The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan is "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Windward Passage, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Windward"), is a Florida limited partnership. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Intervenor, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County, pursuant to the Act, has adopted a comprehensive plan. Windward's Standing. Windward owns real property located in the County. Windward owns a parcel located to the east and south of the parcel of real property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this case. Representatives of Windward attended the transmittal and adoption hearings on the amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Comments were offered by Windward's representatives during these hearings. General Description of the County. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. It is bounded on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The County has a population of approximately 114,000. The County's Comprehensive Plan. On or about February 20, 1990, the County adopted by Ordinance 373 the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), in accordance with the Act. The Plan contains all elements required by the Act, including a Future Land Use Element and a Future Land Use Map. The Plan has been determined to be "in compliance" with the Act. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan establishes several land use categories, including Estate Density Residential, a residential category, and Institutional Recreation, a public use category. The Subject Property and the Surrounding Area. On or about March 24, 1992, the County purchased a parcel of real property (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is located in the east-central portion of the County in a community known as Hobe Sound. Prior to its purchase the Subject Property was used for a number of purposes, including a boat ramp. The dilapidated boat ramp and a boat basin in a deep water cove exists on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was purchased pursuant to a program known as the County's "Lands for You Program" for use as a resource-oriented park with a public boat ramp. The Lands for You Program is a program for acquiring properties for public recreation or conservation use. The Subject Property was reviewed by a committee established by the County as part of the Lands for You Program and determined to be suitable for public recreational uses. The Subject Property consists of approximately 31.7 acres. The Subject Property is rectangular in shape. It measures approximately 660 feet, north to south, and 2,000 feet, east to west. The Subject Property is bounded on the east by a channel of water that connects with the Intercoastal Waterway, on the west by Gomez Avenue, on the north by a single-family subdivision known as Bahia Sound and on the south by property owned by Windward. Between the channel of water that bounds the Subject Property on the east and the main channel of the Intercoastal Waterway is an island known as Corset Island. Corset Island is undeveloped. The Intercoastal Waterway is bounded on the east by Jupiter Island. The portion of Jupiter Island immediately adjacent to the Subject Property consists of the St. Lucie Inlet Preserve. To the west of the Subject Property are developed and undeveloped single-family parcels, an agricultural nursery (on Gomez Avenue) and the Florida East Coast Railroad. Immediately to the north of Bahia Sound is a County park known as Pecks Lake Park. Pecks Lake Park is also bounded on the east by the Intercoastal Waterway and on the west by Gomez Avenue. Windward's property abutting the Subject Property on the south consists of approximately 22.5 undeveloped acres. It is generally the same shape as the Subject Property. This portion of the property is approximately 500 feet, north to south. Windward also owns Corset Island. Corset Island consists of approximately 28 acres of undeveloped land. Windward acquired its property in approximately 1981. Windward's property is designated Estate Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The eastern 300 to 500 feet of the Windward property and most of Corset Island consists of wetland mangroves. Corset Island also consists of undevelopable wetlands. To the south of Windward's property are developed (subdivisions of single-family homes) and undeveloped tracts of real property. Further south are developed single-family subdivisions located on canals. There are a number of docks located on canals and along the Intercoastal Waterway throughout the area surrounding the Subject Property. Essentially every developed subdivision to the north and south of the Subject Property has a community dock for a number of boats. There is also a boat ramp located on a developed area known as Governor's Landing to the south of the Subject Property. Boating is an adjunct of home ownership throughout the area to the north and south of the Subject Property. There is a large docking facility to the north of Peck's Lake Park. The Challenged Amendment. On May 23, 1994, the County adopted an amendment to the Plan, Amendment 94-E (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"). The Challenged Amendment modifies the Future Land Use Map, Map 10, of the Plan by changing the future land use designation of the Subject Property from "Estate Density Residential" to "Institutional Recreation." Section 4-4 of the Plan establishes goals, objectives and policies concerning the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. Section 4-4 includes Goal M, Objective 1, Policy e(1) and (2), defining "Residential Estate Densities" future land use designations. The designations are essentially the same, except for allowed densities. Residential Estate Densities "are primarily assigned to established stable residential areas " Section 4-4 of the Plan includes Goal M, Objective 1, Policy h, defining the "Institutional