" or "would only"; also, he was being questioned about the proposed amendment, not the Amendment. Otherwise, accepted and subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that he "refused" or "would only." He testified about many other things as well, some of which are subordinate to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts not proven or facts contrary to those found. Cumulative and argument. Rejected that Kronenburger refuted other testimony that the proposed prison "would not create economic pressure for growth and thus would not promote urban sprawl." It was not proven that "tremendous economic impact" from a prison necessarily equates with or will lead to urban sprawl. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact 31-46. 31.-32. Rejected as being conclusions of law. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate to facts not proven or facts contrary to those found. Second sentence, subordinate to facts found. Accepted. Subordinate to facts not proven or facts contrary to those found. 35.-43. To the extent not conclusions of law, accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire George T. Reeves, Esquire Davis, Browning & Schnitker, P.A. Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32341 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Department of Community 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Linda Loomis Shelley Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon 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 City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, 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 5th day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
The Issue The issue is whether that portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER known as LU-97-02 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 In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Janet Bollum (Bollum) and Glenn and Mary Brewer (the Brewers), who are property owners within or near the City of Deland, contend that a portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by Respondent, City of Deland (City), is not in compliance. The portion of the amendment under challenge, known as Plan Amendment LU-97-02, changes the land use on 39.56 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Marcia Berman, Trustee (Berman), to Highway Commercial. The property is currently under contract to be sold to Intervenor, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. (Wal-Mart), who intends to construct a Wal-Mart super store on a part of the site. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments. Until 1997, the Berman property was located in the unincorporated area of Volusia County (County). Prior to 1994, it carried an Urban Medium Intensity land use designation. That year, the County redesignated the property as Industrial. In 1997, the City annexed the Berman property and revised its Future Land Use Map the following year to change the land use to Highway Commercial. This change was accomplished through the plan amendment under challenge. On May 1, 1998, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Portions of Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. More specifically, it found that the new land use designation would "generate traffic which causes the projected operating conditions of roadways to fall below adopted level of service standards and exacerbates projected roadway deficiencies." The Department also found that the amendment was "not supported by or based on, and does not react in an appropriate way to, the best available data and analyses." In making these findings, the Department relied in part upon a traffic study prepared by "TEI" in 1998 which reflected that the City's traffic system did not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new land use. The Department determination triggered this action. On May 27, 1998, Petitioners, and 82 other property owners, filed a paper styled "Petition for Administrative Hearing and Petition to Intervene" challenging the change of land use on the Berman property in numerous respects. The paper was treated as a petition to intervene and was later granted. After the case was temporarily abated in August 1998 pending efforts to settle the matter, in January 1999, a new traffic study was prepared for the City by Ghyabi, Lassiter & Associates (GLA study), which determined that the existing and planned City transportation network could accommodate the impacts from the development allowed under the amendment. All parties except Petitioners then executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in February and March 2000, which resolved all issues originally raised by the Department. Thereafter, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. As required by Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), the parties were realigned consistent with their respective positions. Through an Amended Petition filed by Petitioners on July 19, 2000, all original Petitioners except Bollum and the Brewers have been dismissed, and the factual issues in this case narrowed to two: (a) whether the recent traffic studies "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)"; and (b) whether the "plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent." Standing of the Parties Bollum owns property, resides within, and owns and operates a business within the City. She also submitted written and oral comments to the City while the amendment was being adopted. The parties have stipulated that she is an affected person and thus has standing to participate. The Brewers own property and reside in an unincorporated area of the County in the immediate vicinity of the proposed plan amendment. They also reside within what is known as the "Greater Deland Area," as defined by Chapter 73-441, Laws of Florida. However, they do not own property, reside within, or own and operate a business within the corporate limits of the City, and thus they lack standing to participate. The parties have stipulated that Intervenors Berman and Wal-Mart have standing to participate in this proceeding. The Amendment The Berman property lies on the eastern side of U.S. Highway 17 just north of the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92, approximately three miles north of the City's central business district. The land is currently undeveloped. Prior to being annexed by the City, the property was located within the unicorporated area of the County, just north of the City limits. The earliest County land use designation was Urban Medium Intensity, a primarily residential land use classification which also allowed some commercial development, including small neighborhood shopping centers. In 1993, the County began a comprehensive examination of land use and zoning restrictions in the vicinity of the Berman property. In May 1994, it redesignated the Berman property from Urban Medium Intensity to Industrial. This use allowed not only industrial development, but also some commercial development. Before the Berman property was annexed by the City, it was depicted on the City's Urban Reserve Area Map (map). That map established advisory designations for unincorporated County land abutting the City, and was meant to be a guide for City land use decisions when property was annexed. The property was designated on the map as approximately one-half Commercial and one-half Industrial. In 1997, the Berman property was annexed by the City. Because the City was then required to place a land use designation on the property, on May 16, 1998, it adopted Amendment 98-1ER, which redesignated the property from Volusia County Industrial to City Highway Commercial. The new mixed-use designation allows "a wide range of retail and service and office uses," as well as up to twenty percent residential land uses, including multi-family manufactured housing developments. Thus, the Highway Commercial land use designation is meant to accommodate major shopping centers like the one proposed by Wal-Mart. Transportation issue In their Amended Petition, Petitioners allege that accepting as fact the "most recent traffic studies," those studies still "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)." The "most recent traffic studies" are the GLA study, and it shows that the existing and planned City transportation network can accommodate the traffic impacts arising from development allowed under the plan amendment. Some of the transportation impacts from the expected development on the Berman property will affect roadways within