Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Narcisco J. Ramirez, held land surveyor license number LS0002779 issued by petitioner, Department of professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors. Respondent currently operates a land surveying firm known as South Atlantic Services of Florida, Inc. located at 7350 Southwest 41st Street; Miami, Florida. Respondent received a two year degree in civil engineering from City College of San Francisco in 1969 and has worked for various firms as a land surveyor in the Miami area since 1971. He has been a registered land surveyor in Florida since July, 1975. In March, 1984, respondent was contacted by a real estate salesman and requested to perform a "boundary survey" and "sketch" of a parcel of land owned by one M. P. Smith McNiely. The land in question involved various lots, including Lots 23, 25-30, 34-36 and 38 located in a subdivision known as DeSoto Heights which lies adjacent to Southwest 304th Street, Southwest 105th Terrace, and Southwest 168th Street in Dade County, Florida, just north of the City of Homestead. The property was to be sold, and the survey was intended to assist the seller in determining a sales price on the property. Ramirez interpreted the request to mean that only a "preliminary sketch" would be initially done, and if requested by the owner, a "complete survey" would be performed at a later date. He was paid $650 for the initial work, and expected an additional fee of $2,500 to $3,000 for the complete survey. According to Ramirez, a preliminary sketch is not as accurate as a complete survey, has substantially less information, may contain errors, and does not require a certification by the surveyor that it meets all required professional standards of surveying. Ramirez assigned the field work to an employee named Roberto Collado, who no longer lives in Florida. The field work consisted of determining the property corners, and providing a sketch to the real estate salesman. Ramirez did not certify that minimum technical standards had been met but did sign and seal the drawing on March 22, 1984. At the same time he provided the following certification: I HEREBY CERTIFY: that the attached sketch of survey represents a recent survey made under my direction, and is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. There are no encroachments unless shown thereon. Ramirez also added the following in bold lettering: NOTE: BOUNDARY SURVEY ONLY. No elevations secured or any other featured at the owners representative s request. A short time later, Frank Makowski, also a registered land surveyor and a former professional colleague of Ramirez some ten years earlier was contacted by an attorney (David Liebman) who was handling the sales transaction of McNiely's property. The closing was being held up because Ramirez's survey reflected a house sitting on both lots 36 and 37. Makowski was requested to verify the encroachment onto lot 36, and to ascertain the true location of the property boundaries. Makowski initially contacted Ramirez and requested a copy of his sketch and field notes. These were supplied by Ramirez, who gave no indication to him that the work was only "preliminary" in nature. Makowski then sent out a field team to survey the property. It found that the west boundary on the Ramirez survey was actually thirty-three feet off, which caused the purported encroachment on lot 36. The sketch made by Ramirez was deficient in a number of respects as established by uncontradicted expert testimony. To begin with, the parties have stipulated that the survey did not comply with the minimum technical standards for land surveying as set forth in Chapter 21HH- 6, Florida Administrative Code. These include Rules 21HH- 6.03(1), (2), (4), (6)-(8), (12), (18)-(20), and 21HH- 6.06(1), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the administrative complaint. For example, it contained no certification, did not reflect all bearings and angles, and monumentations were not set. In short, the Ramirez survey technique and procedure was not in conformance with the procedure required by generally accepted and prevailing standards of land surveying. Moreover, even though it was identified as a "boundary survey;" expert testimony established that the project was indeed a survey within the meaning of the term and it had to meet such technical standards or plainly provide a disclaimer to indicate that such standards were not met. In September, 1983, respondent was engaged by an engineering firm to "secure ground elevations along the above property (Southwest 168th Street and Southwest 192nd Avenue, Dade County) and then relate said elevations to a Dade County Bench Mark," and to "prepare a sketch of survey showing said existing ground elevations." For this he was to be paid $150. The property was owned by Alfred and Linda Wilson. Ramirez first obtained by telephone a bench mark on September 30, 1983; from the Dade County Surveying Department and then sent a field crew to complete the task. The bench mark he selected was across a canal and some three-quarters of a mile from the property in question in an area with heavy undergrowth. This made an accurate measurement more difficult to perform. The accuracy of vertical control surveys (elevations) is essential since this determines whether a parcel of land must have fill added in order to install a septic tank and well. It also affects the flood insurability of a home. Such surveys are subject to the minimum technical standards of the profession, as adopted by agency rules, unless the survey is a "specific purpose survey." In that event the same must be clearly stated on the face of the survey. In this case Ramirez, merely noted on the face of the sketch: "preliminary sketch, only elevations are included in this sketch of survey, no horizontal distances were measured nor controls set and distances shown along the sketch are for location purposes only." He also certified that "the elevations shown refer to a National Vertical Geodetic Datum of 1929, Bench Mark, were secured by us under my direction and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Ramirez considered the project to be a "special purpose sketch" and therefore did not believe he had to certify that minimum technical standards had been met. Indeed, he conceded that such standards had not been met in preparing the documents. Makowski was requested to perform a survey on the Wilson property on June 12, 1984 to verify the accuracy of Ramirez s survey. He found the actual elevations to be approximately two feet lower than those reflected on Ramirez's sketch. 2/ The accuracy of Makowski's findings was corroborated by a survey previously performed by another surveyor in 1979. That survey, which is a public record on file with the Dade County Subdivision Control Department, indicated that because of the property's low elevation, fill was required to meet flood criteria. Through the testimony of Makowski and another expert land surveyor, James E. Beadman, it was established without contradiction that Ramirez's work failed to comport with minimum technical standards of the land surveying profession. For example, Ramirez had insufficient field notes, he used too few turning points, and did not perform a loop closure. Further, there is no bench mark description or certification by Ramirez on the survey, and Ramirez used a Linker rod to transfer elevations from one bench mark to another in contravention of accepted standards. Had Ramirez desired to qualify his elevation survey in accordance with agency rules, he should have identified his survey as a topographic survey and indicated that improvements were not located. By calling it an elevation survey, Ramirez did not change its true character of being a topographic survey. Rule 21HH-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a survey is not performed, a surveyor should "state that such sketch is not a survey" on the face of the sketch. All other surveys must meet minimum technical standards, and by signing and sealing the drawings, a surveyor certifies as such. Ramirez justified his work in the McNiely project as being simply preliminary in nature. If he conducted a complete survey at a later time, he would then obtain more information, and correct any errors present on the initial drawings. Similarly, he viewed the Wilson survey as a special purpose sketch," and one not requiring compliance with minimum technical standards. Ramirez has performed hundreds of surveys in the past fifteen years; and there is no evidence of any formal disciplinary action having been instituted against him for negligence or misconduct. Both surveys were eventually performed in an accurate manner by Makowski. There were no complaints filed against Ramirez by either client. The complaint herein stems from Makowski who reported the alleged violations to petitioner after reviewing Ramirez's work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this orders and that he be fined $1000 and placed on two years probation. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 7th day of August, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Sumter County comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 adopted on September 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94-6 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth and James E. Boyd, own property and reside within the northern part of unincorporated Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group while Boyd serves as its treasurer. By stipulation of the parties, petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (Villages), is a Florida corporation and the owner and developer of the Tri-County Villages development of regional impact, which is the subject property of this proceeding. Villages submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. Tri-County Villages To place this dispute in proper perspective, it is necessary to trace the history of the development which has occurred in and around the subject property. As noted earlier, intervenor is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. The Challenged Amendment On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. The Tri-County Villages DRI and ADA and plan amendment are related in that Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes, requires that the local government's review of the DRI and corresponding comprehensive plan amendment be initiated and concluded at the same time. In the instant case, the Tri-County Villages ADA served as much of the background data and analysis for the plan amendment. The Tri-County Villages DRI also served as the sector plan for the area covered by the amendment. In addition to the voluminous data and analysis included in the Tri- County Villages ADA, the plan amendment also included detailed data and analysis. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related issues, an analysis of environmental considerations, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis collectively demonstrated that the urban development proposed by the amendment was appropriate for the designated area. C. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? In their proposed recommended order, petitioners summarize their objections to the plan amendment as follows: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands, (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl, (c) the future land use map is internally inconsistent, (d) there is no demonstrated need for 1,960 acres of PUD land use, (e) PUD is not a valid land use category, (f) the amendment does not ensure adequate fire and emergency medical services, (g) the County failed to coordinate with the local school board, (h) there is no reasonable protection from flooding, (i) the amendment does not provide adequate parks and recreational facilities, (j) affordable housing needs are not met, and there is no requirement that the developer install water and sewer facilities at its own expense. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 1,960 acres of agricultural land will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by FLUE objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insures retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas," the cited rule considers this failure to be a prime indicator that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, FLUE objective 1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The plans, FLUE data and analysis demonstrate that one of the best areas for urban development in the County is the northeast portion of the County which covers the agricultural lands in the plan amendment. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the urban infrastructure currently in place. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD and Tri- County Villages amended development order sector plan will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. In view of the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land. Urban sprawl In the same vein, petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because of the conversion of 1,960 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, and which have allegedly been violated. They also point to the fact that large portions of the existing development have not been sold or built out, only 2 percent of the 1,960 acres will be devoted to commercial land use, the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural area, it must score approximately 50 points based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD failed to score 50 points, it was deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. The plan amendment scored 130 points, well in excess of the 50 point threshold. In addition to satisfying FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with FLUM maps VII-18A and VII-18C, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the FLUE data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18A demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations for urban development. Similarly, Map VII-18C indicates that the land has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. In fact, portions of land covered by the plan amendment are already within an established urban expansion area which is the OBGW DRI. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category and sector plan concept adopted by the plan amendment are planning methods specifically recognized and encouraged by prior DCA policy as reflected in the DCA's Technical Memo Special Edition 4-4 and the urban sprawl provisions incorporated into Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 18, 1994, as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that mixed use development and sector planning . . . will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Given the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. The consistency of the future land Petitioners next argue in general terms that the FLUM does not "reflect policies which call for maintaining agricultural lands, discouraging urban sprawl, promoting land use compatibility, protection from flooding, providing for adequate public recreation facilities, and other objectives," and thus it is internally inconsistent. The FLUM series in the plan as well as the FLUM series as amended by the plan amendment is a pictorial representation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUM is internally inconsistent as alleged in their petition. Demonstrated need Petitioners next allege that the plan amendment "is premature in time and fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege that the FLUM "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. In addition, the DCA may not choose one methodology over another. At hearing, petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended that other factors such as mortality rates and resale figures should have been used in calculating the multiplier. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments report. That report recommended that the County provide an analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population during the planning time frame (the year 2014) established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan. Based on historic data, the County calculated a multiplier which depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately 87 percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In actuality, a 1.87 multiplier is not really the most accurate depiction of the allocation of residential land county-wide because the population for OBGW and the other PUD in the County was not included in the calculation. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, the County added to the equation the projected population for OBGW and the PUD. The resulting revised multiplier equalled 1.46. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 1.88. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Moreover, petitioners' methodology was unacceptable because it did not project its population over the correct planning horizon. Petitioners failed to consider the 2014 planning horizon established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan which controls the development of land covered by the plan amendment. Instead, petitioners multiplier incorrectly used the 2001 planning horizon established by the plan. In addressing the need for additional residential allocation, the amount of residential land allocated must be a reflection of the population expected through the end of the Tri-County Villages sector plan 2014 planning horizon. The type of development contemplated by the plan amendment and the additional population has not previously occurred in the County. Since development of OBGW commenced in 1992, the building permits issued in the County have increased by 94 percent. Much of this increase can be attributed to OBGW. The number of yearly certificates of occupancy for OBGW has stayed relatively constant and is expected to remain constant throughout the planning horizon. Intervenor's marketing scheme for OBGW seeks to attract retirees predominately from the northeastern part of the United States. The residents are not generally County residents prior to moving to Tri-County Villages. This same marketing scheme will be used for the future development of the Tri-County Villages. Thus, the future Tri-County Villages residents are not expected to be from the County. Tri-County Villages is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Because this new population is a reality which was not comtemplated by the plan, and the plan does not have an excess of allocated residential land, the need for the increased residential densities has been demonstrated. Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was premature or not based on a demonstrated need. PUD as a land use category Because a planned unit development (PUD) is not "recognized" as a land use category in Rule 9J-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, petitioners contend that the use of that category in the plan amendment renders it not in compliance. For purposes of its compliance review, the DCA used the version of chapter 9J-5 which was in effect at the time of the submittal of the plan amendment. Then existing Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on March 23, 1994, established the generalized land uses which must be shown on the Existing Land Use Map (ELUM). Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that these same generalized land uses must be depicted on the FLUM as well. While it is true that PUD is not one of the generalized land uses listed in chapter 9J-5, the two rules cited above both allow a local government to depict other land use categories on the ELUM and FLUM. Because the plan references PUD as a mixed land use category, the County has properly depicted that category on both the ELUM and FLUM. Petitioners have failed to show that PUD as a mixed land use category is not recognized under the rules in existence when the plan amendment was reviewed. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged that the County has "not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses." They point to the fact that the area adjacent to and near the development is a "friendly rural community," and they allege that the development will harm this wholesome atmosphere. The plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and DRI Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Tri-County Villages development will provide approximately 1,100 acres of open space. Much of this open space will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. Another mechanism which ensures compatibility is the phased method of development proposed for the project. Under the phasing approach, only contiguous portions of the property will be developed at any given time during the planning period. In addition, existing agricultural uses on the property will continue until such time as the proposed development reaches that property. Given these considerations, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent land uses. Levels of service In their amended petition, petitioners assert that the plan amendment is in violation of FLUE objective 7.1.6 and FLUE policy 7.1.6.1, objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J- 5.011(2)2., 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., and 9J-5.016(3)(a) and (b)4., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, all pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services and flooding. Policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element adopts a recreational facility level of service for such facilities as softball fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, boat ramps and the like. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure that the availability of these facilities is addressed during the concurrency review process and not at the compliance review stage. In other words, when a proposed development reaches the stage of requesting a building permit, the County may require as a condition of the issuance of that building permit that a developer provide a certain facility. In this regard, it is noted that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that any development comply with concurrency requirements while the Tri-County DRI Amended Development Order requires that the developer provide for adequate public facilities. Both the plan amendment and the development authorized therein generally address the recreational level of service. However, if no additional facilities are constructed in the future, the plan amendment does not provide adequate baseball fields, softball fields, boat ramps or handball courts consistent with policy 1.1.1. In addressing these potential deficiencies, intervenor represented to the County that as a retirement community, the development would not generate a demand for these types of facilities. That is to say, the retiree population inhabiting the development would be less likely to participate in activities such as baseball or softball. The population would, however, generate a need for other recreational facilities such as golf courses, swimming pools, shuffleboard courts and bocci ball facilities, all of which the development has a surplus. In response to this concern, the County concluded that it was not appropriate to require the construction of certain facilities when the project would not generate a need for them. The County indicated that, during the plan evaluation and appraisal stage required in 1998, an amendment to the plan would be transmitted which would revise the plan to take into account such situations. If such an amendment is not adopted, intervenor will need to provide additional facilities necessary to meet concurrency requirements. There is no established level of service in the plan for fire protection or emergency medical services. Intervenor has, however, addressed these services in the Amended Development Order for the development. As reflected in that order, intervenor donated a five-acre parcel and constructed a fire station adjacent to the development. The station may also be used to house emergency medical services, if needed, although an existing emergency medical service provider is located in close proximity. Intervenor also donated to the County $80,000 for the purchase of fire fighting equipment, and each household pays the County a $30 annual fee for fire protection. Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services have been addressed. The plan establishes no level of service standard for schools. Because the development is a retirement community, children under age 19 are prohibited. As a consequence, it was determined that impacts to school facilities would be minimal. Intervenor contacted and advised the school board of its retirement community development plans and projected student impacts. In response, the school board concluded that minimal impact was expected as a result of the development. To the extent that the development in the future allows school age children to reside therein, the Amended Development Order specifically calls for a substantial deviation determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, to evaluate the potential impacts to school facilities. As a result of further review, intervenor may be required to provide additional school facilities. The plan establishes a level of service for stormwater drainage in terms of quantity and quality. Based on flooding which has occurred in the existing OBGW development, petitioners suggest that flooding will occur in the development proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. While such flooding has occurred in the OBGW development, there is no evidence that the flooding was caused by a reduction or violation of the stormwater drainage level of service. Indeed, the evidence shows that the flooding was caused by an unusually heavy period of rainfall in combination with debris clogging the inlets of the stormwater system. The actual stormwater system for OBGW, which was reviewed and approved in the OBGW DRI review process, was designed for and required to meet the plan's drainage level of service. As a concurrency matter, any system designed for the future development contemplated in the plan amendment will also be required to meet the stormwater drainage level of service. Accordingly, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment violates the plan's level of services standard for stormwater drainage. Affordable housing Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment "fails to provide for affordable housing as required by Objective 3.5 of the Housing Element of the (plan)" in violation of various rules and the state comprehensive plan. The rule alleged to have been violated requires a local government to analyze the affordable housing stock within the local government. The local government must then adopt comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies which establish programs to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the present and future residents. Housing Element objective 3.5 and the implementing policies which follow provide one of the mechanisms, coordination with the private sector, which the County uses to address the provision of affordable housing countywide. The provisions of objective 3.5 and the implementing policies place no specific requirements on the private sector. These plan provisions only require that, in addressing the provision of affordable housing, the County work with the private sector. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, neither the plan provisions nor chapter 9J-5 require the plan amendment to address the affordable housing deficiencies countywide. As a DRI requirement, however, the plan amendment does address the provision of affordable housing. A detailed housing analysis was provided in the Tri-County Villages ADA. The analysis included a review of the affordable housing stock pursuant to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's housing demand, supply and need methodology. The analysis further concluded that after phase 3, additional affordable housing may be necessary. To address this deficiency, the ADA for the development requires intervenor to reanalyze the available affordable housing consistent with objective 3.5 of the Housing Element. Thus, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to provide affordable housing. i. Infrastructure funding Finally, petitioners allege that the plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE policy 1.5.4. That policy provides as follows: All PUDS shall provide for central potable water and sanitary sewer facilities at the developer's expense and provide for fire hydrants and fire flow within the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standards. Intervenor has created community development districts as a mechanism to fund the development infrastructure. Intervenor is able to raise funds by the sale of bonds through these districts. The residents of the development will ultimately repay the bonds. Even so, petitioners allege that this funding mechanism is inconsistent with the cited policy because the infrastructure is not funded "at the developer's expense." The purpose and intent of the policy was to insure that the County not be obligated to fund infrastructure related to the PUD development. The developer, and ultimately the residents, of the project will fund the infrastructure through the community development districts. The County will not be obligated. This funding mechanism is consistent with policy 1.5.4. in that the County is not responsible for the funding of the PUD-related infrastructure. Accordingly, petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Sumter County's comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1995, 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 11 day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6974GM Petitioners: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-9. 11-14. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 19-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 22-23. Covered in procedural statement. 24-29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20. 30-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-25. 42. Rejected as being unnecessary. 43-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28-36. 78-85. Partially accepted in findings of fact 37-39. 86-95. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-42. 96-148. Partially accepted in findings of fact 43-49. 149-162. Partially accepted in findings of fact 50-53. 163-166. Partially accepted in findings of fact 54-56. Respondents/Intervenor: With certain changes, the substance of proposed findings 1-53 has been generally incorporated into this recommended order. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mr. T. D. Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 David L. Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 R. Dewey Burnsed, Esquire Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1988, petitioner, William Byron Groover (Groover), filed an application with respondent, Board of Professional Land Surveyors (Board), for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor. By letter of March 28, 1989, the Board denied Groover's application predicated on his disclosure in his application of a conviction for possession of marijuana in 1981, and its conclusion that such conviction demonstrated a lack of good moral character and an adjudication of guilt of a crime directly related to the practice or ability to practice land surveying. Groover filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Board's decision. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that on September 16, 1981, Groover was convicted of possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis (marijuana), a third degree felony proscribed by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and on October 16, 1981, he was sentenced to a term of two years confinement and fined $2,000.00 for his offense. Regarding the circumstances surrounding his conviction for possession of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in May 1981, Groover was assisting an acquaintance, James Billeter, move furniture from Florida to Arizona when Billeter's van was stopped by a Florida Department of Agriculture inspector after he failed to stop at an inspection station on I-10 in Suwannee County. Upon inspection of the van, boxes containing approximately 210 pounds of marijuana were discovered among the furniture in the van, as well as a "baggie" marijuana in the cab. Groover, whose testimony is credited, denied any knowledge that the van contained any controlled substances, other than the baggie of marijuana in the cab. As to the baggie, which contained about 21 grams of marijuana, Groover acknowledged its presence, and conceded that he and Billeter had smoked some of that marijuana on their trip. On July 5, 1982, Groover was admitted to Lawtey Correctional Institute to serve his sentence, and on July 5, 1983, he was released for having completed his sentence. During the course of his incarceration, Groover conducted himself in a responsible manner. Following his release from prison in 1983, Groover was employed by Berry and Calvin Land Surveying and Engineering, and remained so employed until May 1988 when he began his current employment with Stephen H. Gibbs Land Surveyor. By those who know of his work, Groover is considered learned in land surveying, dependable, and trustworthy. While Groover was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1981, he has since avoided any controlled substance, and has demonstrated his rehabilitation through dependable and laudable labor in the field of land surveying. Under the circumstances, his conviction in 1981 does not detract from the finding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character to practice land surveying in the state of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the application of William Bryon Groover for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2695 The Board's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate. To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Not relevant since there was no showing Groover suffered any substance abuse or alcoholic problem necessitating treatment. Not relevant since not a basis for the denial of his application, and not an issue thereafter timely raised by the Board prior to hearing. Even if properly raised, such facts do not detract from the finding that Groover currently possesses the requisite good moral character to practice land surveying. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as subordinate or as comment on the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Bryon Groover 892 Southwest 14th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Ann Cocheu Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Rex Smith, Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Franklin County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter authorizes the County, under certain conditions, to adopt what is known as a small scale development amendment to its comprehensive plan. At issue in this case is a small scale development amendment adopted by the County on October 3, 1996. Petitioner, St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), is a not-for-profit corporation organized for the protection and management of the Plantation Area of St. George Island. The island lies just south of Apalachicola, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus it has standing to bring this action. Intervenors, Ben Johnson and Coastal Development Consultants, Inc., are the owners of approximately 58 acres on St. George Island known as the Resort Village Property. The property is adjacent to the St. George Island Airport. A portion of intervenors' property, 9.6 acres, is the subject of the plan amendment being challenged. The nature of the dispute Intervenors' property is subject to a 1977 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order adopted by the County in 1977. The order has been amended from time to time. Among other things, the order provides conceptual approval for the development of "one or more high quality resort hotels or motels, together with such affiliated uses as may be appropriate or desirable, such as gift and tourist shops, restaurants, recreational activities and similar activities." Intervenors desire to develop the Resort Property Village consistent with the 1977 DRI order. The first part of the project consists of approximately 9.6 acres which they have designated as Phase I. The land is located within the Plantation Area of St. George Island and has a land use designation of residential. In June 1995, intervenors submitted detailed site plans for Phase I to the County. On August 1, 1995, the County conducted a public hearing to review the proposed site plans and specifications for Phase I. It adopted a motion which directed its staff "to review and perfect the plans presented, so that the Board can consider the final approval of the plan." It also directed its staff to provide advice concerning the procedure to be followed. After consulting with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended to change the land use to accommodate the commercial uses, the staff recommended that the County adopt a small scale development amendment by changing the designation on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for 9.6 acres from residential to commercial. By a 3-2 vote, on October 3, 1996, the County adopted Ordinance No. 96- 22 which changed the designation for the 9.6 acres on the FLUM from residential to commercial. Because the amendment affected ten or fewer acres, the County opted to make the change with a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. According to the site plan which accompanied a Notification of Proposed Change filed with the County on May 26, 1996, the Phase I development includes four hotels, 10,250 square feet of commercial space, 300 square feet of retail space, a beach club, a 325 seat conference center, various support and recreational facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Phase I site plan, however, does not include the three subsurface absorption beds which are required to service the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. If the absorption beds were included, they would increase the size of Phase I from 9.6 to approximately 14.6 acres. In a petition challenging the adoption of the small scale amendment, petitioner contends that, if the absorption beds are properly included in the land use amendment, the land use area would exceed ten acres and thus would require a full-scale land use amendment subject to DCA review. In response, the County and intervenors have contended that, under the current plan, there is no need to change the land use where the wastewater treatment facility will be located since such facilities are allowed in any land use category. As such, they contend there is no requirement to include such property in Ordinance 96- 22. The Wastewater Treatment Facility The proposed development will be served by a wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a permit to Resort Village Utility, Inc., a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to serve the entire 58-acre Resort Village property. The permit provides that the plant can accommodate up to, but not exceeding, 90,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The facility consists of the wastewater treatment plant, lines to the plant from the development which carry the untreated wastewater to the plant, and lines from the plant to three sub-surface absorption beds where the treated effluent is disbursed. The absorption beds required for the Phase I project wastewater treatment facility will not serve any residential customers. Rather, they will only serve Phase I and any other subsequent phases of Resort Village development, which is a commercial development. Construction must begin on the wastewater treatment plant once the flow of waste effluent reaches 7,500 gallons per day, or if the wastewater from restaurants reaches 5,000 gallons per day. The Phase I project is required to use this facility once the rate of flow of waste effluent exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. Until these thresholds are met, the project will rely temporarily on aerobic systems to handle and treat waste effluent. Under the permit issued by the DEP, the wastewater treatment facility required for Phase I consists of both a wastewater treatment plant and three absorption beds. Through expert testimony of a DEP professional engineer, it was established that the absorption beds were integral to the design and successful operation of the facility. The County and intervenors acknowledge this fact. Therefore, the "use" that is the subject of the amendment is the entire wastewater treatment facility, including the absorption beds, and "involves" some 14.6 acres. Since the plan amendment does not involve "10 or fewer acres," as required by statute, the amendment cannot qualify as a small scale development amendment and is thus not in compliance. In making these findings, the undersigned has considered a contention by the County that Policy 2.3 of the comprehensive plan sanctions its action. That policy reads as follows: Public utilities needed to provide essential service to existing and future land uses in Franklin County shall be permitted in all the land use classifications established by this plan. Public utilities includes all utilities (gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, etc.) whether publicly or privately owned. At hearing, the County planner construed the term "public utilities" as being "minor (utility) infrastructure," including wastewater treatment plants not exceeding 100,000 gallons per day. Relying on this provision, the County reasons that the proposed facility is "minor" infrastructure, since it will only have 90,000 gallons per day capacity, and thus it can be placed in a residential land use category. They go on to argue that, since no change in land use classification is needed to permit the facility, it is unnecessary to include the facility in the plan amendment. According to the County, however, the plant (but not the beds) was included only because it was easier to draw a map for the entire 9.6 acres rather than excise that portion of the land where the plant will be located. Under the same theory, the County has placed at least two existing wastewater treatment facilities in the residential land use category. Those facilities, however, predate the adoption of the comprehensive plan in April 1991, and both serve residential, as opposed to commercial, developments. Moreover, the County admitted that it lacks any "clear" policy about the meaning of "public utilities," and it has never adopted a land development regulation to implement the interpretation given at hearing. The County's position is contrary to conventional land use planning practices which define "utilities" as infrastructure such as water or electrical lines that transport a service and would, by their very nature, be required to cross different land uses. Conversely, conventional land use planning practices define "facilities" as infrastructure that performs a service, such as power plants or pumping stations. This infrastructure does not cross different land use categories. In this case, the absorption beds perform a service by further processing and treating waste effluent from Phase I. Therefore, conventional land use planning practices would logically call for the plant and related absorption beds to be classified as "public facilities" under Policy 2.2(i) of the County's comprehensive plan. That policy defines the term as including "water and sewer facilities." The classification would also be compatible with the definition of "public facilities" found in DCA Rule 9J-5.003(105), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the County and intervenors point out that the facility may not be constructed for many years, depending on the rate and amount of development that occurs in Phase I. Thus, they contend that there is no immediate requirement for the County to change the future land use designation of the property where the absorption beds will be located. But given the fact that the beds and plant are a single, interrelated system, the County cannot choose to change the land use designation for a portion of the facility while ignoring the remainder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining Ordinance No. 96-22 adopted by Franklin County on October 3, 1996, as not in compliance for failing to meet the criteria of Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Alfred O. Shuler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320-850 L. Lee Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1169 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are taken from the parties’ joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. The Property The Petitioners’ property is located at 475 Brown Drive, Ramrod Key, in Monroe County. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, the size of the site is 0.95 acres. The property is vacant and contains disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitat. The property’s immediate vicinity is described as residential development of single-family units to the west and south, environmentally sensitive lands to the south and east, and open water to the north. The property is legally described as “being a portion of Tract ‘A’, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida” having real estate number 00209971-004600. The property’s current Land Use Map Zoning Districts are Improved Subdivision (IS) and Native Area (NA). The property’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations are Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Conservation (RC). The Tier Designation is Tier III Infill Area. Relevant Prior County Actions On December 19, 1972, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution No. 146-1972 approving the Plat of Ramrod Shores Third Addition and filed for record in Plat Book 6 at Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County. The landowner was James M. Brown, as Trustee. The subject property is within Tract A of this plat. In 1986, Monroe County adopted a revised set of zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 33-1986. Ordinance No. 33-1986 also approved a revised series of zoning maps (also known as the Pattison Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county by reference. With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and zoning maps, most of the Petitioners’ property was designated as IS zoning with a small portion as NA. In 1992, a revised series of zoning maps were approved (also known as the Craig Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county. With the adoption of the revised (Craig) zoning maps, the Petitioners’ property remained designated as IS with a small portion as NA. In 1993, the County adopted a set of FLUM maps pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. BOCC Ordinance No. 016-1993 memorialized the approval. The FLUM maps took effect in 1997 after approval from the state land planning agency. With the adoption of the FLUM maps, the Petitioners’ property was designated as RM and a small portion as RC. On March 23, 2015, the Petitioners were provided a Letter of Current Site Conditions for the subject property. The letter summarized the environmental habitats on the property and the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The letter stated the KEYWEP score for disturbed portions of the wetland was 4.45. The score of 4.45 means the property was buildable, disturbed wetlands. The undisturbed wetlands consist of tidal mangroves and were by definition “red flag” wetlands. Disturbed wetlands may be developed under section 118-10, Monroe County Code. Development is not permitted in undisturbed wetlands where 100 percent open space is required. On November 24, 2015, the Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a single-family detached residential dwelling unit. On December 4, 2015, the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department (the Department) sent the Petitioners a notice that the Department denied their building permit application number 15106233. The notice informed the Petitioners that the Department’s decision may be appealed within 30 calendar days. No appeal was filed to challenge the propriety of the Department’s decision. The Department’s December 4, 2015, notice stated that the Ramrod Shores Third Addition Plat shows that the Petitioners’ property is located within Tract A. Although Tract A was subdivided into seven parcels, this was never shown as lots on an approved and duly recorded plat. The Department determined that the property did not meet the definition of “lot” in section 101-1, Monroe County Code, and did not meet the residential density requirements of the IS Land Use District in order to allow the proposed development of a dwelling unit. See § 130-157, Monroe Cnty. Code. On December 7, 2016, the Department received the agent’s BUD Application, File No. 2016-202. On December 22, 2016, the Department sent the agent a Notice of Deficiencies pursuant to section 102-105, Monroe County Code, after the application was reviewed by staff to determine if the application was complete and included the materials and information listed in section 102-105(b). On January 6, 2017, the Department received additional materials and information from the agent. On January 27, 2017, the Department notified the agent that the application was determined to be sufficient. On March 28, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD application to DOAH for adjudication. After the Petitioners sought to amend their application with a new basis for relief, DOAH relinquished its jurisdiction. On June 12, 2017, the Petitioners submitted an Amended BUD Application to the Department. After sending a second Notice of Deficiencies and receiving additional materials and information from the agent, the Department determined that the application was sufficient. The Amended BUD Application was suspended for 60 days, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 214-2017, as a temporary emergency measure after Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys on September 10, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD Application to DOAH for adjudication. Petitioners’ Actions The Petitioners purchased the subject property on April 23, 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for an on-site aerobic septic system. At first, the HRS denied the application based on lot size issues. The HRS Variance Review Board recommended disapproval of the septic system application on June 7, 1991, on the grounds of insufficient lot size and an illegal canal. After the Petitioners failed to obtain HRS approval in 1991, they took no further steps to develop the property until they submitted an application for a Letter of Current Site Conditions on January 30, 2015, and an application for a single- family residence on November 24, 2015. Mr. Olynger testified that the Petitioners purchased the property because of the ocean view and expected to build a house on the property. He testified that after the HRS denials in the early 1990s, he started the process of trying to develop the property again in 2014 because central sewer was now available. IS Land Use District Due to the density requirements for the IS Land Use District of one dwelling unit per lot, the Petitioners are unable to construct a single-family home, which is an as-of- right use in the IS Land Use District. The IS Land Use District permits other as-of-right and conditional uses. While Mr. Olynger disputed the economic productivity of some of these uses, it was not disputed that the property could potentially be used for (a) recreational purposes; (b) a community park; (c) beekeeping; (d) wastewater system; (e) Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) points or transferable development rights (TDRs); or (f) sold to a neighbor for open space, yard expansion or an accessory use, such as a pool. Mr. Bond testified that that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Code allow landowners competing for the limited number of building allocations in the point-based ROGO to buy and donate vacant parcels such as the subject property to increase their ROGO scores. The subject property qualifies as a ROGO Lot and there is an active secondary market of people buying and trading ROGO Lots in Monroe County. Mr. Bond also testified that the Petitioners could apply for Future Land Use Map and Land Use (Zoning) District Map amendments to a category that would allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling based upon an adopted acreage density standard. The Petitioners have not made any such applications. There was no direct evidence on the fair market value of the property, as encumbered by the regulation.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petitioners’ application for relief under section 102-104, Monroe County Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent held a license to practice land surveying in the State of Florida. In March 1984, Joseph L. Abrams a land developer, hired the respondent to perform certain professional services in connection with a proposed development known as Doug's Unit Number One. Mr. Abrams hired the respondent because he had previously performed land surveying services for Mr. Abrams and had done a good job. Doug's Unit Number One involved six acres of land which had been preliminarily subdivided by an engineer into 14 separate lots. The preliminary drawing by the engineer, showing set backs, easements, and other matters, had been approved by the City of Winter Springs, but Mr. Abrams needed a sealed drawing to record. He therefore hired the respondent as a professional surveyor, to describe the lots in surveying terms and prepare a sealed set of drawings. On March 27, 1984, the respondent prepared a bill for the services and itemized the total cost of $756 as follows: drafting of S/D on linen, $250; cost of linen $6; engineering, calculations telephone calls specifications, Winter Springs conference, etc., $500. Mr. Abrams paid the bill the same day. Mr. Abrams was informed that respondent had paid Burl (Mike) Drennen to do the drafting, and, as soon as the drafting was done, either respondent or Mr. Drennen would deliver the drawings, properly sealed, to Mr. Abrams. The drawings were to be delivered in two to three weeks. Respondent also informed Mr. Abrams that respondent was leaving for New Jersey and would be gone for a few weeks. Respondent gave Mr. Abrams his phone number in New Jersey and Mr. Drennen's phone number. After two weeks elapsed and the drawings had not been delivered, Mr. Abrams began calling the respondent and Mr. Drennen. Sometime in April or May, Mr. Abrams was able to contact respondent in New Jersey and the respondent explained that he would be unable to return to Florida for another two to three weeks due to his wife's serious illness. Mr. Abrams also contacted Mr. Drennen, who informed him that he would not deliver the drawings because he had not been fully paid for his drafting services and because he would have to receive authorization from the respondent before the drawings were released since the