Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this case had previously been owned by an individual who had begun development of the subject property and adjoining property (hereinafter referred to as the "Dawkins' Property"), in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Part of the Dawkins Property was developed and has been sold (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank Tract"). The subject property (hereinafter referred to as the "Golden Tract"), was acquired by Golden/Jacksonville Co. in December, 1986. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by the Applicant. Most of the Dawkins Property, including most of the Golden Tract, was approved and zoned in 1977 by Clay County for development as a shopping center. A part of the Golden Tract (hereinafter referred to as the "Multifamily Tract"), however, was not zoned for development as a shopping center at that time. Part of the Dawkins Property (the Bank Tract) was fully developed as a bank. Various environmental permits required to further develop the Dawkins Property, less the Bank Tract and the Multifamily Tract, as a shopping center were acquired by the previous owner of the property. Permits were issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the St. Johns Water Management District. Prior to purchasing the Golden Tract, the Applicant sought assurance of Clay County that the Golden Tract (but not the Multifamily Tract) was zoned for development as a shopping center. Clay County, in a letter dated December 9, 1985, confirmed that development of the Golden Tract as a shopping center was consistent with the then current zoning for the property. In confirming the zoning of the Golden Tract, Clay County notified the Applicant that it would be necessary that a traffic signal be installed at an intersection on Blanding Boulevard which would be impacted by the shopping center. In 1987, the Applicant sought and obtained approval of the rezoning of the Multifamily Tract for development as a shopping center. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan for the proposed shopping center dated August 27, 1987 to Clay County for approval in connection with the request to rezone the Multifamily Tract. The site plan included the development of 264,000 square feet of commercial space. The August 27, 1987 revised site plan was approved by Clay County in November, 1987. In May, 1988, the Applicant applied with the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"), for a drainage connection permit and a driveway connection permit in connection with providing access to the proposed shopping center. As a condition of issuing the required permit, DOT required that Clay County construct certain intersection improvements on Blanding Boulevard, the main traffic artery adjacent to the Golden Property. The Applicant entered into negotiations with Clay County in order to get the Blanding Boulevard intersection improvements required by DOT completed. On January 9, 1990, the Applicant and Clay County entered into an agreement wherein the Applicant agreed to pay Clay County 50% of the costs (up to a total of $23,000.00) of the DOT-required intersection improvements. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance on Clay County's actions in informing the Applicant that it would be required to provide a traffic signal in order to proceed with the development of the Golden Tract, the Applicant had the traffic signal installed at a cost of $7,500.00. Following approval of the August 27, 1987 revised site plan by Clay County, the Applicant spent approximately $128,000.00 to construct a stormwater retention pond required by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Part of the costs of intersection improvements required by DOT were incurred by the Applicant. The weight of the evidence failed to prove how much the Applicant actually spent, however. The Applicant also proceeded with the development of the Golden Tract, incurring architecture and engineering fees and other costs associated with the proposed development of the Golden Tract. A detailed breakdown of various expenses incurred by the Applicant was included at tab 25 of the documentation filed in support of the Application. Although not all of the expenditures listed at tab 25, i.e., taxes and costs associated with the purchase of the Golden Property, are relevant to the issues in this proceeding, some of the expenditures were incurred in reliance on the actions of Clay County other than approval of zoning of the Golden Tract. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Pursuant to the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, there are insufficient "peak hour trips" available on the roads impacted by the Golden Tract to accommodate the peak hour trips required for the Golden Tract if it is developed as a shopping center. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended by Clay County Ordinance 92-22 have been met.
The Issue Whether petitioners and intervening petitioners, or any of them, have standing or party status because removal of the dam would cause injury in fact of sufficient immediacy of a kind within the zone of interests protected by Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether NWFWMD's permit application conforms to the requirements that Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1985), Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 17-3.001, 17- 3.121, 17-4.242 and 17-4.290(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, set out? Whether NWFWMD has given reasonable assurances that removal of the dam would not cause water quality violations by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations below allowable levels, or by causing eutrophication or turbidity or an increase in heavy metals, including chromium or other battery constituents, in excess of allowable levels? Whether removal of the dam would be in the public interest, taking into account the diversity of aquatic life, including aquatic weeds, and whether fish spawning will be enhanced or hindered, whether heavy metals would reach Apalachicola Bay and affect oyster beds or marine productivity, what effects on the property of others would be, what the effects would be on fishing and other recreation, public safety for canoers and others, navigation generally, mosquito breeding and odors?
Findings Of Fact The Dead Lakes are a wide place in the Chipola River. Near Wewahitchka, a forest of towering cypress trees once flourished in the periodic inundation of the Chipola River. But when a sinkhole collapsed the river banks, widening the Chipola River and the lower reaches of Stone Mill Creek, a tributary, to form the Dead Lakes, the trees growing in the riverbed also sank. Permanent immersion eventually killed many of the trees. The dead, moss-draped remnant the loggers left inspired the name of the lakes, which stretch for some ten miles through Gulf and Calhoun Counties. The Rise and Fall of the Dead Lakes The level of the Dead Lakes depends not only on how much water flows in, but also on how much flows out. Before man's intervention, the rate of outflow depended all year round on the stage or height of the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River into which, just below the Dead Lakes, the Chipola River drains, as well as on the stage or height of the Chipola River above the Dead Lakes. When the Apalachicola River and, therefore, the Chipola Cutoff were high, a backwater or damming effect tended to keep the level of the Dead Lakes up. Although pristine conditions no longer obtain, the relative elevations of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers still affect the water level in the Dead Lakes, at certain stages. The Chipola River drains approximately 1,280 square miles in northwest Florida and southeast Alabama. Although the Chipola is spring fed, the flow of water into the Dead Lakes depends ultimately on rainfall in the basin, which varies seasonally. At Altha, the lowest flow ever recorded was 330 cubic feet per second, and the highest flow on record there was 25,000 cubic feet per second. The Apalachicola River, which arises out of the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, drains a much larger area. Its flow has been altered by the Jim Woodruff Dam and other dams further north that the Army Corps of Engineers constructed, and now uses to generate electricity, and in an effort to keep at least nine feet of water in the Apalachicola River channel, for the benefit of commercial traffic. Although intended to bolster low flows, the Jim Woodruff Dam was first used to impound a reservoir, Lake Seminole, for the purpose. In combination with dry conditions, the result was record low water levels in the Dead Lakes of about ten feet NGVD during the years 1954 through 1958. Lakes Dammed Alarmed at this change in the Dead Lakes, people in the area decided a dam should be built. Not one of the 88 owners of property on the lake objected. The Legislature created the Dead Lakes Water Management District (DLWMD), Chapter 57-1115, Laws of Florida (1957); and the DLWMD constructed a stop log, low head weir just below and parallel to the bridge on which State Road 22A crosses the water flowing out of the lakes. The 787-foot weir was completed in late 1959 or early 1960 on the right of way of the St. Joseph and Iola Railway, alongside the bridge, not far upriver from the point where the clear water leaving the Dead Lakes joins the muddy waters of the Chipola Cutoff. The weir was designed to maintain the Dead Lakes at elevations up to 18.2 feet, in times of low flow. The stop log feature allowed adjustments so that elevations of less than 18.2 feet could also be maintained. In 1962, however, the stop log portion of the weir gave way, and that part of the weir was reconstructed, as the remainder had originally been constructed, with interlocking sheet pile, which, braced and buttressed with I- beams, did not allow any draw down of the lakes below 18.2 feet NGVD. No work has been done on the dam since 1962, and experts predict it will fail in about ten years if not attended to. The DLWMD installed four culverts about seven or eight feet high and twelve feet wide to the west of the weir in 1974, in order to restore draw down capability, as a means of controlling aquatic weeds. The DLWMD caused a channel to be excavated to these culverts, which were equipped with gates that could be raised and lowered with a screw mechanism. Although the invert elevation of the culverts is 10.5 at the upriver end and 10.3 feet at the other end, the Dead Lakes can only be drawn down to about 14 feet because of "base flow" and because of the configuration of the bottom, upriver of the culverts. With the gates of the draw down structure closed, the height of the weir (18.2 feet NGVD) is the limiting factor. Effect of Removal For about one-fifth of the year neither the weir nor the draw down structure determines how high the water in the Dead Lakes is, because interaction between flows in the Chipola River and in the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River which eventually rejoins the main river channel, keeps the Dead Lakes at or above the weir crest. During this part of the year, usually beginning in December and ending in March, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, p. 20, the absence of the dam that NWFWMD seeks a permit to remove would make no difference. But, during times of low flow, with the dam out, the water level in the lakes would fall well below the current floor. Only one percent of the year, however, on average, would the lakes fall as low as the levels they reached in the 1954 to 1958 period. Eighty-five percent of the time the water level would be at or above 12 feet NGVD, without the dam, and the median elevation would be 14.75 feet NGVD, less than a foot above the lowest levels now reached. Without the dam, the lakes would cover more than 3,660 acres, the area covered at 14 feet NGVD, for half the year. The Dead Lakes now cover at least 5,500 acres half the time, or did before the draw down gates began staying open. No Control Over Control Gates As of the last day of the hearing, the testimony was that two of the draw down gates were open and two were closed. For some months preceding the hearing, private citizens opened and closed the gates willy nilly, although it was a good deal easier to close them than to open them, because they are quite heavy and the screw mechanisms are broken. With the dam's transfer to the NWFWMD for the purpose of seeking the permit here in contention, the DLWMD has become defunct, de facto if not de jure. According to Forest Revell, however, as quoted by Sheriff Harrison, the last word from the DLWMD on the gates was an order that they remain open. They were locked open in May of 1986 when Edward Baily, 67 years of age, found himself unable to start his outboard motor as he drifted north of the draw down structure in a small boat with his wife. The current dragged them through a culvert. Mrs. Bailey survived, but her husband did not. Charles Alford Gaskins had been sucked through a culvert some time before Mr. Edwards' fatal accident. Sheriff Al Harrison closed the gates to protect the divers who retrieved Mr. Bailey's corpse, but later opened them in obedience to the DLWMD's reportedly final order on the subject, not without, however, bringing the matter to the attention of a former member of the DLWMD board, Mr. McCarty at the NWFWMD, and various other officials, including then Governor Graham. All disclaimed authority to order the gates closed, and nobody posted any warning. In order to close the gates to protect the divers, the sheriff found it necessary to cut the locks, which were not replaced when the gates were reopened. At the time of the hearing, whether the gates were open or closed was "up to the vandals." All In Favor Sponsored by James Harold Thompson, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 1262 became law with the Governor's approval on June 19, 1984. Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984). After the enactment of Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984), NWFWMD began applying for the permits necessary to remove the Dead Lakes dam, including the dredge and fill permit at issue here. So far it has obtained the requisite permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a permit from the NWFWMD itself. The Florida Department of Natural Resources has no objection to taking the dam out. Florida's Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency also approve. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state environmental agency to which the NWFWMD has made the application for the permit at issue in these proceedings. As stated in its notice of intent, DER, which actively participated at the formal hearing, supports removal of the Dead Lakes Dam. Also favoring removal of the dam is the Board of Commissioners of Calhoun County, which participated in the formal administrative proceeding as an intervenor. On March 13, 1984, Calhoun County had a "straw vote" on whether the Dead Lakes Dam should be removed. Those in favor of removal prevailed, 1,575 to 276. The County Commission endorsed removal by resolution on March 27, 1984, Respondent Intervenor's Exhibit No. 3, and subsequently voted to intervene in these proceedings in support of NWFWMD's application for a permit to remove the dam. The voters of Gulf County also favored removal of the dam in a referendum held there. The vote was 1,550 for and 594 against. The Gulf County Commission, too, endorsed removal by adopting a resolution, No. 84-7, Respondent's Exhibit No. 35, but Gulf County has not sought intervention in these proceedings. The same is true of the Cities of Marianna and Blountstown, whose City Councils have also passed resolutions in support of removal of the dam. Respondent Intervenor's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5. Many of the owners of land on the Dead Lakes are not registered to vote in Gulf or Calhoun Counties, or in Marianna. Also participating as a party in support of removal of the dam is the Chipola Basin Protective Group, a corporation not for profit organized in July of 1983 in an effort to conserve and preserve natural resources in and around the Chipola River. Some 100 people are members, including some who own land on the Dead Lakes and others who own property elsewhere on the Chipola River and "use these natural resources." All Opposed Opposing the permit application are a number of property owners whose waterfront access to the Dead Lakes, although in times of low flow already impaired in many cases, would become still more difficult, if the water in the lakes dropped below the levels at which the dam now keeps it. The east side of the lakes are timberland in single ownership. On the west side, both permanent homes and weekend cottages have been built, and there are a number of fish camps and the like whose revenue depends on access to and fishing in the Dead Lakes. Daniel Monroe Sullivan began fly fishing in the Dead Lakes in 1935, and has fished there regularly since, except for 1939 through 1945 when he went off to the war, where he lost both knees. He "put everything [he] had" into the old Rowell landing, which he purchased in 1975, from Mr. Rowell, who since 1960 had let him keep a trailer on the property. The parcel has frontage on the Dead Lakes of 