Recreation" designation: h. Policies (Institutional Development) . . . . (1) Recreational - Recreational lands are designed for activity-based and resource- based recreational uses and typically contain recreational facilities and substantial access improvements. Lands assigned the [Recreation category may be developed only as public recreation areas]. . . . [Lands acquired by the County for Recreational uses shall be reclassified to the Institutional-Recreation land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle]. [Emphasis added]. The Challenged Amendment allows the County to develop the Subject Property for use as a park with a public boat ramp, which is the intended use of the Subject Property. The Challenged Amendment does not, however, require that the Subject Property be used only for a public boat ramp or even specifically provide that the Subject Property will include a public boat ramp. The Challenged Amendment was not initiated by application. Instead, the Challenged Amendment was adopted pursuant to Section 1-11, B. of the Plan: . . . . The Martin County Board of County Commissioners or the Local Planning Agency may, [by resolution], at any time, initiate a request to amend, modify, add to or change the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan . . . . [Emphasis added]. The Department's Review of the Challenged Amendment. On or about December 20, 1994, the County transmitted the Challenged Amendment to the Department. The Department received a request on behalf of Windward to review the Challenged Amendment. The Department complied with the request. The Department completed its review on or about April 20, 1995. The Department advised the County by letter that it had no objections to the Challenged Amendment. Subsequent to the adoption of the Challenged Amendment by the County, the Department caused to be published a Notice of Intent finding the Challenged Amendment in compliance. Windward timely filed a petition challenging the Department's determination. Zoning Modification of the Subject Property. The Ordinance adopting the Challenged Amendment also changes the zoning of the Subject Property. The Ordinance provides that the Subject Property will have "a zoning district change from A-1A (Agricultural District) to PS (Public Service)." While the modification in zoning was accomplished in the same Ordinance adopting he Challenged Amendment, the modification does not modify the Plan in any way. The Challenged Amendment, the modification of the Plan itself, does not deal with zoning of the Subject Property. I. Alleged Incompatibility of the Subject Property's Land Use Designation with the Surrounding Area; Alleged Lack of Data and Analysis. Windward alleged that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the surrounding area and that the County lacked sufficient data and analysis to conclude that the Challenged Amendment is consistent with the surrounding area. In attempting to support this contention, Windward addressed the use of the Subject Property as a park with a boat ramp. The Challenged Amendment subject to review by the Department does not provide for the development of the Subject Property as a park with a boat ramp. Therefore, Windward's proof concerning consistency of a boat ramp with the surrounding area is not relevant to a determination of whether the Challenged Amendment is consistent with the surrounding area or whether the County had sufficient data and analysis to conclude that the Challenged Amendment is consistent with surrounding land uses. The Challenged Amendment subject to review by the Department consists of only a change in the land use designation of the Subject Property. That change involves the designation the Subject Property pursuant to the Plan as "Institutional Recreation". Pursuant to the Challenged Amendment, the Subject Property may be used consistent with the definition of the "Institutional Recreation" land use definition contained in Section 4-4, Goal M, Objective 1, Policy h of the Plan. The evidence presented in this case failed to prove that the designation of the Subject Property as "Institutional Recreation" is inconsistent with surrounding land uses or that the County lacked data and analysis to determine that the designation is consistent with surrounding land uses. The County was provided with minutes of a meeting of the Martin County Local Planning Agency and Planning and Zoning Board held on December 8, 1994. Use of the Subject Property for Institutional Recreation purposes (and as a park with a boat ramp) was considered and discussed at this meeting. The County was also provided with a copy of a report titled the "South County Boat Ramp Location Analysis Report". This report was prepared by the County's Park Development Division and considered the use of four different parcels, including the Subject Property, for the construction of a boat ramp. The report contained information concerning the Subject Property and the surrounding area pertinent to the County's decision to redesignate the Subject Property from a residential use to "Institutional Recreation." A document titled "Detailed Analysis", prepared by County growth management staff, was also provided to the County. The report described existing uses and future land use designations for the surrounding area. The documents provided to the County included a number of maps and aerial photographs of the Subject Property and the surrounding area. Those photographs alone support a conclusion that the use of the Subject Property for recreation-boating purposes is consistent with the surrounding area. The County was also provided with maps that show subdivisions and development within approximately a 2-3 mile radius, a future land use map indicating the variety of land uses and designations within an approximately 1- mile radius, and a tax map indicating subdivisions and ownership in the immediate area. Based upon the information considered by the County, it cannot be concluded that the designation of