an area of the City that was formally designated in May 1992 as a Special Transportation Area (STA) or road segments with specialized level of service (LOS) standards. The STA includes the central business district and certain outlying areas essentially bounded by Minnesota Avenue, Amelia Avenue, the rear property lines of properties along the north side of New York Avenue (State Road 44), South Hill Avenue, Beresford Avenue, Boundary Avenue, and Clara Avenue, which extend to approximately one mile from the Berman property. None of the roadways within the STA are on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. Rule 9J-5.0055(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the City adopt LOS standards on roadways within its planning jurisdiction (which are not on the Florida Intrastate Highway System), including the disputed portion of U.S. Highways 17 and 92. The applicable LOS standards and STA provisions are found in Policies 3.1.7 and 3.1.10, respectively, of the Transportation Circulation Element of the plan. They read as follows: 3.1.7 For those roadways listed in Policy 3.1.6 [which include U.S. Highways 17 and 92], the City of Deland may permit development to occur until the peak hour traffic volumes exceed a 20% increase over the peak traffic counts published in the FDOT's 1989 Traffic Data Report. 3.1.10 As a result of FDOT's approval of the STA designation for US 17/92 (Woodland Boulevard), from Beresford Avenue to Michigan Avenue, and SR 44 (New York Avenue), from SR 15A to Hill Avenue, the following maximum LOS and/or traffic volumes shall be permitted. ROADWAY SEGMENT US 17/92, from Beresford to Michigan = 22,028 SR 44, from SR 15A to US 17/92 = LOS E SR 44, from US 17/92 to Hill = LOS E *The proposed maximum traffic volume is compatible with the maximum LOS for this section of roadway, as stated in Policy 3.1.7. These two policies have been found to be in compliance and are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. Although the STA is identified as a specific area, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates that development from outside of this area will impact the STA. As noted above, however, the undisputed GLA study demonstrates that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause these adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. The STA was approved in May 1992, or prior to the enactment of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes (1993), which allows certain exceptions from the otherwise blanket requirement to adopt and enforce a transportation LOS standard for roadways. Two planning tools made available to local governments by Section 163.3180(5), Florida Statutes (1993), are a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, both of which allow exceptions to transportation concurrency requirements. The practical effect of a TCEA is to allow development to proceed without having to comply with transportation concurrency. Petitioners essentially contend that the STA created by the City for the central business district and certain outlying areas is "the substantial equivalent of a TCEA," and thus it should be treated as one for purposes of this proceeding. They go on to argue that while the City may grant an exception to concurrency requirements for transportation facilities for projects located within a TCEA, those benefits cannot be extended to any other area, including the Berman property. Based on this premise, Petitioners conclude that without the benefit of the TCEA exception, the anticipated traffic from the new development on the Berman property will cause a "continuation of a [LOS] failure on the constrained segments of US 17/92 and on the unconstrained segment from SR44 to Wisconsin Avenue," in violation of the law. Petitioners' contention is based on an erroneous assumption. The evidence shows that the City has never adopted a TCEA. Neither has the STA "transformed" into a TCEA, as Petitioners suggest. Moreover, as noted above, the undisputed GLA study shows rather clearly that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause the adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. Petitioners further contend that the plan amendment is somehow inconsistent with the transportation exception requirements in Section 163.3180(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000). However, these provisions apply to developments "which pose only special part-time demands on the transportation system[,]" that is, "one that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during the calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volumes." The evidence shows that the Highway Commercial land use category is not designed for such developments and, in fact, encourages far more intense uses. Is There a Need for Additional Commercial Land? Petitioners next contend that "the plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent and not resolved by the Compliance Agreement." In the immediate vicinity of the Berman property, near the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92 north of the City, "there is an emerging trend of 'regional-type' commercial developments." This area is already partially developed with commercial uses, and it has additional areas depicted for future commercial and industrial use. There are no other parcels in the City, especially in this area, of a sufficient size to accommodate this type of regional commercial development. There are numerous ways to project the raw, numerical need for commercial land in the City. The City's Comprehensive Plan, its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the GLA study all contain statements regarding projected population and employment, each portraying a slightly different result. In fact, Petitioners' own expert criticized the numbers used in these documents as being unreliable and suspect. The need calculus basically involves projecting population over a ten-year planning period and then allocating commercial, residential, and other land uses in an amount to match that projection. For the reasons set forth below, this process is imprecise, and it must be tempered by other factors. First, the planner must project population over the ten-year planning timeframe. Any mistake in this projection will skew the numbers. Second, employment ratios used in the calculus can change from year to year, especially in a smaller community. Also, other planning objectives are inherently subject to change year by year. Given this imprecision and changing market demands, it is appropriate for professional planners to overallocate land uses. An excess allocation of twenty-five percent (or an allocation factor of one hundred and twenty-five percent) is recognized by professional planners as being appropriate. The evidence supports a finding that this amount is reasonable under the circumstances present here. There are numerous professionally acceptable ways in which to allocate land uses. The City has not adopted a particular methodology in its Comprehensive Plan. The specifics of the plan amendment and the City's Comprehensive Plan make application of a strict numerical calculus even more difficult. The prior designation of the property was Industrial, which is not a pure industrial category, but actually allowed up to thirty percent of commercial uses. The amendment here simply changes the land use from Industrial, with some commercial uses allowed, to a mixed-use Highway Commercial designation. As noted earlier, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates regional commercial uses in the area of the Berman property. Finally, the parcel is relatively small (less than 40 acres) and is embedded within an urban area. Given the uncertainty of a numerical calculation of commercial need in the City, the size and location of the property, the property's inclusion in an urban area, and the surrounding commercial land uses, the evidence supports a finding that either Industrial or Commercial would be an appropriate land use for the property. The evidence further supports a finding that the need question is not a compliance issue here and does not support a finding that the plan amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by the City of Deland by Ordinance Number 98-07 on March 16, 1998, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Allen Watts, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 F. Alex Ford, Jr., Esquire Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld, Sherman & Ford, P.A. Post Office Box 48 Deland, Florida 32721-0048 Mark A. Zimmerman, Esquire