respondent had hired him. Mr. Drennen told Mr. Abrams that he would try to contact respondent to get the authorization to release the drawings, but Mr. Drennen was unable to contact the respondent. However after several more conversations with Mr. Abrams, Mr. Drennen agreed to deliver the drawings if Mr. Abrams paid him the remaining money he was owed. 1/ On June 6, 1984, Mr. Drennen delivered the drawings and was paid $180 by Mr. Abrams. However, when Mr. Abrams looked over the sheet, he realized that the sheet had not been sealed. He tried to contact the respondent, and when he was unable to do so, he decided to go to another surveyor. The new surveyor could not simply take the drawing and seal it; he had to do the entire project over again. Mr. Mims, the new surveyor, charged $1,250 which was paid in October or November of 1984 and the sealed drawings were delivered and recorded on December 20, 1984. By letter dated June 7, 1984, Mr. Abrams filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, and on August 15, 1984, Mr. Alvin Lewis Smith, an investigator with the Department, contacted respondent by telephone in New Jersey to inquire about the matter. The respondent admitted that he had not completed the project, but he stated that he had his seal in New Jersey and, if Mr. Abrams had sent the drawings to him, he could have signed and sealed the drawings and sent them back to Mr. Abrams. However, when asked if he had done any field work for the project, respondent said that he had not and that he couldn't seal the drawings because he hadn't done the field work. Nevertheless, on August 16, 1984, respondent wrote to Mr. Abrams stating that he had taken his seal to New Jersey and that he could sign and seal the linen and have it back to Mr. Abrams in two days if Mr. Abrams would send the drawings to him by Federal Express. At the hearing the respondent testified that the $756 payment was for drawing up the plat and performing calculations and engineering work on the project, but it was not for doing the field work. However respondent acknowledged that the field work had to be done before the plat could be sealed and recorded. All the other evidence and testimony presented at the hearing indicates that the respondent agreed to deliver drawings to Mr. Abrams that were properly prepared and sealed for recording. It is therefore apparent that the $756 paid by Mr. Abrams to respondent was to cover all the work necessary, including the field work, for the plat to be recorded. Without being sealed, the drawings were useless. During the time of this incident the respondent had personal problems which required him to stay in New Jersey. His wife was quite ill and his wife's parents' estate had to be settled. Respondent has been a registered surveyor for over 30 years and, until the instant action, had never had a complaint filed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon due consideration of respondent's personal circumstances at the time of this incident and respondent's previously unblemished record, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of those acts set forth in Sections 472.033(1)(g) and 472.033(1)(h), Florida Statutes, reprimanding the respondent, and placing him on probation for a period of one year with such terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Professional Land Surveyors. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Purchase of the Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding consists of approximately fifty-two acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property was acquired by Charles L. Parham in 1988 from Forest Hills, Inc. The Subject Property is located in a rural, undeveloped portion of southern Clay County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"). The Subject Property was part of a larger tract of undeveloped, real property known as "Forest Hills." The southwestern corner of Forest Hills is bounded by State Road 100. At the time the Subject Property was purchased it was zoned Agriculture. This classification allowed use of the Subject Property for single-family residential development at a density of one unit per acre. The Subject Property was purchased by the Applicants for development as single-family sites which they intended to sell or rent and to use for their own residential purposes. Access to the Subject Property was obtained through easements (Forest Hills Road and Lone Pine Trail) from State Road 100. It is approximately one and three-quarters of a mile from State Road 100 to the Subject Property. At the time of purchase of the Subject Property by Mr. Parham, Mr. Parham was provided with a certified Boundary Survey map by Forest Hills, Inc. The Boundary Survey was certified by a land surveyor and was dated November 2, 1978. The Boundary Survey provided to Mr. Parham represented the Subject Property as consisting of forty-four tracts of approximately one acre each and four lots of approximately two acres each. Neither the Subject Property nor Forest Hills has ever been platted. That is, there is no plat of record in the Official Records of Clay County, Florida. The Applicants made the erroneous assumption that the Subject Property was platted. They made this assumption because of the Boundary Survey they were provided by Forest Hills, Inc., which depicted the division of the Subject Property into lots. The Applicants also believed that the Subject Property was platted because no one at County offices where they showed the Boundary Map told them differently. The evidence failed to prove, however, that any employee of the County told them that the Subject Property was in fact platted. The evidence also failed to prove that the County was responsible for the assumption of the Parhams that the Subject Property was platted. Development Activities on the Subject Property. The Applicants cleared and graded roads through the easements to the Subject Property. Applicants also maintained two other roads located in Forest Hills: Cactus Hill Road and Lone Pine Trail. The Applicants also cleared and graded two interior roads which dissect Forest Hills. Applicants named the interior roads "Viking Street" and "Valhalla Street". The clearing and grading of roads was performed by Applicants in order to gain access to the Subject Property for themselves and potential renters. The Applicants also cleared part of the Subject Property for their own use. Mr. Parham purchased a bulldozer prior to the purchase of the Subject Property. The bulldozer was purchased for use in developing the Subject Property for use by the Applicants as a residence, for use in developing the Subject Property for rental and for use in Mr. Parham's business. All labor in developing the roads to and on the Subject Property has been provided by Applicants. Expenses for maintenance, repair and use of the bulldozer were incurred by Applicants. Applicants purchased fill dirt and clay which was used in clearing and grading access and interior roads. Prior to the enactment of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), Applicants sold two two-acre tracts to Inger Robertson and to Julian Wood. Although the deeds on the sale of these lots mentioned the tract numbers, they also described the property sold by metes and bounds. The property would not have been described in this manner if the property were part of a platted subdivision. Applicants were left with forty- eight tracts. Inger Robertson applied for and received a mobile home permit for her two-acre parcel in 1990. Applicants also applied for and received mobile home permits for two one-acre tracts. One mobile home was used as their residence. The three mobile home permits issued for part of the Subject Property were issued prior to enactment of the Plan. They were also issued consistent with then existing law allowing single family units on one acre parcels. Petitioners' Alleged Detrimental Reliance. At the time the Applicants obtained their two permits, the Boundary Survey showing the lot division of the Subject Property was shown to County staff and the Applicants' plans with regard to development of the Subject Property were disclosed. At the time of the acquisition of the permits from the County, the Applicants' intended use of, and development plans for, the Subject Property were consistent with County laws. No approval or other permits were required by County law in order for the Applicants to utilize and develope the Subject Property in the manner they intended. They were only required to comply with existing zoning requirements, which restricted residential use of property to one residence per acre. This the Applicants did with regard to their residence and two other tracts. They failed to obtain permits, however, for the other tracts on the Subject Property. The evidence failed to prove that the Applicants' were informed by the County that their proposed use and development of the Subject Property was "approved" or otherwise "authorized." The Applicants have not asserted that the County took any affirmative action which led them to believe that their planned development of the Subject Property was "approved". Instead, the Applicants have asserted that the County was under an obligation to tell them that the Subject Property was not, in fact, platted, and