the Subject Property as "Institutional Recreation", even if a boat ramp is ultimately built on the site, is not compatible with the surrounding the Subject Property or that the County lacked sufficient data and analysis to so conclude. There is already a park used for recreation purposes in the area. Providing access to, and recreational uses of, the water on the Subject Property is consistent with the existing access to, and recreational uses of, the water by residents in the surrounding area. J. Consistency of the Challenged Amendment with the Plan. The Plan provides for the Lands Acquisition Selection Program as a means of evaluating and selecting sites for public recreational uses, including boat ramps. The evidence failed to prove that the selection of the Subject Property was inconsistent with the Program. The Plan provides that property purchased by the County is to be designated as "Institutional" during the next Plan amendment cycle. Section 4- 4, Goal M, Objective 1, Policy h. The Challenged Amendment is consistent with this requirement. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that Windward Passage, Ltd., has failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance" and dismissing the Petition filed by Windward Passage, Ltd. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3915GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Windward's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5 Not relevant. See 12. The second sentence is not relevant. Not relevant. 8-11 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18-19 and 21. See 4-5 and 23. Whether "residents" opposed the Challenged Amendment is not relevant. Accepted in 5, 39 and 41-42. 16 See 4-5. 17-18 Argument. See 37. Argument and conclusion of law. See 37. Not relevant. 21-25 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26-28 The County and Department did not have the burden of proof in this case. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29-35 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36-37 Not relevant. 38 The County and Department did not have the burden of proof in this case. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 39-40 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 4. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 6 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 11. Accepted in 32-33. Accepted in 17-19. Accepted in 12 and 15-16. Accepted in 58. Accepted in 20-23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 39. Accepted in 39-40. Accepted in 40. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 32. 20-21 Accepted in 47. Martin County's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 4. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 6 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 6. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 8. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 9 and 11. Accepted in 32-33. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 12 and 17-18. Accepted in 17-18. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. 19-20 Accepted in 14. 21-22 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 13 and 18. Accepted in 21. Accepted in 18 and 22. Accepted in 23. 27-28 Accepted in 28. Accepted in 18-19 and 24. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 21. Hereby accepted. 33-34 Accepted in 29. Accepted in 23-24. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 23-24. Accepted in 26. 39-40 Accepted in 27. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 12 and 15. Accepted in 16. 44-45 Hereby accepted. 46 Accepted in 38. 47-48 Accepted in 39. Accepted in 40. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 44. 53-56 Not relevant. 57 Hereby accepted. See 47. 58-59 Accepted in 48-50. 60-62 Accepted in 51-56. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 52. 65-66 Not relevant. Accepted in 29-31 and 54. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 21, 28 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Not relevant. Accepted in 57. Accepted in 35. 75-78 Not relevant. 79 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Jay Hunston, Jr., Esquire 515 N. Flagler Drive 19th Floor - Northbridge Tower West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Brigette Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert K. Guthrie Martin County Attorney Gary K. Oldehoff Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 S. E. Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34997 James F. Murley Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The Appellants raise several issues on appeal, including: whether Ordinance 003-2015 did not comply with the constitutional single subject rule and did the County’s application of the Ordinance violate the Florida Constitution; whether the County exceeded its police power in enacting Ordinance 003-2015 and failed to follow the essential requirements of the law when it applied the ordinance to the Appellants’ property; (3) whether the Planning Commission’s decision violated its obligations to support, protect, and defend the Unites States and Florida Constitutions; and (4) whether the Appellants were deprived of their fundamental due process rights during the Commission hearing.