James, Zimmerman, Paul & Huddleston Post Office Drawer 2087 Deland, Florida 32721-2087 David L. Powell, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Margaret E. Bowles, Esquire Margaret E. Bowles, P.A. 205 South Hoover Street Suite 402 Tampa, Florida 33609 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Dick and Mary McGinley, are residents of Marion County. Since 1956 they have owned a rectangle-shaped parcel of property consisting of approximately 1,280 acres. The parcel is situated on State Road 484 two and one-half miles west of Interstate 75 between Belleview and Dunnellon and ten miles south-southwest of the City of Ocala. Approximately 318.57 acres lie north of State Road 484 while the remaining 961.38 acres lie south of that roadway. The County's plan amendment affects that part of petitioners' property which lies south of State Road 484. During the adoptive phase of the amendment, petitioners submitted written comments in opposition to the reclassification of their property. As such, they are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County and DCA entered into a stipulated settlement agreement in March 1993, which required the County to adopt various remedial amendments. The first set of remedial amendments adopted by the County were determined to be not in compliance. After a second stipulated settlement agreement and addendum were entered into by the same parties, the County adopted further remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on a portion of petitioners' property. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was then issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. On July 27, 1994, petitioners timely filed an amended petition for administrative hearing in which they contended the plan amendment which affected their property was not in compliance. In their complaint, petitioners alleged that the "future land use (of their property) was not based on accurate data regarding the area as required by Florida law." As further clarified by petitioners in the prehearing stipulation, they allege that the amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis, and it is not consistent with, or does not further the goals of, applicable statutes and rules. As to the latter allegation, petitioners have clarified this to mean that, as to their property, they do not agree that the plan amendment meets its stated goal of discouraging urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment As noted earlier, the County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. Prior to the adoption of the plan, petitioners' property had been zoned A-1, agricultural district, since at least 1973. Under the January 1992 plan, petitioners' property was placed in an urban expansion area with a low density residential land use which allowed one dwelling unit per acre. Because of an objection by the DCA that the plan allocated too much land to the urban expansion area, the County agreed to adopt remedial amendments to cure that deficiency. In August 1993, the County adopted a remedial amendment to the plan which, among other things, continued an urban expansion designation for petitioners' property. Again, however, the DCA found the amendment not to be in compliance on the ground the plan still allocated too much land to urban uses. To satisfy this continuing concern, and in accordance with a settlement agreement with the DCA, the County agreed to reduce the amount of land allocated to urban uses by reclassifying various tracts of land in the County from urban expansion to urban reserve. In its remedial amendments adopted on April 7, 1994, among other things, the County proposed to change the land use designation on that part of petitioners' property (961.38 acres) lying south of State 484 from urban expansion area to urban reserve category with a rural land use designation, which allows one residential unit per ten acres, or less than 100 units. In contrast, that portion of petitioners' property lying north of State Road 484 (318.57 acres) will continue to remain in the urban expansion area with a medium density residential land use designation, which allows for four dwelling units per acre, or almost 1,400 units. Petitioners' Concerns Petitioners allege that the plan amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis and it fails to achieve its stated objective of preventing urban sprawl. In addition, at hearing petitioners suggested that the reclassification, if ultimately approved, constituted an unlawful taking of their property in violation of the United States Constitution. As to this claim, jurisdiction to adjudicate the same lies within that of a circuit court rather than with the undersigned, and in any event, it cannot be raised until after all administrative remedies, including this one, have been pursued. Petitioners' property is located in the middle of the northern half of a large, vested Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Marion Oaks, a project begun in the early 1970's. Their land is surrounded on all sides by mainly residential lots, many of which are vacant, and almost two dozen streets originating within the project end at their property line. Marion Oaks now has two golf courses, a school, library, fire station, bank and utilities. Thus, it contains a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. As of the time of hearing, Marion Oaks had around 7,800 residents. Even though 78 percent of Marion Oaks' 24,564 residential lots have been sold, less than 10 percent of the lots have been developed. Therefore, most of the land in the project is vacant, and at its present rate of construction of around 130 residential units per year, Marion Oaks will not be built out for around 190 years. When the amendment was adopted, there was virtually no development in the western part of the DRI, the northern part was "sparsely" developed, a "little more" development was present in the southern part, and the bulk of the development was in the eastern part of the project. Indeed, the only commercial development, albeit very limited in nature, found in the project is approximately one and one-half miles east of petitioners' property. Therefore, it is fair to chararacterize Marion Oaks in its totality as being non-urban in character. Although petitioners have never applied for a development permit, they desire to develop their property by constructing a small shopping center consisting of a bank and supermarket which will serve as an anchor for other "neighborhood" type businesses. In addition, they plan to construct a golf course, perhaps an airport fly-in center, and more than a thousand "affordable- type" housing units to blend in with the other housing in Marion Oaks. With the dual land use designation on their property, however, petitioners point out that this type of development is not feasible. This was confirmed at hearing by their engineer. Petitioners first claim that the plan amendment is not consistent with the County's goal of discouraging scattered development and sprawl. They reason that, since the large Marion Oaks DRI surrounds their parcel of property, urban development is already present. It is true, as petitioners claim, that their property has road accessibility (State Road 484), the availability of centralized utilities and fire protection, and soil suited for development, all of which are necessary for urban development. Even so, Marion Oaks is largely undeveloped at this time, it can be characterized as non-urban, and at present growth rates it will not be built out for 190 years. Given these considerations, it cannot be said to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not consistent with, or does not further, the plan's goal of discouraging urban sprawl. Petitioners further contend that they were unfairly treated in this process. They point to another tract of land consisting of around 400 acres that was reclassified urban expansion even though it lies south of Lake Weir in southeastern Marion County in a predominately undeveloped area. Even if this is true, however, the classification of one isolated tract of land in this manner would not mean that petitioners' property would also qualify for the urban expansion category. In addition, petitioners contend that to allow them to develop their property at a medium residential density would be nothing more than infilling the center of an already developed tract of land, namely, the Marion Oaks DRI. Urban infill is defined by statute [s. 163.3164(27)] as follows: the development of vacant parcels of otherwise