286 feet and is 394 feet deep. Improvements include a six-stall boathouse with handrails, and a floating dock. Mr. Sullivan has things arranged so that he can lower himself into a boat and set out, or could until people started opening the gates of the draw down structure. Now, at low water, some 300 yards of mud separate the boathouse from the Dead Lakes. Mr. Sullivan's physical condition makes it impossible for him to trailer a boat by himself and launch it from one of the three or four ramps where the water is always deep enough even with the gates open. Just north of Mr. Sullivan, Tullis D. Easterling, who also first fished the Dead Lakes more than 50 years ago, owns two lots, comprising about an acre and a half, with 212 feet fronting the western shore of Dead Lakes. He has a mobile home, a cook shack and other improvements, including a shed for three boats and a 60 to 70 foot dock, which extended 40 feet out into the water, when it was built. With two of the draw down gates closed, he can still use the dock, which is no small convenience for a man 77 years old. At low water, with the gates open, 300 yards of mud separate his dock, too, from the Dead Lakes. From his property north of Mr. Easterling's place, Charles L. Nowlin was able to launch his boat by backing his trailer down a sort of ramp he fashioned with patio blocks. He has about 400 front feet, "when there's water," and a two bedroom cottage on the property. Usually the water is from 2 to 2.5 feet deep in the "natural slip" in which he keeps his boat, but in 1985 and in again in 1986 the slip went completely dry at times. He had to launch his boat elsewhere and pole into a neighbor's dock. Thomas C. Brock, a 64-year-old retiree, has a two bedroom cottage on the Dead Lakes, and a 45-foot dock at the end of which the water was 4 to 4.5 feet deep at the time of the hearing. At low water, however, with all the draw down gates open, "you can plant a turnip patch" in front of his place. Once the lakes attain a height of 15 feet, Mr. Brock can reach his dock by boat. An avid fisherman, Mr. Brock fishes on the Dead Lakes regularly, having first fished there in 1945. James W. Quick and his wife live year round in a home on the Dead Lakes. Retired from the Air Force, he fishes continuously. At the time of the hearing, the water was 3.5 to 4 feet deep at the end of the Quicks' 80-foot pier, but last summer the pier was 300 yards from the water and you had to go another 100 yards into the water before it got knee deep. Oscar G. Clark has owned the property next to the Quicks since 1951. He bought the place for the fishing, which has long been his main recreation. Fishing on the Dead Lakes is what he mainly does since his wife died. He has a ramp and space for four boats under a boat shed, and has no trouble using the ramp in high water, but the last two years in a row the water has been too low seven or eight months running. James C. and Dorothy Taylor own a house on the west side of the Dead Lakes, on the Chipola River channel. The water is 12 to 14 feet deep only some ten feet beyond the end of their dock, which extends 28 feet into the lake. The depth of the water at the end of the Taylors' dock ordinarily fluctuates between 2.5 and 4 feet, but three or four times since 1981, the water's edge has receded two feet beyond the end of the dock. The Taylors' neighbors on the channel, Messrs. Linton and Bidwell are in essentially the same situation. Paris Wayne Carter, a Wewahitchka businessman, bought a place on the Dead Lakes two years ago, with a dock that ordinarily extends 25 feet out into the water, where the water is ordinarily two to five feet deep. But last year at low water with the gates open, he walked 300 yards from his boat dock to the water's edge. James Carroll Stokes, who is totally and permanently disabled, sold his house and used the proceeds to buy six acres on the west arm of the Dead Lakes. He lives there now in a mobile home. He has 18 hookups on the property for recreational vehicles, and charges campers $8.00 a night. When the lakes are at 18 or 19 feet, the boat ramp he has is half out of the water, but at low water with the draw down gates open the ramp cannot be used to launch boats, which affects his business adversely. In 1980, the year Leland Taylor bought the Jerry Gates Fish Camp, business was pretty good. The fish camp consists of five cabins and a house on five acres with 1,200 feet on the lake, and has eight boats and six motors. Even at low water with the gates open, he can get from the end of his 300 foot pier, where he keeps two of the boats, to the middle of the Dead Lakes, but, under such conditions, the boat shed where most of the boats are kept is separated from the water by 200 feet. With the opening of the draw down gates, business has slackened considerably. Mr. Taylor has had to telephone people planning to come to his camp to fish to tell them the water level would not allow it. Juanita Dill put the Cypress Lodge up for sale over two years ago. The Cypress Lodge was once a thriving business. Gulf Life agents 40 to 50 strong used to come every year to go fishing, but business fell off sharply in the last few years, and Ms. Dill has closed the placed down. The evidence did not establish that the decline in business was on account of problems with access to the lakes, as opposed to poorer fishing. But interrogatories adduced as evidence at hearing established that Ms. Dill, Max W. Kilbourn, Jim Gross, R. F. Martin, G. W. Hobbs, J. M. Whittaker, Lee Thompson, Duncan Smith, J. C. Blanton, C. D. Ramsey, Sr., Theodore Elchos, and V. D. Hilton, "have already suffered loss of their access to navigable water." For 45 or 50 years, Clyde Finch Brogdon has owned 165 acres with about three quarters of a mile fronting on the Dead Lakes. Mr. Brogdon raises sheep and cattle on the property. When the water recedes, the animals stray into the mud and bog down. He has to pull them out with a tractor and a length of line. Mr. Brogdon also has a boat ramp on his property that stops well short of the water when the lakes are down. Snails or something die and stink when the water recedes. For a day or two afterwards there is an expanse of "souring mud." Water Quality The clear "fast flowing Chipola River slows and spreads to form the strangely beautiful Dead Lakes," Respondent's Exhibit No. 40, but remains relatively free of suspended solids both in the Dead Lakes and when the river narrows again near the dam, until its confluence with the muddy Chipola Cutoff. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity below the dam by increasing the volume of clear water mixing with the Chipola Cutoff during periods of low flow. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity even in times of high flow because it would virtually eliminate the erosion now occurring in the vicinity of the draw down structure. In the short run, removing the dam would occasion a temporary increase in turbidity. The plan is to station equipment on the bridge (instead of on a barge) to "vibrate out" the sheet piles and to remove the steel from the site, leaving the riprap on the bottom to damp turbidity and curtail the movement of sediment. If the vibration shears a sheet pile, however, the contractor will have to go one foot beneath the bottom and cut the pile there. Under a proposed special permit condition, the contractor will not start work until the water level upriver of the dam is within one foot of the water level downriver, in order to avoid a sudden rush of water. This will help keep turbidity down and is also important for the safety of the bridge. Dissolved Oxygen In August of 1984, with flows low enough so that the Dead Lakes Dam had impounded the waters of the Dead Lakes, investigators took water samples from the Dead Lakes and from "the Chipola River above the influence of the dam." DER's Exhibit No. 8. Analysis of a sample taken from the bottom, at a point where the lake was nine feet deep, revealed 3.3 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. A sample taken only one foot below the lake surface was not much better: 3.5 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. By comparison, the upriver samples yielded results of 7.0 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter, or higher. The samples demonstrate the negative net effect impoundment has on dissolved oxygen levels, even though impoundment makes for more aquatic weeds, which add more dissolved oxygen to the water than they remove. The Dead Lakes Dam is in part responsible for these depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in the summer months, and its removal would alleviate the situation. By slowing or stopping the flow of the Chipola River, the dam increases precipitation of organic sediments, which gather on the bottom and compete with living organisms for the limited amount of dissolved oxygen available. Not only would removal of the dam decrease precipitation by increasing the velocity of the flow, it would cause a greater expanse of lake bottom to be uncovered, permitting oxidation of sediments exposed to sunlight and air. As a consequence, when the water again covered the sediment, the sediment would require less dissolved oxygen. Eutrophication Water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes), limnophila (Limnophila sessiflora) and Brazilian elodea (Egenia densa), which are species of aquatic weeds not indigeous to Florida, all grow in the Dead Lakes, although they are under control and do not present a serious problem. Indeed, some vegetation, even of this kind, is advantageous. Exotic aquatic weeds flourish at the expense of native species, however, and, in overabundance are detrimental to game fish. Herbicides have proven effective against them, except perhaps in the case of Brazilian elodea which, however, such fluctuations as now occur in the level of the lakes seem to keep in check. The impounding effects of the Dead Lakes Dam create favorable conditions for the exotic, aquatic weeds' growth; the lakes tend to grow more shallow and weeds spread. The dam causes accumulation of the nitrates that enter the Chipola from agricultural operations upriver. Without the dam, no abundance of aquatic weeds could persist. Periodic draw downs or natural fluctuations are a good means of controlling most weed species. Water hyacinths, which can germinate in a draw down, are the exception. With the dam removed, sedges and slender rushes would grow up quickly and, in 10 to 20 years, a cypress forest would reestablish itself closer to the river channel, shading the river. Not only cypress, but also willow and button bush would grow up and keep sunlight from aquatic weeds underneath. Heavy Metals From 1970 until it went out of business in 1979, the Sapp Battery Company (Sapp) operated a battery salvage facility on the bank of Little Dry Creek, an intermittent tributary that empties into the Chipola several miles upriver of the Dead Lakes, north of Altha. While it operated, Sapp disposed of heavy metals, including lead, zinc, mercury and cadmium, improperly, so that these materials made their way into the Chipola River, caused at least one fish kill, and apparently caused the elevated levels of heavy metals found in the tissues of native mussels and corbicula alike. Finfish as well as mollusks exhibited these elevated levels at one time. Although several intervening ox bows or deep bends have been "deposition areas," there are no impoundments in the Chipola River between the Sapp site and the Dead Lakes. In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secured the site of the battery salvage facility, and heavy metals have not entered the Chipola River from that source since. Any manganese still in the water may be geologic in origin. A gladiola farm nearby may contribute to mercury in the river by dipping bulbs in mercurial fungicides. Cadmium is found in phosphate fertilizer, and both manganese and zinc are also used in agriculture. Heavy metals tend to bind to fine clay grains which precipitate out of the water and end up in the sediment and this seems to have happened in the Chipola River, including the Dead Lakes, where occasional sediment samples have revealed high concentrations of heavy metals. But the water itself is now free of measurable quantities of heavy metals. No heavy metals were detected in a sample of the water column taken on April 3, 1987, just above the Dead Lakes. The evidence rules out the hypothesis that removal of the Dead Lakes Dam would let water contaminated with heavy metals escape into the Chipola Cutoff and ultimately into Apalachicola Bay, with its extensive oyster beds. The only conceivable mischief along these lines would be the transport downstream of contaminated sediment into a marine environment in which chemical reactions binding heavy metals would be altered or reversed, releasing them into the water. But the weight of the evidence suggests that, for better or worse, contaminated sediments bound for a marine environment have probably already migrated downriver. In times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the river, precipitating all manner of suspended solids, including materials on the periphery which may never be resuspended or reach the estuary. On the other hand, accumulations of muck up to 12 inches deep in the river channel are regularly resuspended, as the water rises above the weir crest and the current scours the channel bottom. In times of high flow, rocks, fine sand and shells lying on the upriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam are stripped clean of all organic sediment. The dam has not prevented the movement of large quantities of sediment downstream. Public Interest Removing the Dead Lakes Dam would enhance the public safety. When the dam is underwater, as it is, on average, more than two months a year, it is a submerged barrier presenting a considerable hazard to the unwitting boater. Although the application does not contemplate removing the draw down structure, removal of the dam would take away the incentive to open the draw down gates. Even if the gates remained open, moreover, and the water was high enough to flow through the culverts, the absence of the dam would reduce the rate of flow through the draw down structure and the attendant danger. Apart from the matter of safety, the evidence did not show that removal of the dam would have any effect on the public health, although Sheriff Harrison did testify to parts of dead fish being strewn on the ground near the dam where fishermen gathered. Petitioners raised the possibility that the river would leave isolated pools of water as it receded, pools in which mosquitos might breed. But the weight of the credible testimony was that gambusi or other fish trapped in such pools would eat the mosquito larvae; and that the mosquito population should not increase, in the absence, at least, of some man-made interference with drainage. Andromadous Fish On balance, taking the dam out should enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, and their habitats. During spawning season, with the dam in place, fishermen gather on the downriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam and catch substantial numbers of roe-laden fish. They are "all bottled up trying to get in." At one time, Alabama shad, striped bass and Gulf of Mexico sturgeon were found in the Dead Lakes and still further north in the Chipola River. During the summer months these andromadous fish seek a "thermal refuge" in cooler fresh water. Now only the Alabama shad swims north of the dam. Before the dam went in, striped bass occurred in fairly substantial numbers north of where the dam now is. Evidently they cannot navigate the dam now. Even when the water is well above the weir crest, certain species that swam upriver to spawn before the dam was built no longer do so. Either they swim too close to the bottom, or they are unable to contend with currents through the draw down structure and over the weir. Beginning last century and as late as 1970, commercial fishermen took Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, some of which weighed as much as 350 pounds each. By 1983, the number of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon had dropped to 380 fish, and the number fell to 69 in 1986. Now the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon is in category two under the federal endangered species law. The Dead Lakes Dam closes off 80 miles of the Chipola River to this dwindling population. The temperatures in the Chipola River are more constant and the flows more stable than those in the Apalachicola River to which the sturgeon are now relegated. Only 17 percent of the open river system formerly available to the Gulf sturgeon is still accessible. Removal of the dam may also increase the numbers and widen the distribution of the greyfin redhorse, the snail bullhead, the spotted bullhead and the dusky shiner. Respondent's Exhibit No. 27. Fish who do reach the Dead Lakes to spawn come when the water is above the weir crest, and go to the shallow periphery to deposit their eggs. At such times, it is not the dam that determines the height and configuration of the Dead Lakes, and its removal would not interfere with this spawning. On the contrary, removal of the dam would help matters. During times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the water occasioning precipitation of soft