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of Pompano Beach (City) by Ordinance Nos. 2011-24 and 2011- 25 on February 8, 2011, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a resident and owner of real property within the City. Through counsel, she submitted written and oral comments to the City during the transmittal and adoption hearings for the plan amendments. Petitioner is employed by the Seminole Tribe of Florida at its casino located in Coconut Creek, Broward County (County). PPI's claim that this challenge is rooted in gaming interests of the Seminole Tribe of Florida appears to be a valid assumption. The City is a municipal corporation in the County and is responsible for adopting and maintaining its Plan. It adopted the amendments pursuant to former section 163.32465, in effect at that time, which codified an adoption process known as the Alternative State Review Pilot Program (Pilot Program). Under the Pilot Program, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)1 did not issue an Objections, Recommendation, or Comments report or a notice of intent regarding compliance or non- compliance of the plan amendments. The DCA and other reviewing agencies did, however, issue letters advising that they did not object to the final version of the adopted amendments. PPI owns property in the City and is the applicant for the amendments. PPI submitted comments in support of the amendments throughout the adoption process. The Amendment Process in Broward County Under the County Charter, land use changes to the City's Plan that are not more restrictive than the County Land Use Plan must be reviewed by the Planning Council to ensure that they are in "substantial conformity" with the County Land Use Plan. However, the Planning Council does not review the City's plan amendments for consistency with the City's Plan or chapter 163. After the County's review was completed, the DCA recommended that certain changes be made. The amendments were transmitted back to the City and were amended to conform to the DCA's recommendations. The amendments were then required to undergo the same review process a second time. Although a determination was made by the Planning Council that the initial amendments were in substantial conformity with the County Land Use Plan, the revised amendments cannot be recertified for consistency until this challenge has been concluded. If plan amendments are in substantial conformity with its Land Use Plan, the County must amend its Plan to incorporate the City's changes. Based upon a favorable recommendation by the Planning Council, on September 28, 2010, the County adopted companion amendments, although not identical to the City's revised amendments. Those amendments are the subject of a pending challenge by the same petitioner in Case No. 10-9939GM and have not yet become effective. A hearing in that case is now scheduled in September 2013. Until that challenge is resolved, the City amendments cannot become effective. The Property PPI owns approximately 230 acres of property within the City. The property is bounded on the north by Racetrack Road, by North Cypress Bend Drive to the south, by Powerline Road to the west, and the CSX railroad tracks to the east. The current land use designation on 160 acres is Commercial Recreation (CR), while the remaining 70 acres has a Regional Activity Center (RAC) designation. The 70 acres makes up the southern part of a pre-existing RAC known as the Arvida Pompano Park Regional Activity Center (Arvida RAC), whose boundaries are coextensive with a Development of Regional Impact approved in the 1980s, but which expired in 2004. Except for the 70 acres owned by PPI, the Arvida RAC is fully developed. The CR property lies just to the south of the Arvida RAC and forms the southern boundary of that development. The 160 acres is now occupied by the Pompano Park Harness Track, Isle of Capri Casino, surface parking lots, various commercial uses, horse stables, a training area, and other uses associated with the harness track and casino. The 160 acres is the only property in the City designated as CR. That designation allows an extremely wide range of permitted uses: outdoor and indoor recreation facilities such as active recreation complexes, marinas, stadiums, jai-alai frontons, bowling alleys, golf courses, and dog and horse racing facilities; accessory facilities, including outdoor and indoor recreation facilities that support the primary recreation facility; hotels, motels, time shares, and similar lodging ancillary to the primary commercial recreation uses; and other active and passive recreation uses. The site was once considered for a new baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins and a hockey arena for the Florida Panthers. The CR property can have more than one primary use. For example, besides the harness track, the casino is an "indoor recreation facility" and qualifies as a second primary use. If a hotel has resort and destination features that are open to the public, the amenities can become a primary use. Under the City's interpretation of CR land, a hotel containing a destination function with resort and recreation features is also a primary use. Ancillary facilities for each of these uses is also allowed. The City is already 95 percent built-out, and it considers PPI's property to be regionally significant, under developed, and ripe for redevelopment as a major attraction. For these reasons, it supports the designation of the property as a new RAC. PPI filed the application because it desires greater flexibility in planning for the future development of the property. If the amendments become effective, PPI intends to expand the existing casino and build a large resort hotel, various commercial and residential uses, and other amenities associated with those activities. The Amendments In December 2009, PPI submitted an application to the City to reduce the existing Arvida RAC by removing PPI's 70 acres south of Racetrack Road; eliminate the development intensity assigned to those 70 acres; and combine the 70 acres removed from the Arvida RAC with its 160 acres of CR property to create a new South RAC. PPI also proposed to transfer credit for the remaining undeveloped portion of the Arvida RAC to the new South RAC. After the local review process was completed, the plan amendments were transmitted to the DCA, which issued a letter of comment recommending that the amendments be revised to identify the maximum amount of development (i.e., square footage) that would be allowed in each non-residential use, including CR, commercial, and office. Based on the DCA's comments, the application was modified by PPI to include floor area ratios (FARs) for each non-residential use, and in October 2010 the