built-up areas where public facilities such as sewer systems, roads, schools, and recrea- tion areas are already in place and the aver- age residential density is at least five dwelling units per acre, the average non- residential intensity is at least a floor area ratio of 1.0 and vacant, developable land does not constitute more than 10 percent of the area. Since petitioners' property is not in an otherwise "built-up" area having a density of five units per acre as required by law, a designation or development of petitioners' property at urban densities would not be consistent with the concept of infilling. Finally, petitioners contend that the County's plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to the County's imposition of a dual land use designation on their property. As to this contention, the County established that, prior to adopting the amendment, it performed a detailed field survey of all urban areas of the County, including petitioners' parcel. In addition, a property owner's matrix was prepared, and approximately 400 parcels of property, including petitioners, that were proposed for reclassification to another land use category were reevaluated. The only remaining question is why the amendment allows urban development at a density of four residential units per acre on the northern part of petitioners' property but only allows one residential unit per ten acres on the southern part when the entire parcel is surrounded on all sides by the same land use, namely, an existing DRI and subdivision. In other words, absent some data and analysis to the contrary, logic would dictate, and it can be reasonably inferred, that the same land use classification should apply to the entire parcel. However, the County's representation that a property survey and matrix support this change was not credibly contested. Further, on page 53 of the data and analysis supporting the amendment is found the following summary regarding the change on the northern 318.57 acres of petitioners' property from urban reserve residential to urban expansion medium density residential: The County recognizes that development of the complete enclave area will require DRI/ Comprehensive Plan Amendment review, and establishing the small Urban Expansion Area will accommodate some preliminary development prior to the need to commence the DRI/Amend- ment process while maintaining the continuity of the remaining non-urban enclave area lying south of CR 484, a Major Collector roadway. Given these considerations, it cannot be said to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment, as it affects petitioners' property, is not supported by adequate data and analysis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the challenged plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4387GM Petitioners: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order did not contain a section entitled "Findings of Fact." Where proposed findings are found in other portions of the order, they have been partially accepted in findings of fact 8-16. Respondents: 1-3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. 4-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 5. 9-11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 17-18. Rejected as being unnecessary. 19-20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dick and Mary McGinley 5295 Southwest 135th Street Ocala, Florida 34473 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Craig W. Patterson and Timothy Buffkin own the Property and are the applicants for the proposed re-zoning. Bradford County is the local government responsible for determining the land use designation and zoning classification for the Property and has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs which it amends from time to time. The Property The Property is a 12.76-acre parcel located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 301 (US 301) and County Road 18 (CR 18) in unincorporated Bradford County. US 301 is a four-lane divided principal arterial roadway, and CR 18 is a two-lane major collector roadway. The intersection has a traffic light and left turn lanes on US 301. This is the only intersection of a principal arterial road and a major collector road in unincorporated Bradford County. The Property is roughly rectangular, with approximately 1,240 linear feet fronting on US 301 (eastern boundary of the Property) and approximately 450 feet fronting on County Road 18 (northern boundary). The Property is not located within a flood-prone area and has little or no wetlands. Approximately a half mile to the east of the Property is Hampton Lake. The Property is relatively flat. The soils on the property are poorly drained soils, but not indicative of wetlands. The soils and topography of the property do not preclude its development with a system to control stormwater and drainage. Currently, the Property contains one single-family dwelling unit. The Property is bounded on the north by a commercial land use and single-family residences, on the east by vacant and commercial land use, on the south by vacant land, and on the west by vacant land and single-family residences. Current Zoning and Land Use Designations Before October 2004, the Property was designated on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Residential Low Density,” which authorizes residential development at a density of less than or equal to two dwelling units per acre. On October 21, 2004, the County amended the FLUM to re-designate the Property as “Commercial.” However, the zoning for the Property remained “Residential, (Mixed) Single Family / Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1). The current zoning does not allow the types of uses appropriate under its Commercial land use designation. The Property is also located within an Urban Development Area which is defined in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan as an “area to which higher density agricultural, residential (single family, multi-family and mobile homes) and commercial and industrial uses are to be directed.” Within Urban Development Areas, lands classified as “Commercial” are to be used for the “sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services, as well as public, charter and private elementary, middle and high schools.” Certain other uses may also be approved as special exceptions or special permits. Surrounding Land Uses A portion of the land to the north of the Property and all of the land immediately east are within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hampton. The City of Hampton has zoned property at the US 301/CR 18 intersection as “CG”, a commercial designation which includes all of the uses authorized under Bradford County’s CI zoning district. Within the past several years, a truck repair and auto parts facility was located and is still operating east of the Property, across US 301. Farther east, but bordering those commercial lands, a residential subdivision (Fox Hollow) is under development. The Requested Re-zoning The Applicants seek to re-zone the Property to Commercial Intensive (CI). Permitted principal uses and structures allowed within the CI zoning district are consistent with the types of commercial uses listed in the comprehensive plan for the Commercial land use designation, namely retail outlets for the sale of food, home furnishings, vehicles, etc.; service establishments such as barber shops, shoe repair shops, repair and service garages; medical or dental offices; and wholesaling. The CI zoning district is described as “intended for intensive, highly automotive-oriented uses that require a conspicuous and accessible location convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic and shall be located within commercial land use classifications on the [FLUM].” The Property meets the description of a conspicuous and accessible location that is convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic. Concurrency Management Assessment The requested re-zoning is a “straight” re-zoning request, meaning that the re-zoning is not associated with any particular proposed use. Future development of the site will be subject to development plan review and approval, pursuant to Article Fourteen of the County LDRs. A concurrency reservation is not available until final site plan approval. However, at the County’s request, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) performed concurrency management assessments of the re-zoning in 2006 and again in 2008. In 2006, the NCFRPC provided the County with nonbinding concurrency