organic material in the shallows. When spawning time comes, roe can sink into this material and fail to hatch for want of oxygen. Little Effect On Birds Restoration of a more natural hydroperiod would let certain trees reestablish themselves in areas now covered year round, improving the habitat for nesting birds. Newly uncovered land would be seasonally available to deer, turkey and squirrel, but less hospitable for alligators and others. Aquatic organisms trapped in sloughs would become food for predators, like the wood stork. During periods of low flow, the black bear and the indigo snake would have additional foraging. The little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tricolored heron might benefit from removal of the dam as might, theoretically, the limpkin, although there is no proof the limpkin is present in the area. If bald eagles are present, removal of the dam would work to their disadvantage, but no record exists of their nesting or making any other use of the area. Thousands of ducks flocked to the Dead Lakes regularly as recently as 1964 or 1965. Now perhaps a tenth that many come, mainly wood ducks and a few mallards. On the other hand, the number of ospreys has increased since the dam went in. This may in part be attributable to protection they have received under the game laws in recent years. For most birds and other air breathing wildlife, removal of the dam would not have a significant effect one way or the other. Fish Stories Fishing is the main recreational use to which the Dead Lakes are put. The short-term effect of impounding the Dead Lakes during times of low flow was an increase in the number of fish who multiplied or congregated to avail themselves of the newly prolonged enlargement of their aquatic habitat. Over time, however, other effects have become evident and taken their toll. If the numbers of fish have not fallen dramatically, their average size has. Diminished oxygen attributable to the impoundment has increased fish mortality by its direct effect on the fish, as well as indirectly by its effect on organisms further down the food chain. Hardest hit among the fish have been some of the most sought after: shellcracker, large mouth bass, blue gill and channel catfish, among others. Removing the dam would improve the fishing. Fishing on the Dead Lakes was once almost too good to be true, to hear the old-timers tell it. As late as 1959, there were 20 fish camps on the lake. Mr. Brock remembers seven "major" ones in the 1940s. Now six are open, if that. Sixty years ago, Sam Casey fished the whole summer, and for many summers after that, but now he doesn't bother after the willow fly season is over. Cyrus Royce Lewis also began fishing on the Dead Lakes in the 1920s, and now he, too, goes almost exclusively during late spring and early summer, when may flies and willow flies hatch. After that, it's no use, he finds. Expert fishermen like Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Easterling, Mr. Brock, Mr. Quick, and Mr. Leland Taylor, who testified he caught a ten-pound bass last spring, still catch fish regularly, but the fishing is not what it once was. It is a lot harder to catch fish now, and some owners of property on the lakes, including Charles Cook Bridges, want to see the dam out so the fishing will improve. In the 1950s, you might see 200 boats tied to each other fishing over a five-acre shellcracker bed. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission roped off some of the beds to protect spawning fish; the game warden had to sleep in his boat to guard the beds. As late as 1964 there were single shellcracker beds that covered three acres of lake bottom. Now you only see "pocket beds," maybe half the size of the courtroom in Calhoun County Courthouse. The first time Alton Coxwell, now 55 years old, went fishing on the Dead Lakes was with his mother who put an umbrella over him. When, as a small child, he began getting bait for his uncle, his uncle sold all of it to people going fishing on the Dead Lakes. Before the Second World War, Willy Rowell alone had 300 boats but nobody had outboard motors to speak of. People fished with flies, or catawba worms and crickets then. Nowadays Mr. Coxwell sells lots of earthworms. He put retail sales of earthworms at 21,000 for Thursday the week of the hearing. But only two to five percent of these earthworms were used as bait in the Dead Lakes. Nineteen years ago, more than 20 percent of the earthworms Mr. Cox sold were used for bait in the Dead Lakes. In 1977, the Bay County Bass Club had four tournaments on the Dead Lakes, but for the last two or three years they have held only one tournament a year on the Dead Lakes. They have considered not scheduling any more there. Two fishermen in each of 23 to 27 boats, all of whom are familiar with the Dead Lakes, participate in these tournaments. Jim Bozeman of Wewahitchka caught 14 pounds of bass in his first tournament in 1977, but did not finish in the top three. Last tournament the winner caught less than five pounds of bass. The biggest bass caught in a 1977 tournament on the Dead Lakes weighed 7 pounds 4 ounces. In last year's tournament on the Dead Lakes, the biggest fish weighed three pounds. The biggest bass (eight pounds) that Mr. James C. Taylor ever caught he took in July of 1978. The Chipola River is more productive both above and below the Dead Lakes. Increased fishing pressure cannot account for the decline in numbers and the even more remarkable decline in the size of game fish in the lakes. Indeed, the weight of the credible evidence was that less fishing occurs on the Dead Lakes now than 10 or 20 years ago when the fishing was better. Since 1981, the number of permits sold for fishing on the Dead Lakes has declined. The fisheries' biologists corroborated the testimony that, after an initial beneficial effect, the impoundment of the Dead Lakes has had an adverse effect on the numbers and weight of fish in the Dead Lakes. Very likely the low dissolved oxygen levels in the summertime keep many fingerlings from surviving to grow larger. Mr. Leland Taylor's testimony that he has never seen mature fish floating dead on the lakes is consistent with the hypothesis that many do not survive the critical fingerling stage. Removal of the dam would increase fish production. While the volume of water in the Dead Lakes and therefore the fish habitat would shrink further in low flows than it does with the dam in place, the fish would have access to habitat downstream without having to contend with the dam. Invertebrates Other aquatic life has waned with impoundment of the Dead Lakes, including snails of the kind that leave a white, snail-wide streak of eggs on trees growing at the water's edge. When they hatch, they fall into the water and become food for the shellcrackers, but their numbers have been declining since 1966. The drought in 1955, which like last year's, was among the most severe the Chipola River has experienced, did not affect the diversity of aquatic life in the Dead Lakes adversely. In August of 1984, a sampling of benthic organisms, bloodworms and the like, in the Chipola River near State Road 71 above the Dead Lakes yielded 1,256 individuals comprising 33 species, with a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 4.07. A sample taken at the same time in the Dead Lakes near the dam yielded 304 individuals representing only eleven species, and a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 2.38. A contemporaneous sample taken downriver from the dam had a comparable Shannon-Weaver diversity index (2.41), although 18 species were present. Of 975 organisms in the downriver sample, 575 were tubificid worms, a species which does not contribute significantly to fish productivity. Although less water during drier periods would mean less bottom area for benthic organisms, some of these organisms depend on periodic fluctuation. Even those that require constant immersion can survive, when the water level falls slowly enough for them to adjust. The loss of some organisms would not necessarily diminish the diversity of species. Historically prolific throughout the Chipola River, native mussels are now found only in the upper reaches of the river. Removal of the dam would restore the environment in which they prospered before the impoundment. The impoundment has affected larger invertebrates adversely too. Dr. Nowlin testified he had not seen any crawfish lately. Higher dissolved oxygen in the lakes would increase the diversity of species of macro- and benthic invertebrates alike. Mr. Stokes, Mr. Brogdon, Mr. Leland Taylor and others testified about the stench of souring mud that persisted for a day or two after each of the abrupt draw downs which the erratic opening of the control gates occasions. As Mr. Brogdon testified, the odor arises because "something dies." Removal of the dam will bring an end to the sudden, random outrushing of impounded water through the draw down structure. Without the dam, the water level will fall and fall further, but the drop will be more gradual so that organisms that need water to survive will have a chance to migrate and remain submerged. A more gradual lowering would also mean that less bottom would be newly exposed in the same interval of time. For both these reasons, removal of the dam should make odors associated with changes in the level of the Dead Lakes less, not more, of a problem. Public Welfare And The Property Of Others The Dead Lakes dam serves no flood control function. In times of low flow, it creates a reservoir, but the weight of the evidence was that such a reservoir is not needed. Nothing in the record suggests that removal of the dam would affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. There are two public boat ramps on the Dead Lakes, one at Oak Grove in Calhoun County and one in the Dead Lakes Recreational Area. Removal of the dam would render both of them useless for much of the year, unless they were extended. With the dam gone, fishermen and other recreational boaters would be able to navigate the Chipola River from a point in Jackson County down to its confluence with the Chipola Cutoff and from there down the Apalachicola River to Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, during much of the year. Boaters coming upriver could enter the Dead Lakes under a wider range of conditions. The dam, of which neither buoys nor anything else gives warning, presents a considerable navigational hazard. On the other hand, removal of the dam would impede navigation for riparian owners, who would need to extend their docks or boat ramps or take other measures to gain access to the water during times of low flow. Bound up with the environmental effects of removing the dam are certain economic realities. The weight of the evidence established that the value of most of the private residences, permanent and others, along the west shore of the lakes, would tend to decrease with removal of the dam, because removal would aggravate the access problem most of these landowners now have. On the other hand, other environmental consequences of removing the dam, notably better fishing, will have a beneficial economic effect, tending to increase land values not only for riparian landowners but also for owners of other property in the area. For riparian owners of land lying on the Chipola River above the Chipola Cutoff and below the Dead Lakes, the economic consequences of removing the dam would all be good. Jim Bozeman lives on the bank of the Chipola Cutoff 4.5 miles downriver from the dam on the site where his father has a public boat landing. Still further downriver are two other major businesses of this kind. With installation of the dam closing off the Dead Lakes, the Bozemans' business, which includes renting boats and motors as well as launching others' boats, fell off. Removal of the dam should have the opposite effect. Ten fish camp properties have docks or ramps on the Dead Lakes between the dam and Cypress Creek, as do 41 or 42 private landowners. Land upriver from Cypress Creek fronts the river channel, and lies beyond the influence of the dam. If the dam is removed, these property owners will have to extend their docks in order to have access to the water year round. In some cases, extending boat ramps may be an alternative. There is a statutory exemption from permitting requirements for private docks of up to 500 square feet. DER generally permits private docks no wider than six feet if they are built in T- and L- shapes, whatever their length. The environmental authorities do not favor excavating channels. The remains or "skeletons" of early docks reflect adaptations to fluctuations in the level of the lakes of the magnitude likely to recur upon removal of the dam. There are multi-tier docks on the lakes today. Only a few inches of water at the end of a dock will allow access to the lakes by boat, although it may be impossible to use the motor close to the dock. The prosperity of the fish camps depends more on the size of the fish population than on the length of the dock necessary to reach the fishing boats. William Setterich, who owns Stokes Fish Camp, which is located midway along the western shore of the Dead Lakes, wants to see the dam removed. It will mean more mud in front of his fish camp more of the time and he would have to spend some more money on the dock, but the prospect of better fishing would justify the investment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Daniel M. Sullivan, et al in Case No. 84- 4468, and the "Petition" of Raymond Drainville in Case No. 85-0129, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 8th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carroll L. McCauley, Esquire Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Post Office Box 3567 Secretary Panama City, Florida 32401 Department of Environmental Regulation Mr. Raymond Drainville Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2027 N. Roberts Circle 2600 Blair Stone Road Cantonment, Florida 32533 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Rish, Esquire Post Office Box 39 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 B. Suzi Ruhl, Esquire 203 N. Gadsden Street Suite 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patria Fitzpatrick, Esquire Post Office Box 2464 Panama City, Florida 32402 J. David House, Esquire 119 River Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Gary J. Anton, Esquire P. O. Box 1018 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Susan Swihart, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the Charles J. Harris Trust, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property. The Applicant, Charles J. Harris Trust, is the owner of real property located in Clay County, Florida. The Applicant's property (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") is more fully described in Exhibit "A" of the documentation offered in support of the Applicant's application. The Property consists of approximately 29 acres located on Lake Geneva. The Property was purchased by Charles J. Harris and Bonnie Lee Harris, husband and wife, on January 14, 1970. On May 4, 1972, the Property was transferred by the Harris' to the Charles J. Harris Trust. The beneficiaries of the Applicant are the three adult children of the Harris'. One of those children, Becky Harris, is profoundly retarded and requires constant care. While room and board are provided for Becky, the Harris provide funds for other needs. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon. On January 14, 1970, the Harris' entered into an contract to purchase the Property. See Exhibit B of the documentation in support of the Applicant's application for the specific terms of the purchase agreement. Prior to entering into the purchase contract, Winfred Crawford, a registered real estate broker, wrote a letter dated January 12, 1970, on behalf of the Harris' to George A. Gnann of the Zoning Board for Clay County, Florida. Ms. Crawford informed Mr. Gnann of the following: The property is being purchased with the thought of subdividing and the buyer has requested that we obtain for him the Clay County requirements, as to lot sizes, road sizes and etc., also please advise the zoning now on this property and what the requirements would be to change the zoning necessary to meet the County Requirements. All information that would be informative will be appreciated. By letter of January 14, 1970, Ms. Crawford wrote another letter to Mr. Gnann memorializing information provided by Mr. Gnann verbally in response to Ms. Crawford's letter of January 12, 1970. A copy of this letter was provided to the Harris' on January 14, 1970, prior to their purchase of the Property. In part, Ms. Crawford wrote the following: I understood the requirements and procedure as follows: The Clay County required lot size- 15,000 square feet, no lot to be less than 70 feet in width. The set back line from any street would be 25 feet, and set back from side lot lines 10 feet. . . . Proposed Plat would be submitted to you for your approval and signature. (This would be for approval of lot sizes and set back lines). Proposed Plat then would be submitted Louis McKee, Clay County Engineer, Orange Park, Florida, for his approval of width and location of streets. Proposed Plat would require his signature. Proposed Plat then would be submitted to Mr. Harry Riggs, County Health Department, Green Cove Springs, Florida, for his approval for sewerage disposal. Proposed Plat would require his signature. Proposed Plat would then be submitted for the approval and acceptance of the County Commissioners, requiring the Chairmans [sic] signature of acceptance before the Plat could be recorded. Based upon the foregoing, Clay County represented to the Harris' how the Property could be developed according to zoning and Clay County laws governing development of property in existence in 1970. Clay County also informed the Harris' of the steps that they needed to follow in order to plat the Property according to Clay County law in 1970. Detrimental Reliance. In reliance upon Clay County's representations, the Harris' purchased the Property. The Harris' paid $35,000.00 for the Property. The Harris' also paid interest of $29,380.00 to finance the purchase price for the Property. On July 18, 1972, the Clay County Zoning Commission gave notice that it would hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 3, 1972, to consider rezoning certain properties in Clay County. Among other things, the Clay County Zoning Commission gave notice that it planned to consider rezoning the Property from Agricultural, "A", to Single-Family Residential, "RA". The RA zoning category changed the minimum residential lot size allowed for the Property from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Prior to the Harris' purchase of the Property, the shoreline of the Property had been modified. A natural cove along the shoreline of the Property was closed in with a spoil dike and island. After purchasing the Property the Harris' began seeking approval from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now the Department of Environmental Protection)(hereinafter referred to as the "Department") of a permit to restore the shoreline to its original condition. In connection with the restoration of the Property's shoreline, costs were incurred by the Applicant for the services of engineers and surveyors. A "Study of Proposed Reconnection of Pond to Lake Geneva" was prepared by Barry A. Benedict, Ph.D., and plans for the restoration of the shoreline were prepared. On March 26, 1982, the Department approved a permit for the restoration of the shoreline. The evidence failed to prove that Clay County made any representations to the Applicant as a result of the process of obtaining the permit. The restoration of the shoreline of the Property was completed by the Applicant in 1982. The costs of the restoration project incurred by the Applicant was approximately $11,940.00. During the early 1980's the Applicant incurred costs of $22,319.00 to clear a dirt road from the western boundary of the Property to most of the lots along the shoreline, including four lots subsequently sold by the Applicant. The four lots sold by the Applicant were sold Between approximately 1983 and 1984. The lots were sold to unrelated third parties. Non-exclusive easements of ingress and egress were also conveyed to the owners of the sold lots. All of the sold lots are located along the shoreline of the Property. One of the sold lots, Lot 1-L (1.163 acres), is located along the northern boundary of the Property and has ingress/egress along the northern boundary of the Property. Another of the sold lots, Lot F (0.823 acres), requires ingress/egress along the cleared road that was cut through unsold lots. The other two sold lots, Lots C (0.681 acres) and D (0.731 acres), are contiguous and require ingress/egress along the cleared road that was cut through unsold lots. Lots C and D are separated by Lot E, a 0.691-acre unsold portion of the Property. In 1985, after selling the four lots, the Applicant had a Boundary Survey of the Property prepared by Joseph G. Knapp, Registered Land Surveyor. The Boundary Survey was completed June 22, 1985. The Boundary Survey identifies how the Applicant intends to subdivide the Property into 34 lots. Three of the lots are just over one acre. The rest of the lots are between 0.6 acres and just under one acre. The Boundary Survey prepared for the Applicant could have served as a recorded plat but was not recorded with Clay County by the Applicant. Steps 3 through 6 outlined in Ms. Crawford's letter of January 14, 1970, setting out the representations from Clay County concerning the laws governing development of the Property in 1970, and in particular, recording a plat of the Property, were not followed by the Applicant. At the time of the formal hearing of this case, approximately 23 acres of the Property remain unsold. Rights that will be Destroyed. Clay County adopted a comprehensive growth management plan in January 1992. Pursuant to the plan, the land use for he Property was designated as "Agriculture." Land designated with a land use of "Agriculture" pursuant to the plan may be developed at a density of one residential unit per 20 acres. The land use designation was modified in 1994 to "RA 2" but not in any material respect. Property designated "Agriculture" or "RA 2" may also be used for agricultural purposes as long as they are "bona fide" agricultural purposes, or "good faith commercial agricultural use of the land." Prior to the adoption of the Clay County comprehensive plan, the Applicants could have sold the remaining 23.7 acres of the Property as the remaining 30 unsold lots designated in the Boundary Survey prepared for the Applicant. As a result of the land use designation for the Property adopted in Clay County's comprehensive plan, the remaining 23.7 acres of the Property with easements for ingress and egress to sold lots may be developed with one residential unit only. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
Findings Of Fact David Gangelhoff operates a boat sales and service facility on property he owns at 405 North Fort Harrison Avenue. This property is divided into two parcels by Hart Street, which dead end at the back of a building facing North Fort Harrison. For the past few years the Appellant has been buying lots in two parcels separated by Hart Street and intends to acquire all the lots in the entire two blocks. After acquiring all of the lots he proposes to request the City to vacate Hart Street. Appellant currently owns the property abutting both sides of Hart Street and the setback requirements for Hart Street will disappear if the City abandons its right- of-way over Hart Street. Building and zoning regulations require a 17' 3" side setback on a building siding on Hart Street, a 3' buffer zone between parking and the property line, landscaping in the 3' buffer zone between the parking area and the north property line, and a 3' setback in the fence parallel to the south property line along Hart Street. Variances (1) and (4) involve the property line abutting Hart Street and variances (2) and (3) involve the north property line of the property where parking is to be provided. Appellant apparently stores some of his boats in an open area toward the back of the property. He proposes to erect a one-story building on a portion of the property north of Hart Street and to construct the south side of this building one foot from the property line abutting Hart Street. This will provide more inside storage. A proposed canopy area along the main building on the north side of the property is to be used for additional storage and to provide better security in the high crime area in which this business is located. The property is zoned CG. The variance in setback in buffer zones for landscaping which are requested by Appellant are such that practically no setback would remain nor would there be a buffer zone if the variances are granted. Allowing Appellant use of his property to the boundary lines would be beneficial to Appellant's business as it would provide a better facility with more enclosed space to provide security for the boats and equipment. No evidence was presented that other property owners in the vicinity have been granted variances similar to those denied to Appellant or that the special conditions and circumstances exist which make this property unique so that denial of the variance would create an undue hardship on the Appellant.
The Issue The issue is whether the site plan for the Evergreens project should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc.; Lynn Hill; A.A. Sulkes; Philip Bennett; Vera Harper; and Carlos McDonald (Petitioners), have contested a decision by the Developmental Review Committee (DRC) of Respondent, City of Tallahassee (City), to approve a Type B site review application for a project known as Evergreens at Mahan (Evergreens). In its decision, the DRC exempted the project from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon a 1991 agreement by the City and the property owner which conferred vested rights on the property. Thus, the project was never reviewed for compliance with the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the application is approved, the applicant will be authorized to commence the process for constructing 416 apartment units in ten three-story buildings on approximately 24.56 acres of land located just south of the intersection at East Mahan Drive and Riggins Road in Tallahassee, Florida. The apartment complex will be one of the largest in the City. The application was filed by Respondent, Genesis Group (Genesis), acting as an agent for the owner of the property, Respondent, George K. Walker, Trustee (Walker). After the application is approved, Walker is contractually obligated to sell the property to Respondent, TTK, L.L.C. (TTK), a New Hampshire developer, who will actually construct the complex. In response to the DRC's decision, on August 9, 2000, Petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to File Petition for Formal Proceedings. On August 28, 2000, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. As grounds for denying the application, Petitioners contended that a Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) entered into by Walker and the City on August 6, 1991, in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR determining that the property was presumptively vested violated in a number of respects the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance); that any vested rights acquired on the property have expired under Section 18-104(1)(c), Code of Ordinances; and the site plan is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. As to the latter ground, the parties have agreed that this issue need not be addressed now, but rather it can be considered by the DRC in the event Petitioners prevail on the merits of this action. Other than the vesting status, no issues have been raised regarding the site plan itself. On September 11, 2000, the Commission entered its Determination of Standing. Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Commission, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on September 20, 2000, for an evidentiary hearing. The parties Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Association) is a not-for-profit corporation organized on February 18, 2000, and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The Association represents approximately 200 of the 279 homeowners who reside in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. The Meadowbrook neighborhood is zoned for Residential Preservation-1 and has a residential density of less than three units per acre. A portion of the Meadowbrook neigborhood is adjacent to the proposed project. Lynn Hill, A.A. Sulkes, Philip Bennett, Vera Harper, and Carlos McDonald reside and own property in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. Their property either abuts, or is close to, the location of the proposed Evergreens project. All are members of the Association and bring this action in their individual capacity and as a member of the Association. During the course of the hearing, Respondents stipulated to the standing of all Petitioners. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. It has authority to review proposed site plans for real property located within the City's geographic boundaries. Genesis is a Tallahassee consulting firm which prepared the application for Walker and acted as his agent in seeking approval of the site plan for the Evergreens project. TTK, a New Hampshire limited liability corporation, is a developer and builder of real property, and has a contract to purchase the site of the Evergreens project pending final approval of the site plan by the City. Walker is the owner of the approximately 30-acre parcel (the subject property) which is at issue in this proceeding, and is the applicant for the Evergreens site plan. The Evergreens project will be located on 24.56 acres of this 30-acre parcel. The property and its history The subject property has been owned by the Walker family, either as a part of a consortium of investors or in trust, for more than 70 years. Since the mid-1960's, Walker has controlled the property as trustee for himself and his brother. The site of the apartment complex lies a few hundred feet south of the intersection of East Mahan Drive (U.S. 90) and Riggins Road. Approximately 11.738 acres of the land sit on the eastern side of Riggins Road while the remaining 12.821 acres sit on the western side. The remainder of the property, which consists of around 7 or 8 acres, is situated just north of the apartment site, fronts on East Mahan Drive, and is currently zoned commercial. The Meadowbrook neighborhood begins approximately 1,250 feet or so south of Mahan Drive and sits on around 100 acres. The boundaries of the neighborhood abut the southern and southeastern ends of the project site. The relevant history of the property goes back to January 9, 1926, when the original plat of Glenwood Estates was recorded in Leon County (County). The property was located in the County, but not within the City, and was owned by a group that included Walker's father. The subject property was identified in the plat as Blocks L and M. The Glenwood Estates plat did not contain any statements establishing use or density for the subject property. On April 7, 1943, Glenwood Estates was replatted for taxation purposes. Walker's mother, a widow and the heir of Walker's father, was among the owners of the property. The 1943 replat reconfigured the subject property as a single, large acre parcel. The replat does not contain any statements establishing uses or densities for the platted parcels. Prior to 1967, Glenwood Estates became the sole property of Walker's mother. Upon her death, the property was placed in trust for the benefit of Walker and his brother. George K. Walker is the named trustee of the property. On March 22, 1989, the remaining property owned by Walker was subdivided into three parcels; two of the small parcels on the southwestern corner of Riggins Road and Mahan Drive were sold, thereby reducing the size of the subject property by approximately 1.56 acres. By 1991, the 1943 replat of Glenwood Estates had been resubdivided a minimum of seven times which changed the replat substantially from its original configuration. Five of the resubdivisions involved the Meadowbrook tract. Since 1989, the subject property has been configured as a large parcel of approximately 30 acres. Since 1991, the subject property is the only property in the replat that Walker has owned. In addition to his ownership of the subject property, until 1971 Walker owned approximately 69 acres of land that presently constitute a large part of the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On October 6, 1971, Walker entered into a contract for the sale of that land. Among the conditions of the sale was a requirement that the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood be rezoned R-3; that the property that is the proposed apartment site be rezoned RM-2; and that the property fronting Mahan Drive be rezoned C-1. Costs of the rezoning were to be shared equally by the buyer and seller. At the time of this sale, the subject property and the Meadowbrook tract were undeveloped. In 1972, the County rezoned the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood as R-2 for single-family residential development; rezoned the approximately 25-acre portion of the subject property north of the Meadowbrook tract as RM-2, for multi-family residential development; and rezoned the property fronting Mahan Drive as C-1 for commercial development. The multi-family zoning on the property that is the proposed location for the Evergreen project authorized a range of dwelling units from single-family to two-family to multi-family up to a maximum of 17.4 units per acre. One of the conditions of the 1971 sale was the granting of an easement by Walker to the buyer (Collins Brothers) to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract. At the time of the sale, there was no direct access from the Meadowbrook tract north to Mahan Drive. On an undisclosed date, Collins Brothers was forced into receivership. Therefore, between 1971 and 1980, there was no development on the Meadowbrook tract or the subject property, other than the roughing-out of the location of what was to become Riggins Road. In 1980, Guardian Mortgage Investors (Guardian) took over the previous buyer's interest. At that time, Walker entered into a road construction agreement with Guardian in which he agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the Meadowbrook subdivision. Guardian agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs as well as all of the cost for the installation of the main water and sewer trunk lines, except for laterals which were to be installed at Walker's expense. In 1981, the construction of Riggins Road and the main water and sewer trunk lines were completed. The minimum allowable width of Riggins Road from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract was 30 feet. However, it was constructed 36 feet wide so that it could serve not only the Meadowbrooks neighborhood, but also Walker's future development. For the same reason, even though the minimum right-of-way for this section of Riggins Road was 60 feet, an extra 20 feet (or 80 feet in all) were dedicated for the right-of-way. No development has occurred on the subject property since this dedication. The sewer main serving the Meadowbrook neighborhood is a gravity feed system flowing into a pump station within the Meadowbrook neighborhood. From there, it is pumped into a force main to a point under or adjacent to Riggins Road approximately 50 feet into the property that is zoned RM-2. From there, the system is again a gravity feed system flowing north under Mahan Drive to another pump station. If the sewer system had been installed to serve only the Meadowbrook neighborhood, it could have consisted only of a forced main system between the two pump stations. However, because further development was anticipated, the developer installed a gravity feed system that flowed through the RM-2 property, through the C-1 property, and under Mahan Drive at considerably more expense than a forced main system. Both the water and sewer systems have the capacity to serve 670 domestic equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the subject property. Following their completion, the water and sewer facilities, and Riggins Road, were dedicated to the City. Since 1983 or 1984, the City has owned, operated, and maintained Riggins Road and the water and sewer lines from Mahan to the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On April 14, 1983, Walker petitioned the City to annex his property. By Ordinance No. 83-0-2185 adopted on December 30, 1983, the Walker property, the Meadowbrook neighborhood, and considerable other properties were annexed into the City. Prior to annexation, Walker received assurance from the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop the RM-2 and C-1 portions of his property. The City's vesting process On July 16, 1990, the City adopted its 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Concurrent with its adoption, the City adopted a Vested Development Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance), which established "the sole administrative procedures and standards by which a property owner" could assert that he had acquired certain property rights and obtain a vested rights determination from the City. The Ordinance is codified as Article VII of Chapter 18 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The Ordinance established the administrative procedures and standards for common law or statutory vesting. A property that was determined to be vested under the Ordinance was exempt from the application of the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Once a property is found to be exempt, or vested, it retains that status in perpetuity. In order to claim vested development rights under the Ordinance, a property owner was required to apply for a vested rights determination with the City's Planning Department within 120 days of July 16, 1990. A failure to timely file an application constituted a waiver of any vested rights claim. However, a property owner whose property was located within a recorded subdivision, or unrecorded subdivision which the City determined had satisfied the City's infrastructure requirements, did not have to submit an application for a vested rights determination. In those cases, vested rights were "presumed," based upon the infrastructure requirements being satisfied, and the property was "presumptively" vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section III.1.a. of the Ordinance. The right of a property owner to assert that his property is presumptively vested can be made at any time, even today. After reviewing its land development records, on July 25, 1990, the City published in the Tallahassee Democrat a lengthy list of recorded and unrecorded subdivisions it had determined were presumptively vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property, identified on the City's tax rolls by Tax I.D. #11-28-20-071-000-0, was included within the City's list of presumptively vested recorded subdivisions. The notice stated that it was the City's intent to only exempt subdivisions for which streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for development had been completed by July 16, 1990. Recorded subdivisions included on the list of exempt subdivisions were presumed to have satisfied the infrastructure requirements. The City did not inspect recorded subdivisions to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements, but presumed the existence of the requisite infrastructure. Any recorded subdivision subsequently determined not to be in compliance with the infrastructure requirements could be removed from the exempt list. Unrecorded subdivisions were not included on the exempt list unless they had first been physically inspected to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements. Walker's application for vested rights On October 17, 1990, the City's Director of Growth Management instructed that Walker's property be removed from the list of exempt subdivisions due to the resubdivision of the original plat and because all of the infrastructure was not in place. At that time, however, there was no provision in the Ordinance that made resubdivision a factor in the determination of an exemption or vesting. On the other hand, the issue of infrastructure was a valid consideration. On November 13, 1990, Walker timely submitted an application for a vested rights determination on the basis that his property was entitled to vesting under the common law. The City assigned Number V.R.0195T to the application. On January 8, 1991, in accordance with Section III.3.b. of the Ordinance, the City Planning Department determined that the subject property was not vested and notified Walker that Application Number V.R. 0195T was denied. No reason was given. The letter of denial advised him of his rights to contest the planning staff's denial of his vested rights. On January 22, 1991, Walker notified the City of his decision to challenge planning staff's denial of his vested rights application. He elected to waive his right to a hearing before the City Staff Committee, and he requested a hearing before DOAH pursuant to Section III.3.c. of the Ordinance. On July 3, 1991, the City referred Walker's request for an administrative hearing to DOAH on the planning staff's denial of Application Number V.R.0195T. The request was assigned DOAH Case Number 91-004109VR. On July 9, 1991, the case was scheduled for a hearing on August 29, 1991. During the pendency of the DOAH case, and at the request of the City, Walker and his counsel met with representatives of the City, including a Planning Department staffer and an assistant city attorney. Before the meeting, Walker reconfirmed with City officials that his property had been rezoned to C-1, RM-2, and R-2 in 1972, and that the necessary water and sewer lines were in place to serve his property. After learning at the meeting that infrastructure for the property had already been built, the City agreed to find Walker's property vested to the extent that the infrastructure was in place. In other words, Walker would be allowed to develop as many units as the existing infrastructure would accommodate. After the meeting, Walker secured an affidavit from Wayne Colony, the engineer who designed the water and sewer system for the property and the southern extension of Riggins Road. In his affidavit dated August 6, 1991, Coloney attested that the sewer line between Mahan Drive and the Meadowbrook neighborhood was designed to serve the single-family residences, the RM-2 property and the C-1 property; that the sewer line had the capacity to serve 670 residential equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of that property; and that the sewer had sufficient capacity for the maximum density of development on the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the property. A letter from the City's Water and Sewer Department dated August 1, 1991, also confirmed that the City had "the necessary water and sewer lines to serve the property." Finally, Riggins Road and the stormwater drain to serve the property had been completed in the early 1980's. With this information in hand, counsel for the City agreed that the property was presumptively vested. On August 6, 1991, or just prior to the scheduled administrative hearing, counsel for Walker and the City executed the Settlement Agreement which declared the subject property an exempt subdivision based upon Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance, and presumptively vested the property from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Settlement Agreement authorized the development of the subject property for up to 670 residential equivalent units. The Settlement Agreement also stated that there was no time frame in which the Walker property was required to commence or complete development, and that the property was vested in perpetuity. On August 7, 1991, the Settlement Agreement was filed with DOAH. On August 8, 1991, an Order Approving Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement was entered. Therefore, an administrative hearing was never held on Application V.R.0195T. Walker's application was one of hundreds of vested rights applications being processed by the City at that time. Although many of the specific details underlying the City's decision to approve the settlement are not known now because of the passage of time, the subsequent loss by the City of Walker's application file, and the sheer number of applications then being processed, the City Attorney is certain that he would have known about the petition and the underlying facts before he authorized the Assistant City Attorney to execute the agreement. Based on the information then available, the City Attorney now says that Walker clearly qualified for either common law or presumptive vesting. Petitioners contend that the Assistant City Attorney (and/or City Attorney) lacked authority to settle the case without obtaining specific prior authority from the City Commission; however, the more credible and persuasive evidence shows otherwise. This is true even though the Ordinance does not specifically address the settlement of vested rights cases. The City Attorney's policy is and has been to involve the affected City staff in settlement negotiations rather than negotiating without the consent of his client. Moreover, the present City Attorney, and his two predecessors, have always considered it a part of their inherent authority to settle litigation on the City's behalf when it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The only exception to this inherent authority is when there is a budgetary impact; in those cases, prior approval must be obtained before committing the City to spending money. Here, however, there was no fiscal impact resulting from the Walker settlement. Further, at no time after the Settlement Agreement was signed has the City Commission ever expressed its disagreement with the City Attorney's interpretation of the Ordinance, taken steps to curtail his inherent authority, or acted to vacate the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the Assistant City Attorney, after consultation with the City Attorney and appropriate City staff, had the authority to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City without prior City Commission approval. Petitioners also contend that based upon the language in Section III.3.e.7. of the Ordinance, there was no authority for the hearing officer to approve the Settlement Agreement until a substantive review of the information which formed the basis for the agreement had been made. The cited provision sets forth the criteria upon which the decision of the hearing officer in a vested rights case must be based. They include an evidentiary presentation by the parties at a formal hearing, adherence to certain land use guidelines and relevant case law, and a recommended order at the conclusion of the proceeding. The City points out, however, that under its interpretation of the Ordinance, once the parties learned that the property was exempt and the dispute had been settled, the criteria in Section III.3.e.7. did not apply. In those situations, no useful purpose would be served in requiring the parties to go through the formality of a de novo hearing. Otherwise, the parties (including the taxpayers) would be required to expend time, resources, and energy to litigate a matter in which no material facts were in issue. Accordingly, the City's interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be the most logical and reasonable, and it is found that the DOAH hearing officer had the authority to accept the parties' settlement without conducting a hearing. Petitioners next contend that when the Settlement Agreement was executed, the City lacked sufficient evidence to show that Walker had installed the infrastructure necessary for presumptive vesting. More specifically, they assert that except for Wayne Colony's affidavit, and the letter from the City, there was no evidence to support that determination. Petitioners go on to contend that not only must the primary roadways and water and sewer lines be built before the vesting cut-off date, but the "on-site" water and sewer lines, stormwater facilities, and other facilities necessary to begin vertical construction on each apartment building must also be in place. This contention is based on Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance which requires that in order for a subdivision to attain exempt status, the "streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for the development must have been completed as of July 16, 1990." The City Attorney's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. According to his interpretation of the Ordinance, only that infrastructure necessary to serve the subdivision must be completed in order to qualify for vesting. Conversely, on-site or private infrastructure does not have to be completed in order to satisfy the terms of the Ordinance. Therefore, on-site infrastructure is not a factor in determining whether a property qualifies for an exempt status. Indeed, as the City Attorney points out, if Petitioners' interpretation of the Ordinance were accepted, there would be "no vested lots in the City" since infrastructure is never extended from the public street to the lot prior to its development. Finally, Petitioners contend that the Settlement Agreement is invalid because Walker's application in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR was for common law vesting while the Settlement Agreement made a determination that the property was presumptively vested. As a practical matter, there is no difference between property being exempt or being vested. Under either category, the property would not have to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Here, the evidence shows that Walker's property qualified for both common law and presumptive vesting. Since the two types of vesting have the same practical effect, the validity of the Settlement Agreement has not been impaired. Expiration of vested rights Sections II.5.a., d., and i. of the Ordinance provide, respectively, that for purposes of a vested rights determination, an "[e]xempt subdivision," "[f]inal subdivision plat approval," or "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued" shall be deemed a final development order. Section IV.1.c. of the Ordinance provides that "[a]ll final development orders shall expire in one year or such shorter time as may be adopted unless it is determined that substantial development has occurred and is continuing in good faith." Petitioners argue that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a "development order" within the meaning of the foregoing provisions of the Ordinance, and because no activity has occurred on the land since the Settlement Agreement was approved in 1991, the development order has expired by operation of the law. For the following reasons, this contention has been rejected. The Settlement Agreement did not approve "the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use" and did not allow "development activity on the land." Further, it did not allow the owner to pull building permits and commence development on his land. Rather, it simply determined which set of rules and regulations (pre-1990 or post-1990) Walker had to comply with in order to develop his property. Therefore, it cannot be "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued." At the same time, a recorded subdivision such as Glenwood Estates is "complete" since all necessary infrastructure is in place. It has no expiration date, and no further development remains to be done to show "continuing good faith," as that term is used in the Ordinance. Therefore, even