they were required to take certain actions to insure that they could develop the Subject Property as planned. The evidence failed to prove that the County was under any such obligation. The evidence also failed to prove that the Applicants asked County staff what steps they were required to take in order to insure the immediate development of the Subject Property. In 1988, the Applicants informed the County of the naming of the two roads created on the Subject Property and were given street addresses for each of the tracts identified on the Boundary Survey. The Boundary Survey was left with County staff to make a copy of for the County's records. Each of the tracts was identified for the County's 911 emergency telephone service. The assignment of names to the interior streets and street numbers to the lots was consistent with then existing law. These County actions are not the type of actions which would justify a conclusion that density limitations with regard to the Subject Property would not change. Rights That Allegedly Will Be Destroyed. On January 23, 1992, the County's Board of County Commissioners adopted the Plan. Included in the Plan is a Future Land Use Element, including Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"). The Subject Property (and all of Forest Hills) is located in an area classified on the FLUM for "Agriculture/Residential Land Use". This designation allows the use of the Subject Property for single-family residential development. Density, however, is limited to one unit per ten acres. As a result of the Plan and the designated land use classification of the Subject Property, the Subject Property may not be developed as one-acre single-family residences. The result of this restricted land use, the number of individual, developable lots on the Subject Property has been reduced. This reduction in developable lots adversely impacts financing of the Subject Property. The Applicants learned of the adoption of the Plan and its impact on the Subject Property in November of 1992 when they attempted to obtain additional permits for the Subject Property.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has violated Sections 472.033(1)(a), and (h), and 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21HH-2.001(3) and 21HH-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by failure to comply with a valid Final Order of the Board of Professional Land Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Board of Professional Land Surveyors, with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 472, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent Bertin C. Tash was licensed as a professional land surveyor in the State of Florida, holding license number LS 0002292. By Final Order entered December 31, 1985, the Board of Professional Land Surveyors issued a Final Order in case number 0049353 (previously DOAH Case No. 85-0285), a prior disciplinary action against Respondent. Among other terms of that Final Order, Respondent was placed on probation for twenty-seven months and further was required during the course of that twenty-seven month probation to: ... submit 25 surveys representative of his land surveying practice which shall be accompanied by field notes and record plats to the board for its review. Additional information regarding the surveys may be requested. Five surveys shall be submitted within three months from the filing of this final order; thereafter, five surveys shall be submitted at six month intervals during the period of probation. Respondent shall attend the first available continuing education seminar in his area on the minimum technical standards within 12 months from the filing of this order or as soon after as possible. Evidence of Respondent's attendance and successful completion of the course shall be furnished to the board through the proctor or instructor of the continuing education course... (Emphasis supplied.) It is noted that although the "certificate of service" for the copy of the Final Order admitted in evidence as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is unsigned, Respondent admitted receipt thereof, that no appeal was taken therefrom, and that he understood the terms of the Final Order. Twenty-seven months from December 31, 1985 would fall on April 1, 1987. Twelve months from December 31, 1985 would fall on January 2, 1986. Respondent initially complied with the Final Order by submitting two sets of five surveys, the second in December, 1986. However, some type of dispute arose between Respondent and the Board's monitor of Respondent's probation about whether the monitor could require corrections to be done by Respondent to those surveys already submitted and about whether or not Respondent could be required to submit his field notes for the surveys. Respondent seems to have resisted the clear language of the Final Order (see emphasized language in Finding of Fact No. 4, supra) upon a personal belief that these requirements were unconstitutional, invaded his privacy, or exposed him to ethical charges by his clients. There is nothing in the record, to support this ideation of Respondent, and eventually, Respondent altered his position. Respondent did not submit any further surveys until November, 1988 after the instant case was already in progress, at which time he had modified some of his views with regard to field notes. He then attempted to comply with the Final Order by submitting corrected surveys. However, in error, he sent these surveys not to the Board, but to the attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation where they were retained. This submittal was considerably beyond the April 1, 1987 probationary period and whether considered corrections of the second five surveys or an additional five surveys would not constitute the twenty-five surveys required by the prior Final Order. The Respondent failed to complete a seminar on minimum technical standards between the entry of the Final Order on December 31, 1985 and the date of formal hearing on December 14, 1988. Petitioner submitted proof that such courses were available in West Palm Beach, Respondent's hometown, on May 20, 1987, and in adjoining Broward County on May 21, 1988. Clearly, neither of these courses was available to Respondent during the probationary time frames set out in the Final Order and Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 5 supra. Petitioner submitted no proof of the availability of other such courses during the appropriate time frames, but it appears undisputed that these were the only qualifying courses "in his area" and that the Board would have accepted Respondent's late completion of either course as his compliance with the continuing education requirement in the Final Order. The Board even went so far as to reserve space for Respondent at the May 21, 1988 course in Broward County. Respondent's testimony that he was too ill to attend the May 30, 1987 course is unrefuted. Respondent's testimony that he had, no private means of transportation to the May 21, 1988 course is also unrefuted but he did not show unavailability of public transportation. Moreover, Respondent testified that until the date of formal hearing, he had resisted, upon grounds of his personal ethical ideation, the concept of learning from, or submitting himself to critiques by, any local professionals who conducted continuing education seminars in land surveying.
Recommendation That the Board of Professional Land Surveyors enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of two counts of violating Section 472.003(1)(h) Florida Statutes, and imposing a three-month suspension of Respondent's license, subject to an extension of such suspension to a maximum of one year or until Respondent completes the continuing education course required by the prior Final Order, whichever comes first, and imposing thereafter three years' probation to follow immediately upon the lifting of the suspension, during which three years' probation Respondent shall be required to submit an appropriate number of surveys to be determined by the Board for review by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3108 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF: 1-5 are all accepted. Respondent's PFOF: PFOF 1 discusses the nature of several exhibits and objections ruled upon in the course of formal hearing, does not constitute a relevant or material proposed fact and is not dispositive of any issue at bar. The same subjects are addressed within the RO at FOF 3-4 and 8 to the degree they impinge on this proceeding. PFOF 2 is rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 8 to the degree it comports with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 3 is accepted in part in FOF 6. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, and not comporting with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 4,5,7 and 8 are rejected as mere argument of position or legal argument. PFOF 6 is accepted in part in FOF 7. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as immaterial or mere argument of position or legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bertin C. Tash 5100 Spruce Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-2846 Allen Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