determination that the applicable service levels would be met or exceeded for potable water (to be supplied by potable water wells); sanitary sewer (to be served by on-site septic tanks); solid waste; drainage; recreation; affordable housing; and historic resources. As to transportation facilities, the 2006 concurrency management assessment determined that the maximum potential development of the Property would generate 389 trips on US 301 at “PM peak hour.” When added to the then-existing PM peak hour trips, based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count data, US 301 would continue to operate within the adopted level of service (LOS). Between 2006 and 2008, the adopted LOS standard for US 301 was raised from “C” to “B,” meaning that the governmental objective was changed to maintain a freer flow of traffic during evening peak traffic. Therefore, despite the reduction of “background” trips on US 301, the 2008 concurrency management assessment determined that maximum development of the Property would cause the new LOS “B” standard to be exceeded. Petitioners presented a traffic analysis based upon more recent FDOT traffic count data than was used by the NCFRPC for its 2008 concurrency management assessment. The newer data showed a further decline in background trips on US 301, so that adding the maximum potential trips from the Property would no longer result in total PM peak hour trips that would exceed the adopted LOS standard. Petitioners’ more recent data and analysis is professionally acceptable and should be used. At the time of site plan review for any future development of the Property, an updated concurrency assessment will be required and will be based on the number of trips generated by the actual proposed use, rather than the trips that would be generated by the maximum development potential of the Property. The assessment will also use the most current FDOT traffic count data. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The County’s Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application for re-zoning at its July 10, 2006, meeting. It recommended denial of the re-zoning based upon the impact of the proposed change upon living conditions in the neighborhood. As factual support for the recommended denial, the Planning and Zoning Board’s report cites “all comments received during the said public hearing and the Concurrency Management Assessment concerning said application.” At the August 19, 2008, public hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge, members of the public expressed concern that the CI zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the west, in the Hampton Lake area. Some members of the public also expressed concern about possible future uses of the Property, such as a truck stop or bar. Package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, truck stops and automotive service stations can only be approved as special exception uses in the CI zoning district. Special exception uses require approval of the County’s Board of Adjustment after a public hearing, upon a finding that granting the special exception use would promote the “public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, propriety or the general welfare.” The Board of Adjustment must also determine that the special exception use would be compatible with adjacent properties. A favorable decision here on the requested re-zoning to CI is not a determination that a bar or truck stop on the Property would be compatible with the adjacent residential area. The LDRs impose site use and design criteria for commercial uses that adjoin residential districts. Site plan approval for commercial developments in CI zoning districts requires the consideration of landscape buffers, height restrictions, off-street parking requirements, lot coverage and yard standards. These development conditions are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas. Stormwater Some of the speakers at the public hearing expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the Property. One speaker, Michael Davis, testified that stormwater from the Property currently flows across his property. Another expressed concern that runoff from the Property would flow directly to Hampton Lake. On-site stormwater retention facilities would be required for the Property in conjunction with its development. The LDRs require that post-development runoff rates not exceed pre-development conditions. The objective of the required stormwater runoff controls is to approximate the rate, volume, quality, and timing of stormwater runoff that occurred under the site’s unimproved or existing state. There is no basis, at this stage of analysis, to determine that the County’s stormwater regulations are not adequate to prevent adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent residences or to Hampton Lake. Traffic on CR 18 Several speakers expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on CR 18. Petitioners conducted a site-specific traffic count for CR 18 east of US 301 and determined that the peak hour trips are now 131. The capacity for CR 18 is approximately 600. Based upon the total of 389 additional trips generated by the maximum potential development of the Property (on either US 301 or CR 18), the adopted LOS standard for CR 18 would not be exceeded. Petitioners demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners approve the requested re-zoning. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Norman, Clerk of the Board Bradford County Board of County Commissioners 945 North Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Charles L. Gibbs, Esquire Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sexton, Esquire Brown & Broling 486 N. Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Seminole Raceway, as proposed in Charles and Linda Wimberlys' Site and Development Plan and approved with conditions by the Leon County Development Review Committee (DRC), is consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and is a permissible land use under applicable provisions of Chapter 10, Leon County Code (the Code).
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent, Manatee County (County), by Ordinance No. 09-31 on August 11, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the County. The County is a local government that administers its Plan, which it amends from time to time. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the FLUM being challenged here. Petitioner is a Florida limited liability company with offices located at 4379 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. It owns property in the County. Petitioner appeared at the transmittal hearing for the amendment and submitted comments on the record in opposition to the amendment. FBE is a Florida limited liability company and has contracted to purchase the subject property from Patron. It operates a renewable energy development company in the County. It submitted comments to the County during the adoption process. Patron is a Florida limited liability company that owns the subject property. It submitted comments in support of the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment On March 27, 2009, FBE (as agent for Patron) filed a Land Development Application (application) with the County Planning Department requesting approval of a FLUM change for the property from IL to P/SP(1). See Joint Exhibit 1. The existing IL land use authorizes office, light industry, research/ corporate parks, warehouse distribution, intensive commercial uses, neighborhood retail uses, hotel/motel, selected single- family, and residential uses. See Joint Exhibit 12. The Plan describes the general range of potential uses under the new category as recreational uses, sanitary landfills, permanent water and wastewater treatment/storage/disposal facilities, and other public facilities including, but not limited to, public airports, major maintenance facilities, solid waste transfer stations, and major utility transmission corridors. Id. Residential uses are not allowed. One intent of the P/SP(1) category is to recognize facilities associated with private utilities, such as the biomass plant proposed by FBE. Id. The application indicated that FBE intends to operate a sixty-megawatt biomass integrated power plant on the property and to continue to retain all uses allowed by the IL category. (In contrast to a power plant that uses coal or oil to generate electricity, a biomass plant uses renewable energy sources such vegetative materials to create electric energy.) The power generated