if the Walker property technically meets the definitions of an "exempt subdivision" or a "final subdivision plat approval," the expiration provisions of the Ordinance still do not apply. Finally, the City has never applied the expiration provisions of the cited provision to terminate the exempt status of a recorded subdivision, nor has it construed a vested rights determination as being a "final development order" within the meaning of the Ordinance. This interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be reasonable, and it is hereby accepted. Equitable estoppel As noted earlier, when Walker sold the Meadowbrook tract (69 acres) to Collins Brothers in 1972, he made the sale contingent on his obtaining not only residential zoning for the Meadowbrook tract, but also upon obtaining commercial and multi-family zoning on the remainder of the tract. Thus, he sold the site in reliance on his ability to develop the remainder of the tract in conformance with his master plan. As a part of that sale, Walker gave the purchasers credit towards the purchase price to defray one-half of the cost of installing the infrastructure for the entire 100-acre parcel, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. When Collins Brothers defaulted, he paid the successor developer (Guardian) the money necessary to defray one-half of the cost of the communal infrastructure, and he paid additional funds for water and sewer taps and a storm drain, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. Walker also petitioned the City to annex his property in the early 1980's based on a representation by the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop his property. After the annexation, Walker has continued to pay property taxes to the City based upon the value of the property to be developed under the property's C-1 and RM-2 zoning. In addition, Walker encumbered his property to secure loans in reliance on his ability to develop it in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. After the Settlement Agreement was approved, the City adopted a site-specific zoning plan which impacted Walker's property. Walker agreed to reduce the maximum density he might otherwise have obtained through litigation in reliance upon the City's representation that the Settlement Agreement remained in effect and that his rights under that Agreement would survive in perpetuity. Finally, Walker has entered into an option contract for the sale of his property to TTK based upon the validity of the Settlement Agreement. He has also expended substantial monies to further that sale and to develop his site plan. Other contentions Petitioners have also contended in their Proposed Recommended Order that "[t]he creation of new lots through the re-subdivision of the parent parcel [in 1989] subjects the property under review to the consistency and concurrency provisions in the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan." Because this contention was not raised in the initial pleading or in the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement, it has been disregarded. Finally, the Association points out that multiple three-story apartment buildings will be constructed immediately adjacent to single-family homes in the Association with only an 8-foot fence and a 30-foot setback dividing the two areas. In addition, its members logically fear that the project will generate additional traffic, crime, and pollution and result in the lowering of property values in the neighborhood. It also asserts that the developer has never been willing to sit down with neighborhood members and attempt to compromise on any design aspect of the apartment complex. While these concerns are obviously legitimate and well- intended, they are not relevant to the narrow issues raised in this appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission enter a final order granting the Type B site plan review application filed by George K. Walker which determined that his property is presumptively vested. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Linda R. Hurst, Esquire City Hall, Second Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731 Jay Adams, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
The Issue Whether the subject site is within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction and whether an earthen dam constructed at the subject site required a permit? Whether Respondent should be required to remove the earthen dam and/or be required to pay Petitioner's investigative costs?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that regulates dredge and fill activities conducted in wetlands within its statutory jurisdiction as set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent owns the subject property, which is located in the 200 block of Jan Drive in Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 13 West, Bay County, Florida. On July 22, 1999, Mr. Keisker met informally with Respondent at Respondent’s request and made a field visit to the subject property. Mr. Keisker told Respondent that he thought the subject property was within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Although Mr. Keisker took soil samples, surveyed the plant life of the area, and observed the hydrology of the area, his visit was not intended to be an official determination that the subject property was within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction. There is no dispute that an earthen dam was constructed across the unnamed creek, described in findings of fact paragraph 5, in late 1999 or early January 2000. The central issue in dispute is whether the site of the earthen dam is within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Respondent asserts that the area at issue is a drainage ditch that did not naturally occur and is not within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that the area is an unnamed creek in a historical, natural wetland that is within its permitting jurisdiction. The greater weight of the credible, competent evidence established that Respondent’s property contains an unnamed creek that is located in an area of historically natural wetlands that was likely excavated in the 1970's by the local Mosquito Control District. This area of natural wetlands drains and connects into Rogers Pond and Calloway Bayou, which are Class III waters of the State of Florida. The site is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. 2/ Respondent did not receive a permit prior to the construction of the earthen dam. Construction of the earthen dam constitutes unpermitted fill activity in a wetland within Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. Shortly after Petitioner received a complaint in January 2000 that it had been constructed, the dam was partially breached as the result of a heavy rain event. To prevent further pollution of the unnamed creek, the remaining portion of the earthen dam should be removed by non- mechanical means. Mr. Keisker testified that he calculated Petitioner’s investigative costs based on the amount of time he expended in investigating this matter multiplied by his hourly rate of pay. In calculating his hourly rate of pay, he took his annual salary and added to that 52 percent of his annual salary for fringe benefits. He then divided that sum by 2000, which represents 50 work weeks of 40 hours per week. He used 50 weeks to calculate the hourly rate to adjust for two weeks of paid vacation. Based on his calculations, Mr. Keisker testified that Petitioner incurred costs and expenses in excess of $750.00 during its investigation of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the findings and conclusions contained herein and requiring Respondent to remove the remaining portions of the earthen dam by non-mechanical means. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and text of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 02-24 on May 14, 2002, which, among other plan amendments, created the "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" and applied it to one parcel within Collier County, are "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2001 version unless otherwise indicated.)
Findings Of Fact The Parties "Emerald Lakes of Naples" is a residential development in Collier County consisting of 147 single-family homes and 378 multi-family condominiums on 148.27 acres. Emerald Lakes is an organization that represents all persons who own property within the Emerald Lakes of Naples development. Emerald Lakes owns property within Collier County and specifically owns and maintains the streets in Emerald Lakes, including one street bordering the west property line of the Buckley site. A representative of Emerald Lakes made oral comments to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners at the public meeting at which the disputed comprehensive plan amendments were adopted. Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.11, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Buckley is the owner of the approximately 23-acre parcel (Buckley site or parcel) that is the subject of the challenged comprehensive plan amendments. (This parcel consists of two contiguous tracts.) The location of this site and surrounding development are discussed herein. See Findings of Fact 34-45. Buckley submitted comments to Collier County regarding the disputed comprehensive plan amendments between the time they were transmitted to the Department for the issuance of an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, and the time the County adopted the Amendments. The Amendments In April 2001, Buckley submitted to Collier County an "Application for a Request to Amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan." This Application requested two types of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (collectively "Buckley Amendments"). The first of the requested amendments would add to the text of the FLUE a section for the "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" (Buckley Text Amendment), within the "Urban Mixed-Use District." This Subdistrict is a new land use category that would allow for "limited small-scale retail, office and residential uses while requiring that the project result in a true mixed-use development." This Subdistrict is added as a separate Subdistrict within the "Urban-Mixed Use District" in the FLUE. The second requested amendment would redesignate approximately 23 acres from "Urban-Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict" to "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" on the Collier County FLUM (Buckley Map Amendment). (The "Urban Residential Subdistrict" is also within the "Urban Mixed Use District.") Under the current land use designation and without the Buckley Amendments, three dwelling units per acre may be permitted on the Buckley site. (The site has a base density of four dwelling units per acre, reduced by one because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Area.) In addition, the site could be eligible for an additional eight dwelling units per acre under the Affordable Housing provision of the Density Rating System, more fully discussed herein at Findings of Fact 21-27. The Buckley site is currently zoned Agricultural and being utilized as a commercial plant nursery. The purpose and description of the Buckley Amendments is as follows: The intent of this amendment is to develop a small-scale mixed use development that encourages the principals [sic] of Traditional Neighborhood Districts at a small scale developing residential, retail and office on one site. The amendment establishes a mixed use, site specific subdistrict that creates a pedestrian friendly environment for small size retail and office uses with a residential component developed on one site. The amendment proposes to cap retail uses at 3250 square feet per acre and office uses at 4250 square feet per acre while ensuring mixed use development by requiring that a minimum of [40%] of the commercial [square footage] have a residential component within the same building. A minimum of 25% of the maximum residential density would have to be constructed prior to the development of 40,000 square feet of commercial space (86 dwelling units at 15 units per acre density). The entire site is 22.84 acres. If built out to maximum capacity the project site could be developed with 74,230 square feet of retail; 97,070 square feet of office; and 343 residential units. The proposed amendment permits C-1, C-2 and C-3 [commercial] uses, limits drive-thru establishments to banks with no more than 3 lanes and does not allow gasoline service stations. The proposed project also provides for architectural design standards beyond the County's current standards. All four sides of the building must be finished in a common architectural theme. Primary access to the buildings will be from the interior of the site and buildings fronting Airport Road will provide a secondary access facing the street. Additionally, pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties; no building footprint will exceed 15,000 square feet; a 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer is required along Airport-Pulling Road and a 20-foot wide Type C landscape buffer is required along all other perimeter property lines. Parking areas must be screened from Airport- Pulling Road and from any properties adjacent to the Buckley Subdistrict. Currently, the County's FLUE provides that "[t]he URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts" for ten subdistricts within the "Urban-Mixed District. The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict is added to this list. Another text change recognizes that commercial uses would now be authorized, subject to the criteria identified in the Urban-Mixed Use District, in the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict. The FLUE text also provides that "[t]he Mixed-Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." The text change allows "some commercial development" outside the Mixed Use Activity Centers in the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict. The Density Rating System (System) under the FLUE is amended to provide that "[t]he Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict is subject to the Density Rating System, except for the densities established by this subdistrict for multi-family dwelling units." See Findings of Fact 21-27, for a more detailed analysis of the System. On April 18, 2002, the Collier County Planning Commission, by a five to two vote, recommended approval of the Buckley Amendments with two changes, i.e., that the Amendments be subject to the Density Rating System, except for density, see Findings of Fact 12 and 22, and that the development on the site be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. On May 14, 2002, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Buckley Amendments by Ordinance No. 02-24. It appears the vote was four to one. Buckley Exhibit 10 at 181. The Department timely caused to be published on July 9, 2002, in the Naples Daily News, a Notice of Intent to find the Buckley Amendments "in compliance." On or about July 30, 2002, Emerald Lakes filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. While Emerald Lakes raised numerous grounds on which the Buckley Amendments are alleged to be not "in compliance," Emerald Lakes' counsel represented in his opening statement that the issues had been narrowed to four. These issues, as well as the issues of "internal consistency" raised by Emerald Lakes' expert witness at the final hearing, are addressed below. Public Notice1 Emerald Lakes offered into evidence a number of notices Collier County published to advertise public meetings regarding the Buckley Amendments. There was no testimony during the final hearing regarding these notices.2 Three of the notices (Emerald Lakes' Exhibits 2a-2c) offer a map of what purports to be Collier County. With the aid of a magnifying glass, Airport (Pulling) Road, Pine Ridge Road, and U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail) are identified. It does not appear that the Buckley site is identified on the maps nor specifically mentioned in the notices, although the Buckley Amendments were approved in Ordinance No. 02-24 with other plan amendments. Emerald Lakes became aware of the Buckley Amendments in April 2002, and thereafter took an active role regarding this matter. Forest Wainscott, Emerald Lakes' vice-president, attended the hearing at which the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Buckley Amendments (Ordinance No. 02-24), and voiced to the Commissioners Emerald Lakes' concerns about the Buckley Amendments. After hearing these concerns, the Commission voted to adopt the Buckley Amendments. Emerald Lakes did not prove any prejudice arising from the lack of the placement of the Buckley site on the notice maps. Density Rating System The Collier County Comprehensive Plan's FLUE contains a Density Rating System. The System "is only applicable to areas designated Urban [or] Urban–Mixed Use District" and "only applies to residential units." For these lands, the System establishes a general base density of four dwelling units per acre. The System specifies how the base level of density may be adjusted. There are six criteria which allow consideration of an increase in density and one criterion which may be considered to adjust the density downward. For example, if a project is within the Traffic Congestion Area, as Buckley is, 1 dwelling unit per acre would be subtracted. Here, the Buckley has a base density of four dwelling units per acre and would have a net density of three units per acre. See Finding of Fact 7. The text amendments to the FLUE provide that the Buckley Subdistrict is subject to the System, "except for the densities established by this subdistrict for multi-family dwelling units." As noted, the System allows the base density to be decreased to an unspecified low, and increased to 16 units per acre, with an even greater potential if a "transfer of development rights" is employed. The Buckley Map Amendment would change the designation of the subject parcel from "Urban Residential Subdistrict" to "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict," and assign a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre to the parcel. By the text change noted in Finding of Fact 22, the "densities" for the parcel would no longer qualify for the System. The increased density is not achieved by an application of the System, but is a result of the Buckley Amendments. Emerald Lakes argued that the parcel does not qualify for a density increase under the System, and, therefore, should not have been eligible for an increase under a separate comprehensive plan amendment. Stated otherwise, to the extent the Amendments authorize a maximum residential density of 15 units per acre, the Amendments are inconsistent with the System, and hence the Plan. This argument assumes that the System establishes the sole manner in which a parcel designated "Urban–Mixed Use" in Collier County may enjoy increased density, and also that these parcels are not eligible for FLUM amendments. Neither the Collier County Comprehensive Plan nor pertinent State law contains these blanket restrictions. A parcel designated "Urban–Mixed Use" is not prohibited from seeking a comprehensive plan amendment that would increase allowable density. Such an amendment, just as all comprehensive plan amendments, would have to be internally consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, would have to be supported by data and analysis, and would have to comply with the other applicable requirements in order to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In sum, there is no requirement for the Buckley Amendments to demonstrate compliance with the Density Rating System or prove a special justification for seeking a density increase in light of the System. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are required to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category3 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J- 5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Collier County addressed the "need" issue for the Buckley Amendments in an October 8, 2001, staff memorandum to the Collier County Planning Commission. This memorandum notes that there is an excess allocation of approximately 298 acres of commercially zoned land in the "North Naples Planning Community."4 There is no competent record evidence to contradict this conclusion about the numerical allocation of commercial. There is, however, competent evidence that tempers the importance to be assigned to this numerical allocation. With its plan amendment application as revised and updated, Buckley provided Collier County with a discussion of a study prepared by Appraisal Research Corporation of Naples which, as characterized by the applicant, stated in part: While the areas east [sic] and South Naples have and [sic] excess of retail space available, the balance of the unincorporated portion of the county shows a vacancy rate of less than 3%, well below the state and national averages. The area of North Naples, which is the subject of this amendment, has an incredibly low vacancy rate in local centers of 1.18%. While additional commercial space is being constructed countywide, it is of the same power type centers that continues to keep small retailers and service related businesses paying power center prices that cost as much as $26.50 per square feet. Barbershops, salons, dry cleaners and the like are forced to absorb these high-priced rents with little of [sic] options. According to the report, the demand for retail space is strong even considering existing and future construction of new centers. Further, the staff memorandum provides a "commercial demand analysis" which concluded: While, based on the 1998 Commercial Inventory, there is sufficient commercial acreage in the North Naples Planning Community to exceed the County's projected demand up to the year 2005, this project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the County. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development and redevelopment of this type, at a smaller scale, that provides opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within the same development and limit, to some degree, the impact on the existing roadway system. In light of the conditions of development contained in the Buckley Text Amendment, the subject parcel will serve this need. (Some of the conditions have been discussed. See Findings of Fact 8-9.) In or around May 2001, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted, by resolution, "The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida." This Plan made recommendations and, in part, "encouraged a mixed- use development." According to Amy Taylor, A.I.C.P, currently a long-range planner with the Collier County public school system, and formerly employed by the Collier County Planning Services Department for over six years and who reviewed the Buckley Amendments in this capacity, the County's mixed-use activity centers were not working because "they were not truly mixed-use. They were high-intensity, large-scale retail limited-office, in--in large centers, and because they were not mixed-use in--in terms of having a residential development, they were not functioning as--they had been intended." The Buckley Amendments propose a different use than the existing mixed-use activity centers and the type of development which has occurred. In fact, the Buckley Subdistrict is not a mixed-use activity center because it does not rise to the level of intensity and size of these centers. Also, unlike the mixed-use activity centers in Collier County, the Buckley Subdistrict involves a residential component. The County Commissioners directed staff to develop comprehensive plan amendments to implement the Community Character Plan. As a private plan amendment request, Ms. Taylor reviewed the Buckley Amendments and determined that they were consistent with the objectives and recommendations in the Community Character Plan, in part, because the Amendments "provide an opportunity also for internal capture and pedestrian interconnectivity." There is no persuasive evidence that would support a finding that any numerical over-allocation of commercial will exacerbate urban sprawl in the North Naples Planning Community or Collier County in general. Compatibility Emerald Lakes also contended that the Buckley Amendments will allow development that is incompatible with the adjacent Emerald Lakes of Naples development in violation of State law and Objective 5 and Policy 5.4 of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Element.5 Contrary to this contention, the limited type of mixed-use development mandated by the Buckley Amendments is consistent with surrounding uses, is compatible with Emerald Lakes, and is at least the subject of fair debate.6 The Buckley site proposed for re-designation is approximately 23 acres and located west and adjacent to Airport-Pulling Road, and specifically at approximately the northwest corner of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road, and south of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, which approximates the northern boundary. The Buckley site is currently operated as a commercial plant nursery. The Airport-Pulling Road corridor between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Road is anchored by two Activity Centers, one with approximately 143 acres permitted for 910,000 square feet of commercial and 450 hotel rooms, and the other with 347.50 acres permitted for 1,556,000 square feet of commercial. (Activity Centers allow up to 11 dwelling units per acre, but only on separate tracts for commercial.) The Naples Walk Shopping Center, which is part of the Vineyards development of regional impact, is located on the northeast corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Lakeside of Naples, a residential community, is across Airport-Pulling Road from the Buckley site. Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict (Orange Blossom) is located south of Lakeside of Naples, also on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road. County staff analyzed Orange Blossom. The Buckley Subdistrict "is similar to and patterned after" Orange Blossom. Orange Blossom is 14.43 acres and 8.41 acres less than the Buckley site, "but allows 1860 more square feet of commercial than does that proposed for the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict at 22.84 acres," i.e., 173,160 versus 171,300 total maximum commercial square feet. Orange Blossom allows four dwelling units per acre versus 15 dwelling units per acre for the Buckley site. However, as noted by County staff, "[r]esidential density is higher for [Buckley] and, as proposed and designed, the commercial located on the [Buckley] site would more likely capture a significantly higher proportion of its business from residents on site than if the density was lower." In relative proximity to the Buckley site are commercial developments such as the Ritz-Carlton Golf Lodge, the Tiberon Golf Club, an Eckerd Drug Store, a Walgreens Drug Store, a "Picture Warehouse" under construction, and offices known as "The Galleria Shops." Claire Goff testified that Emerald Lakes is "[a]lmost totally surrounded by" commercial development and that existing adjacent commercial development is compatible with the Emerald Lakes development. To the immediate east of the Buckley site is Airport-Pulling Road, which is currently being widened to six lanes and runs north/south. To the south of the parcel is the recently-completed North Regional Collier County Public Library. To the immediate north of the parcel is the Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility, located on five acres, with a density of approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. The Emerald Lakes of Naples development, including single-family homes, lies to the immediate west of the Buckley parcel and are located around an approximately 47-acre lake. The multi-family component of this development lies to the north and surrounds a smaller lake, approximately 15 acres. Marker Lake Villas, a residential project, is located to the north. Venetian Plaza, a 90,000 square foot office community, is under construction and located immediately east of Marker Lake Villas and abuts the northern boundary of Emerald Lakes. Overall, that portion of Emerald Lakes that immediately adjoins the subject parcel on the west, consists of a gross density of approximately three and one-half dwelling units per acre. Emerald Lakes alleged that the 15 dwelling units per acre and the commercial and office development allowed under the Buckley Amendments are not compatible with these adjacent homes. This allegation is not supported in the record. As noted, Emerald Lakes is not exclusively single- family. To the north of the above-mentioned single-family homes within Emerald Lakes are multi-family condominiums. See Finding of Fact 41. These multi-family units surround a smaller lake. When this lake area is included with land actually developed with the condominiums, the gross residential density is approximately five units per acre. However, if the lake area is excluded and net residential density is calculated only on the land on which the condominiums are developed, this multi-family component of Emerald Lakes is approximately 15 dwelling units per acre. This multi-family portion of Emerald Lakes is within 100 feet of the single-family homes. The single-family homes surrounding the larger lake within Emerald Lakes are separated from the Buckley parcel by setbacks, a road, and a 20-foot required buffer, such that the distance from these homes to development on the Buckley parcel will range from approximately 85 feet to 125 feet from the property line. Based on these factors, the development allowed by the Buckley Amendments would be compatible with surrounding land uses and development, including Emerald Lakes. It is at least the subject of fair debate. Internal Consistency Emerald Lakes further alleged that the Buckley Amendments are internally inconsistent with various provisions of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. Each provision is addressed below. Additionally, several consistency issues are discussed in previous findings relating to the System and compatibility. Policy 5.5 of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan's FLUE directs that the County shall "[e]ncourage the use of existing land zoned for urban intensity uses before permitting development of other areas." Emerald Lakes contended that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with this Policy because they are allegedly increasing the "inventory . . . of commercial square footage" before other areas are fully developed. However, the second sentence of Policy 5.5 provides: "This [encouraging the use of existing urban zoned land] shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing zoned land before servicing other areas." Emerald Lakes offered no evidence that the Buckley Amendments required the County to provide unplanned services to inappropriately zoned or rezoned land. The record evidence persuasively demonstrates that the impacts of potential development under the Buckley Amendments (and without regard to actual site plans which are not the subject of this proceeding) are within the planned and adopted levels of service for all publicly owned and operated facilities and services, including but not limited to, traffic. (With the six-laning of Airport-Pulling Road, a level of service of C is reasonably expected.) Policy 5.7 provides that the County shall "[e]ncourage the recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of western Collier County." This Policy further provides that the "[p]resentation of economic and demographic data shall be based on Planning Communities and commonly recognized neighborhoods." Emerald Lakes contended that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with this Policy because there was an insufficient submission of economic and demographic data. To the contrary, the Buckley Amendments are supported with extensive data regarding the North Naples Planning Community. Emerald Lakes did not present any persuasive data to prove otherwise. Emerald Lakes further asserted that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with the County Plan's criteria which govern the location of "Mixed Use Activity Centers." The plain language of the Buckley Amendments, as buttressed by the testimony of Collier County's comprehensive plan manager, William Litsinger, A.I.C.P., demonstrated that the Amendments do not seek a "Mixed Use Activity Center" designation and the criteria for that designation are, accordingly, inapplicable. See Finding of Fact 31. Emerald Lakes also strongly suggests that if Orange Blossom can operate as a mixed use subdistrict with a maximum of four dwelling units per acre and with a mix of commercial, so can Buckley and, therefore, there is no justification from departing from the Density Rating System and authorizing plan amendments which propose development similar to the Buckley Amendments. The County was presented with data and analysis which discussed various scenarios and configurations of mixed use development. As noted above, some of the similarities and distinguishing features of Orange Blossom were considered. See Finding of Fact 38. As part of their "findings and conclusions," County planning staff noted in a memorandum (see Finding of Fact 29) to the Collier County Planning Commission: "Opportunities with adjacent residential will be one of the major difficulties of new small-scale mixed use development in Collier County. The potential for increased internal capture by allowing higher densities on site will partially mitigate this issue. Market conditions and/or increased traffic congestion on major roadways may provide incentives for existing neighborhoods to seek interconnections in the future." As further noted by County staff: "This project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the County. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development and redevelopment of this type, at a smaller scale, that provides opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within the same development and limit, to some degree, the impact on the existing roadway." Whether the Buckley Amendments are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan is at least fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Buckley Amendments adopted by Collier County in Ordinance No. 02-24 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2003.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. .