at the facility will be sold to Progress Energy Florida, an investor-owned public utility. The application was accepted, numbered PA-09-08, and assigned Ordinance No. 09-31. Sometime in early April 2009, a staff report was prepared by the County's Principal Planner, Leon Kotecki, which included land use characteristics and development trends, plan amendment justification, and positive and negative aspects of the application and mitigating factors. See Joint Exhibits 5 and 6. The staff report also included what is described as a Plan Amendment Detailed Review and Land Planning Analysis that discussed services and natural features, urban development considerations, and consistency with the Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan), Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5,1 and relevant portions of the Florida Statutes (2009).2 The report recommended that the application be approved. In making this favorable recommendation, the planner compiled and reviewed data on land compatibility, traffic impacts, and water and sanitary uses. He also took into account the topography of the site, how the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) affected the site, its proximity to Port Manatee, and the surrounding uses. On April 4, 2009, the County published an advertisement of a public hearing on the application in the Bradenton Herald and the Sarasota Herald Tribune. Also, letters were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed amendment. Petitioner received personal notice of the amendment by letter dated May 20, 2009. On April 16, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the plan amendment and by a 4-1 vote recommended transmitting the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. On April 21, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing and voted 6-0 to transmit the proposed amendment (as a part of a larger amendment package) to the Department for its review. On June 29, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report for a series of map amendments, including the biomass project. See Joint Exhibit 4. In the ORC, the Department lodged an objection regarding the lack of sufficient planning guidelines as required by Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.1.22(4)(b)(i), specifically noting that the amendment did not restrict the property to a particular use. Id. at p. 3. That policy requires that an amendment for a proposed P/SP(1) category include a declaration of the specific use for which the P/SP(1) category is sought. The ORC also indicated that the amendment was not consistent with various goals, policies, and objectives in the State Plan for the reasons cited in the Objections portion of the ORC. Id. at pp. 3-4. The ORC recommended that the amendment include site-specific policies establishing meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards to guide development on the site. Id. at p. 3. After receipt of the ORC, the County revised the plan amendment by including a text amendment containing ten conditions (stipulations) that would apply if the property was developed as an electric generating facility using biomass fuels and/or solar energy. These conditions were included in the adopting ordinance as a new Section D.5.4 in the General Introduction Chapter and are a part of the Plan. See Joint Exhibit 10 at pp. 4-5. The new section provides that the property is limited to an "electricity generating facility using only biomass fuels and solar energy retaining the light industrial uses as provided for in the former IL Industrial Future Land Use Category applicable to the site." Id. at p. 4. The section further provides that the ten conditions are "minimal requirements" and that further conditions may be added during the development process, as necessary. Id. at p. 5. Thus, future stipulations at a later date can exceed the minimum requirements in the County's Land Development Code. On August 11, 2009, the County conducted a public hearing and adopted Ordinance No. 09-31, with the changes presented by its staff. On September 29, 2009, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance in the Bradenton Herald. On October 20, 2009, Petitioner filed its Petition challenging the map change and text amendment. The issues have been more narrowly defined in its Proposed Recommended Order and can be summarized as follows: the amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.2 and is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c) and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, because it impermissibly allows IL uses in the P/SP(1) land use category; the amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)1. and 7. and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, because it impermissibly expands the uses in the P/SP(1) category by including IL uses and does not contain the required intensity standards; the amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.4.(b)(i) because it fails to declare a specific use for the IL uses; the amendment is inconsistent with the financial feasibility requirements of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.019(3); the amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Rules 9J- 5.006(2)(b) and 9J-5.005(2)(a) and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, because it is not based on an analysis of the best available data regarding the suitability of the site for a biomass facility; and the amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) because it was not based on an analysis of the best available data for compatibility with residential uses in the surrounding area. The Property and Surrounding Uses Patron's property consists of around 44.4 acres and is located at 11551 and 11805 U.S. Highway 41 North in the northwest part of the County, just south of the Hillsborough County line. The eastern side of the property adjoins U.S. Highway 41, a major four-lane highway running north-south, while property owned by CSX Corporation (CSX), including an active railroad track, and then a large drainage canal border the site on its western side. (The railroad track is around one-quarter mile west of U.S. Highway 41.) West of the canal is agricultural land and a large parcel owned by Port Manatee designated as IL but used as conservation lands. To the south (in IL-designated land) lies an aircraft parts manufacturing facility owned by Trielectron Industries, which shares a boundary with Petitioner's property. To the north, the site adjoins property owned by Florida Power & Light Company, on which a substation is located. FBE plans to connect its power plant to the electric grid through this substation. The property is bisected by Armstrong Road, an unpaved County-maintained road running east-west, which provides access from U.S. Highway 41 to Patron's property and the land just west of the CSX property. Approximately one-third of the property lies north of Armstrong Road, while the remaining two-thirds lie south of the road. The southern 450 to 500 feet of the site consists of wetlands, forests, and vegetation, which serve as both a distance and visual buffer to uses to the south and southwest. (Because of these wetlands, a biomass plant would have to be constructed on the middle of the site.) Immediately west of the CSX property is an unpaved road that turns south to provide access to row crop fields and then to an 88-acre, rectangle-shaped parcel owned by Petitioner. Port Manatee, a deepwater seaport connected to the Gulf of Mexico through Tampa Bay, is less than a mile north of the site. The area between Port Manatee and Patron's property contains port-related uses which are mostly industrial uses such as construction yards and an aggregate plant. To the east of the port is a closed phosphate processing plant and associated phosphogypsum stacks, which are the remains after the phosphate is processed. The existing zoning on the property is Planned Development Encouragement Zone (PDEZ). The existing uses allowed under that category include a range of light and heavy industrial uses and are listed on the General Development Plan approved by the County on December 4, 2008. See County Exhibits 13 and 24. This information is relevant here because the zoning classification is consistent with the County's intent to focus heavy industrial uses within close proximity to Port Manatee. Development trends in the area of Port Manatee and the Patron property are predominately industrial. All of the surrounding development is either light or heavy industrial uses with the exception of six single-family homes located on Chapman Road, which terminates on the eastern side of U.S. Highway 41 just south of the site and extends eastward. The homes are located in a strip of land extending east on Chapman Road for a quarter mile or so and south for around a mile on the eastern side of U.S. Highway 41 that is classified as Retail/Office/ Residential (ROR). That category allows a range of uses including retail, wholesale or commercial uses, and public or semi-public uses. Thus, the residential units have the potential to eventually transition to nonresidential uses without a map change. There remain a few open parcels of land in the area that are available for additional development. Petitioner's property comprises around 88.7 acres. The southwest corner of Patron's property lies around one- quarter mile from the northeast corner of Petitioner's property. Counting the 450-foot green space on the southern end of Patron's property, the distance between the site of the plant and Petitioner's main parcel is around 1,900 feet. Petitioner also owns a narrow strip of land extending northward from the main parcel to Armstrong Road. This strip adjoins the western side of the CSX railroad track and provides access to the property from U.S Highway 41. On November 30, 2004, the County approved a residential project for Petitioner's property and rezoned the land from Suburban Agriculture and Suburban Agriculture/Coastal High Hazard Overlay District to Planned Development Residential/ Coastal High Hazard Overlay District. The project is known as the Estates at Bishop Harbor. The Preliminary Site Plan for the property depicted 66 lots for single-family detached residences. Before any development occurred, however, the original developer defaulted on the mortgage held by Petitioner, a foreclosure occurred, title to the property reverted to Petitioner, and no development ever occurred. The property is still vacant. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had an application pending before the County to change the land use designation on 83.31 acres from Residential-1 (one dwelling unit per acre) to IL. The outcome of that application is unknown. The remaining 5.39 acres are already designated IL. Based on these circumstances, it is fair to infer that the long-delayed construction of the planned residential subdivision is questionable. Stipulation 6 of the approval of the change in land use on Petitioner's property was a requirement that a Notice to Buyers be included in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and in the sales contracts or a separate addendum to the sales contracts and final site plans that includes language informing prospective homeowners that there are neighboring industrial uses and the potential for future industrial development including possible truck traffic and noises associated with industrial uses. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner first contends that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.2 and inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c) and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, because it permits light industrial uses in the P/SP(1) land use category. Petitioner argues that IL uses are not permitted in the P/SP(1) category. It also argues that by failing to include specific intensity standards in the amendment for the allowed IL uses, the amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)1. and 7. and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The rule requires that the FLUE contain policies regulating land use categories included on the FLUM and establishing standards for intensities of use for each future land use category. The statute requires that each land use category be defined in terms of uses allowed and include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of building and structure intensities. Policy 2.2.1.22 establishes the P/SP(1) land use category; Policy 2.2.1.22.1 describes the intent of the category; Policy 2.2.1.22.2 describes the general range of potential uses in the category; and Policy 2.2.1.22.3 provides the range of potential intensity for the category. The general range of potential uses in the P/SP(1) category include: Recreational uses, sanitary landfills, permanent water and wastewater treatment/ storage/disposal facilities and other major public facilities including but not limited to, airports owned or operated by a public entity, major maintenance facilities, solid waste transfer stations, [and] major utility transmission corridors. Also, when the P/SP(1) designation is an easement on privately-held property, other uses consistent with the adjacent future land use category or categories, where consistent with the purpose of the easement and consistent with all other goals, objectives, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan, may also be considered. (See also Policy 2.1.1.5) Policy 2.1.1.5 provides further clarification on the allowed uses in this category by requiring that the County ensure the availability of sufficient land in the P/SP(1) category "to allow development of major public or semi-public uses (e.g., electrical generation facilities . . .) in appropriate areas when compatible with surrounding development." Joint Exhibit The Plan permits light industrial uses within the P/SP(1) category. Notwithstanding the broad range of uses described above, FLUE Policy 2.2.1.5 provides the County with more flexibility in determining the appropriate uses for any given plan category. The policy states that the future land use category listings of uses are "generalized," they are not "all inclusive," and they "may be interpreted to include other land uses which are similar to or consistent with those set forth in the general range of potential uses." See Joint Exhibit 12. IL uses are similar in character and intensity to the type of uses listed in the P-SP(1) category. Because the property was classified as IL before the amendment, all of the IL uses in that category have been evaluated and determined by the County to be appropriate in terms of location, impact, and intensity. For these reasons, it is fairly debatable that the plan amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.2, Rule 9J- 5.006(3), and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Likewise, the P-SP(1) category has a broad range of uses in terms of intensity, and even though the amendment does not contain specific intensity standards for the IL uses, the Plan contains other provisions required by Chapter 9J-5 to ensure compatibility between any future uses on the site and the surrounding properties in terms of intensity. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the plan amendment is consistent with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)1. and 7. and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner further argues that the plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.2.4(b)(i), which requires that "[a]n applicant shall be required to declare a specific use or uses for a specific piece of property for which the applicant is proposing to amend the existing future land use category to P/SP(1)." Petitioner argues that while FBE has identified one specific use for the P/SP(1) category -- a biomass plant -- it has not declared the specific use or uses which FBE is proposing under the IL category. Because the light industrial uses allowed under the IL category remain the same as before the amendment, and were previously evaluated when the Plan was originally adopted in 1989, it is fairly debatable that the amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.1.22.2.4(b)(i). The generalized reference to IL uses is adequate since it merely recognizes uses already approved and in effect. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner also contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the financial feasibility requirements of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.019(3) because the County's five-year Capital Improvements Program contains no programmed improvements for U.S. Highway 41. The rule requires that there be a transportation analysis to support a FLUE amendment. However, this issue was not raised in the parties' Stipulation and need not be addressed. See Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. v. Dept. of Comm. Affrs., et al., Case No. 94-2098GM, 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996, DCA Nov. 25, 1996)("[a party] is bound by the allegations in its Petition for Hearing . . . as further limited by the Prehearing Stipulation"). Even if it was a viable issue, the evidence shows that during the review and adoption process, the County relied upon a Florida Department of Transportation traffic analysis link sheet for February 2009 and information supplied by the applicant, which show that the current levels of service (LOS) on U.S. Highway 41 are A and B, that the projected number of peak hour trips will actually result in an overall net decrease in trips when compared to the existing Plan category, and that no capital improvements are needed. See Joint Exhibit 2 at pp. 14-15; Joint Exhibit 4. An assertion by Petitioner that the LOS on U.S. Highway 41 may deteriorate if a biomass plant is not built and the IL uses are developed to their maximum potential is speculative at best and not supported by the evidence. Petitioner next contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(b) because it was not based on the best available data regarding the suitability of the site for the biomass facility. The statute requires that the FLUE be based on "surveys, studies and data regarding the area, including . . . the character of undeveloped land." Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) requires that the amendment be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, while Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b)3. requires that the amendment be based on an analysis of the character of the land in order to determine its suitability for use, including the topography of the site. In support of this argument, Petitioner points out that when the County planner reviewed the amendment, he assumed that less property was within the CHHA than was depicted on the FLUM, that a majority of the property was at or above 10 feet in elevation, and that it would not flood in a Category I storm event. The planner reached this conclusion based on a review of large-scale United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and Light Detecting And Ranging (LIDAR) maps. However, an undated topographic survey (prepared for an earlier prospective purchaser of the Patron property and given by Patron to FBE when it signed a contract to purchase the property) and a technical memorandum prepared by FBE's consultant, Golder Associates, Inc., on March 31, 2009, reflected that much of the property lies within the CHHA at an elevation of five feet or less, or below the 5.8-foot storm surge elevation for a Category I storm event. This information was in the personal files of FBE's president and its out-of-town consultant and was not given to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. Petitioner argues that this information is the best available data, and that if the County had been given these documents during its review process, it would have determined that the Patron property was not suitable for industrial uses. The County was not given the survey and memorandum prepared by the FBE consultant because that information was prepared only for use at the site plan review stage. This is not unusual since the County does not require signed and sealed surveys and engineering reports during the amendment process. While the data were in existence prior to the adoption of the map change in August 2009, they were not disclosed until a few days before final hearing (through discovery) and consequently were not "available for public inspection" prior to the amendment's adoption. After analyzing the new data (over objection of opposing counsel) for the first time at hearing, the County planner indicated that if he had known that the elevation was lower than that depicted on the USGS maps, he would have "given [the application] closer consideration." Even so, he emphasized that his recommendation would still be the same because any development on the site can be protected during the development process by berms, suspension of units aboveground, and other development standards. Assuming arguendo that the data were "available for public inspection" and should have been considered for that purpose, given the rigorous standards that apply during the site approval process, it is still fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by adequate data and analysis as to the suitability of the site and that the County reacted to it in an appropriate manner. Similarly, Petitioner points out that the technical memorandum prepared by FBE's consultant on March 31, 2009, revealed that the soils on the site are not suitable for a heavily loaded structure such as a biomass plant. Therefore, it argues that the amendment was not based on professionally acceptable data and analysis with respect to the suitability of the property to support a biomass plant, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J- 5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(b)2. The latter rule requires a land use analysis for soils in order to determine the suitability of proposed uses on the site. In addressing this issue in the staff report, the planner relied upon the 1983 Soil Survey of Manatee County and determined that the property had three types of soil: Bradenton Fine Sand; Chobee Loamy Fine Sand; and Wabasso Fine Sand. See Joint Exhibit 2 at p. 17. He further determined that these three soils are "poorly drained, level to nearly level, sandy to loamy, and underlain by sandy marine sediment and limestone." Id. However, because several heavy industries are already operating adjacent and within the immediate surrounding area with the same type of soil limitations, he concluded that the soil limitations could be "overcome by the proper design of drainage facilities and engineering design of buildings." Id. It is fairly debatable that the data and analysis are adequate to support the amendment in this respect, and that the County reacted to that data in an appropriate manner. Petitioner further argues the amendment violates Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) because it is not based on a compatibility analysis of the industrial uses with the residential uses in the surrounding area. Like the preceding two objections, this one is framed in terms of a lack of the best available data to support the amendment. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner also cites as being relevant to this objection FLUE Policies 2.1.1.5 and 2.2.1.22.4.(b)(i), which require that a change in land use to P/SP(1) only be made "in appropriate areas when compatible with surrounding development," and that an applicant "provide information and analysis on the compatibility of the proposed use or uses . . . with surrounding development." Petitioner points out that there are six single-family homes, characterized by one expert as an "artifact" from an earlier era, that extend out one-half mile along Chapman Road to the east/southeast of Patron's property, and that the County failed to consider the compatibility of industrial uses with those homes. It also argues that the County's analysis was based on the construction of a sixty-megawatt facility, as proposed by FBE, and did not consider a larger, more intense facility. In making its compatibility analysis for the surrounding area, the County considered all residences on Chapman Road extending out eastward a quarter to a half mile, which included the six houses in question. With the exception of the six houses, the data relied upon by the County reflected that the entire surrounding development is either light or heavy industrial uses, which is consistent with the County's focus to encourage industrial development in the Port Manatee area. The six houses are in a strip of land designated as ROR, which allows a mix of retail, office, and residential uses. Some of the existing uses that are near the homes, and within the ROR category, are considered "intensive." Given this type of development, it is highly unlikely that more homes will be constructed in the ROR area. If and when a biomass plant is constructed, existing development standards will be used to ensure compatibility with the ROR uses. Petitioner did not refute this evidence. When considering the area and uses as a whole, it is fairly debatable that there are adequate data and analysis to support a determination that the new land use will be compatible with the residential uses in the surrounding area. All other issues raised by Petitioner and not addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
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 denying USFG's Petition and determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 09-31 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of July, 2010.