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THR AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900({a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-292 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by the manner indicated to each of the persons listed below on this VO ary of , 2009. aula Ford wee Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Geoffrey Kirk Assistant County Attorney Hernando County 20 North Main Street, Suite 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601-2850 Thomas S. Hogan, Jr. City Attorney The Hogan Law Firm 20 South Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Paul Carland, General Counsel Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 By Hand Delivery Lynette Norr Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Escambia County (County) by Ordinance No. 2017-53 on September 7, 2017, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner owns real property and resides in the County. She submitted written comments to the County during the adoption phase of the amendment. She is an affected person within the meaning of section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County is a local government that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A sector plan is the process in which the local government engages in long-term planning for an area of at least 5,000 acres. §§ 163.3164(42) and 163.3245(1), Fla. Stat. It involves two levels of planning: a) a long-term master plan, and b) a Detailed Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which implements the master plan. A DSAP is created for an area that is at least 1,000 acres and identifies the distribution, extent, and location of future uses and public facilities. § 163.3245(3), Fla. Stat. While the DSAP is created by a local development order that is not subject to state compliance review, an amendment to an adopted sector plan is a plan amendment reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The development standards in the DSAP are separate and distinct from the development standards in non-sector plan properties. On June 3, 2010, the County approved Ordinance No. 2010-16, which adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to the Plan, including a new Optional Sector Plan (OSP). The Ordinance was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-6857GM. In response to the DCA challenge, on February 3, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-3 as a stipulated remedial amendment. The Ordinance establishes a long-term master plan for central Escambia County known as the Mid-West Escambia County Sector Plan (Sector Plan). The Sector Plan is comprised of approximately 15,000 acres, north of Interstate 10, west of Highway 29, and south of Highway 196. The area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the OSP. The DCA determined the Ordinance to be in compliance. To implement the long-term master plan, on September 9, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-29, which establishes two DSAPs: Muskogee DSAP and Jacks Branch DSAP. Petitioner's residence and the subject property are located within the Jacks Branch DSAP. State compliance review of that action under section 163.3184(3) or (4) was not required. In 2011, the Legislature created the right to opt out or withdraw from a sector plan. See § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. This can be accomplished "only with the approval of the local government by plan amendment adopted and reviewed pursuant to s. 163.3184." Id. In response to the statutory amendment, the County adopted a plan amendment which provides that any additions to, or deletions from, a DSAP must follow the established procedures in the Plan. See Ex. 40, p. 14. In order to consolidate the County zoning districts, on April 16, 2015, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2015-12, which repealed the entire Land Development Code (LDC) and replaced it with a new LDC, which has a county-wide rezoning plan. After the first (and only) application to opt out of the Sector Plan was filed by a property owner, on March 16, 2017, the County amended the LDC through Ordinance No. 2017-14, which establishes seven criteria for evaluating this type of request. See LDC, § 2-7.4. The Ordinance was not challenged. According to the County, the criteria were actually drafted by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and require it to consider the following: All standard Comprehensive Plan map criteria; Comprehensive Plan requirement for changes to an existing DSAP; The size of the subject parcel in relation to the individual DSAP land use category and in relation to the overall Sector Plan, to specifically include the aggregate acreage of any previously granted opt-outs; The existing transportation infrastructure and any impact the proposed opt-out may have on the capacity of the infrastructure; The underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations; The consistency of the requested future land use designation with the underlying zoning; and The previous future land use designation. Besides the foregoing criteria, subsection 2-7.4(b) provides that when the County reviews an opt-out application: [t]o the extent possible, the staff analysis and the reviewing bodies shall consider whether the applicant lost development rights or was effectively downzoned as part of the Sector Plan adoption. The Board may take into consideration any other relevant factors in making its determination related to the request. Once a parcel is removed from the County's Sector Plan, the underlying zoning that was in effect when the Sector Plan was created remains the same, but a new future land use (FLU) category must be assigned to the property by a plan amendment. § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. Withdrawing from a DSAP does not modify the DSAP because the DSAP is the development standard itself. The Property The parcel lies on the eastern edge of the DSAP about ten miles north of Interstate 10 on the northwest corner of Highway 29 and Neal Road. Highway 29 is a major four-lane arterial road running in a north-south direction with a median in the middle. The road is maintained by the state. Neal Road is a small, two-lane County road that intersects with Highway 29 from the west and provides access to a residential area where Petitioner resides. Existing commercial development is located on the east side of Highway 29. Most recently, a Family Dollar Store was developed directly across the street from the property. Currently, the parcel is vacant and lies in the Conservation Neighborhood District, which permits a maximum density of three dwelling units per gross acre and is the lowest density of residential development allowed in the Sector Plan. Only residential uses are allowed in the district, which is intended to treat stormwater and preserve open space and wildlife. Based on maps of the area, Petitioner's property appears to be no more than one-half mile west of the subject property. The character of the area in Petitioner's neighborhood is low-density residential development. Before the Sector Plan was adopted, the assigned land use on the parcel was MU-S. This use is intended for "a mix of residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." Its express purpose is to serve as a mixed-use area. As described by a County witness, "the mixed-use aspect of it allows a non-residential component first, but, again, it's predominately residential, low-density residential." The range of allowable uses includes residential, retail services, professional office, recreational facilities, and public and civic, with a maximum intensity of a 1.0 floor area ratio. Until the Sector Plan was created, the parcel was zoned as Gateway Business District (GBD). Under the new rezoning plan established in 2015, all parcels outside the Sector Plan which were zoned GBD were consolidated with similar zoning categories into the new district of Heavy Commercial/ Light Industrial (HC/LI). Permitted uses under this district are residential, retail sales, retail services, public and civic, recreation and entertainment, industrial and related, agricultural and related, and "other uses," such as billboards, outdoor sales, trade shops, warehouses, and the like. Once a parcel is withdrawn from the Sector Plan, it retains the underlying zoning in effect when the DSAP was established. Because the new zoning scheme consolidates GBD into HC/LI, the parcel will revert to HC/LI. Therefore, the zoning and land use will be the same as they were before the Sector Plan was created. This combination is not unusual, as there are "multiple parcels" outside the DSAP that have this zoning/land use pairing. The Challenged Amendment In June 2016, the property owner filed an application with the County requesting that his parcel be removed from the Mid-West Sector Plan. At that time, neither the County nor the applicant realized that a new land use must be assigned. Consequently, no request for a new land use was made. Because this was the first time an opt-out application had been filed with any local government, the County had a series of meetings with DEO seeking guidance on how to proceed. It was told by DEO that the opt-out application and a FLU change should be processed in the same manner as a FLUM amendment and then reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO also provided suggested criteria that should be considered when processing such an application. These criteria were adopted as new LDC section 2-7.4. The County followed all steps suggested by DEO. DEO instructed the County to require a second application from the property owner, which included a request for a new land use category. After the second application was filed, the County began the process of determining whether the application satisfied the opt-out criteria in section 2-7.4 and relevant Plan requirements. The second application addressed the FLU requirement and contained the analysis required for each component of the Plan. A future land use of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) was initially requested by the owner. This category is consistent with HC/LI zoning, but is a much more intense land use category than MU-S. Because of concerns that the MU-U land use would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in the DSAP, the County changed the proposed new land use to MU-S, the use assigned to the property before the Sector Plan was adopted. MU-S is the same land use assigned to other non-Sector Plan parcels surrounding the subject property, and there are non- industrial uses within the HC/LI zoning district that are consistent with MU-S. If the application is approved, only 25 potential residential units will be removed from the total Sector Plan, and the reduction in total developable area will be de minimis. Except for a change to the DSAP map and the acreage table, no changes to the text of the DSAP are made. During the application process, the County addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts on the environment. The County also evaluated the application in light of the criteria found in section 2-7.4 and determined that, as a whole, it satisfied those requirements. See Cnty. Ex. 34, pp. 28-39. Because a proposed use of the property was not submitted with the application, an analysis of a specific use was not made. When a site plan to develop the property is filed, the proposed use will be evaluated by the Development Review Committee, and then by the Board of County Commissioners. That review will ensure that the intended development will not be inconsistent with the zoning district and land use assigned to the parcel. The opt-out request was debated extensively during a series of ten public hearings that began in September 2016. Members of the public were allowed to speak for or against the proposal. On September 7, 2017, the County voted to amend the Plan by (a) allowing the parcel to withdraw from the OSP, removing the Sector Plan overlay on the parcel, and amending the FLUM by assigning the property a MU-S land use designation. No other changes were made. The amendment does not create a remnant area or fragmented DSAP. The amendment was transmitted to DEO for review under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO determined it met the requirements of chapter 163 for compliance purposes. The State Coordinated Review is more comprehensive than the Expedited Review process under section 163.3184(3). On November 8, 2017, a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance was issued by DEO. See Cnty. Ex. 39. Petitioner filed her Petition within 30 days after the Ordinance was adopted, but before DEO issued its Notice of Intent. Therefore, it was timely. Besides DEO's review, the Department of Transportation and Department of Education reviewed the proposal for impacts on transportation and school concurrency, respectively. No further information was requested from the County by any agency. Petitioner's Objections In the parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioner raises a procedural objection to the manner in which the withdrawal application was adopted. She also alleges generally that the amendment creates inconsistent and incompatible zoning and future land use pairing in violation of sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1); is inconsistent with the FLU Element; conflicts with statutory provisions regarding compatibility of adjacent land uses; and lacks sufficient data and analysis required by section 163.3177(1)(f). These contentions, and others not directly related to a compliance challenge, are addressed below. Petitioner first contends an opt-out application must be adopted by a local development order, rather than by a plan amendment. She argues the County erred by not providing her the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the adoption hearing and failing to subject the proposal to more "intense review and analysis." The quasi-judicial process requires strict scrutiny of a local government's action, rather than a fairly debatable standard of review, and provides third parties the right to challenge the local government's decision in circuit court, rather than in a section 163.3184 proceeding. This contention has been rejected and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner contends approval of the application will lead to further requests by other property owners to opt out of the Sector Plan. Currently, there are over 1,000 property owners in the Sector Plan. During the County hearings, staff identified 24 or 25 other properties that might choose to file an opt-out application in the future. Whether those owners will do so is no more than speculation at this point. The County responds that it will evaluate each application on a case-by- case basis. A case-by-case analysis is necessary because an application involving a large parcel of property would clearly have a different analysis than one which involves only 8.67 acres. More importantly, because the opt-out process is a statutory right created by the Legislature, the County is obligated to consider every opt-out application filed, and if it satisfies the applicable criteria, it must be approved. In any event, there is nothing in sections 163.3184 or 163.3245 which requires the local government to deny an application merely because another property owner might file a similar application at some point in the future. Petitioner contends the County acted "unreasonably" because it did not establish opt-out criteria until after the application was filed. The County's action was reasonable under the circumstances because it had no standards or precedent for reviewing this type of application; at the direction of DEO, the criteria were adopted before final action on the application was taken; and the criteria were considered by the County. Petitioner contends the criteria in section 2-7.4 are vague and lack specific, objective evaluation standards. However, Ordinance No. 2017-14 was never challenged and is presumed to be valid. Petitioner contends HC/LI zoning is inconsistent with the MU-S land use and violates sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1)(b).1/ Those provisions require generally that zoning regulations and land uses be consistent with one another and the elements of the Plan. The zoning and land use will be the same as existed before the Sector Plan was adopted. They correlate with the zoning and land use on numerous other non-Sector Plan parcels in the immediate area and throughout the County. MU-S contemplates a mixed-use area, while HC/LI contains a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Although industrial uses are inconsistent with the land use, see Endnote 1, there are many other uses within the zoning district that are compatible with MU-S. It is fairly debatable that the zoning and land use designation are compatible. FLU Objective 1.3 provides that future land use designations should "discourage urban sprawl, promote mixed use, compact development in urban areas, and support development compatible with the protection and preservation of rural areas." By allowing more intensive development next to the Conservation Neighborhood District, Petitioner contends the plan amendment is inconsistent with this directive because it encourages urban sprawl. "Sprawl" is defined in chapter 3 of the Plan as [h]aphazard growth of dispersed, leap- frog and strip development in suburbs and rural areas and along highways; typically, sprawl is automobile-dependent, single use, resource-consuming, and low-density development in previously rural areas and disconnected from existing development and infrastructure. The parcels on the east side of Highway 29 have similar zoning and land uses as the subject property and are interspersed with commercial development. Therefore, future development on the subject property would not be "disconnected from existing development and infrastructure," and it would not leap-frog into non-developed areas. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment does not encourage urban sprawl. Petitioner contends the underlying zoning on the parcel is incompatible with the land use in her neighborhood. Although the County considered this issue, it points out that the Sector Plan and Comprehensive Plan have different development standards, and therefore there is no requirement that it consider the compatibility of non-Sector Plan property with property in the DSAP. Moreover, to restore the property rights that an owner once had, when the withdrawal application is approved, the property should revert to the underlying zoning in existence when the Sector Plan was established. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LDC section 2-7.4(a)5. requires that when reviewing an opt-out application, the County must consider "[t]he underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations." To this end, the County addressed this factor by assigning a less intense MU-S land use to the parcel so that more intense uses allowed by HC/LI would be prohibited or minimized. It is fairly datable that the underlying zoning will be compatible with the neighboring area. Petitioner contends the amendment is not supported by data and analysis, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Prior to adopting the amendment, the County staff made a qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts on natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, the environment, and adjacent lands. Because Highway 29 is a state road, the County has limited planning responsibilities for traffic impacts. Even so, a limited analysis of traffic impacts is found in County Exhibit 17. In addition, the Department of Transportation performed a more complete analysis of traffic impacts attributable to the amendment. Because the parcel is currently vacant, traffic impacts on Neal Road cannot be fully analyzed until a site plan is filed. A review of school concurrency issues was performed by the Department of Education and no adverse comments were submitted. The County verified that Emerald Coast Utility Authority had available water, sewer, and garbage capacity to serve the parcel. Finally, the County took into account the fact that removal of such a small parcel from the edge of the eastern side of the Sector Plan would have minimal, if any, effect on the Sector Plan goals and objectives. It is fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2017-53 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2018.