revised amendments were approved by the City on first reading. The DCA reviewed the revised amendments and had no objections. In February 2011, the revised amendments were adopted on second reading. Petitioner then timely filed her challenge. The map amendment (Ordinance No. 2011-25) changes the land use designation on the CR property to RAC. It consolidates the 70-acre parcel with the 160-acre parcel to create a unified RAC designation. The amendment does not change the boundary or designation of uses within the existing Arvida RAC. The amended FLUM now shows only a single RAC, with different intensity and density standards assigned to the North and South RACs in the text amendment.2 The text amendment to the FLUE (Ordinance No. 2011-24) affects a total of 399 acres of land, which covers both the existing Arvida RAC and the 160 acres of CR property south of Racetrack Road. It amends the listed uses for the Arvida RAC and names the uses for the new South RAC. The amendments permit a mixed use complex on PPI's property with a combination of 135 acres of CR (rather than 160 acres), 27 acres of commercial uses, 26 acres of office uses, and 43 acres of residential usage, consisting of 1,050 mid-rise apartments and 250 garden apartments, or a total of 1,300 residential units. The only new use introduced by either amendment is the 1,300 residential units. The maximum intensity on the CR property is not defined in the text of the Plan. However, FLUE policy 01.07.20 allows development on the 160 acres to a maximum intensity of 105 feet in height with 50 percent floor area coverage. This equates to an effective FAR of 5.0. All parties agree that a 5.0 FAR is unrealistic, and PPI never considered using that level of development. For this reason, the text amendment reduces the CR intensity to 0.31, which represents a far more reasonable and realistic development limitation. The amendment limits the maximum development within the South RAC to the following maximum FARs: 0.31 for commercial recreation use; 0.84 for office use; and 0.65 for commercial use. To the extent any portion of the 160 acres is re-designated as commercial or office, the amendment limits the maximum potential development on that acreage. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner's objections, broadly defined, are that the amendments are not in compliance because (a) they are not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis regarding transportation impacts; (b) they are internally inconsistent with four policies in the FLUE, one objective and two policies in the Transportation Element (TE), one policy in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE), and three policies in the Housing Element (HE); and (c) they are not supported by appropriate data and analysis regarding affordable housing. Data and Analysis -- Transportation Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on "relevant and appropriate data and analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment." In addition, "the future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: . . . [t]he availability of water supplies, public facilities and services." § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., Fla. Stat. FLUM amendments must be based on an "analysis of the availability of facilities and services." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.a., Fla. Stat. Finally, "[w]here data is relevant to several elements, consistent data shall be used." § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat. Relying on the foregoing statutory requirements, Petitioner contends that the data and analysis regarding transportation impacts are inconsistent with the data and analysis supporting the TE and CIE; the various data and analysis supporting the amendments are not accurate and professionally acceptable because they underestimate impacts to transportation facilities by overstating the maximum development intensity of the property under the existing CR land use designation and do not identify the true impact of the amendments; and the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis demonstrating serious impacts to already failing roadways in the area. In broad terms, a traffic impact analysis identifies the potential traffic impacts of the plan amendments on the transportation system. In their analyses, the parties used very different assumptions as to the maximum development intensity under the existing land use designations on the PPI property. Each analysis compares the traffic generated at the maximum intensity permitted under the existing land uses to the traffic generated by the maximum density/intensity under the plan amendments. The City does not require that a particular methodology or set of assumptions be used in performing an analysis. This is because the methodologies and assumptions used in a traffic impact study may differ, and they are grounded in part on the expert's sound judgment, experience, and discretion. PPI submitted two traffic impact analyses, one in March 2010 and the second in October 2010. Because the City disagreed with PPI's pre-amendment assumptions in the first analysis and assumed a smaller development under the existing land uses, it recommended that an independent traffic engineer be hired to conduct a second analysis and verify the transportation impacts. Due to a lack of resources, the City does not conduct its own traffic analysis; instead, it typically defers to the traffic analysis conducted by the Planning Council or, in some cases, it may hire its own consultant. PPI's second analysis assumed a different mix of pre- amendment CR uses. Also, it used the County Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) latest model (the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure, a/k/a FSUTMS) for traffic distribution, which was not available until after the first analysis had been completed. The second analysis assumed that under existing land uses the 160 acres could be developed with a 15,000 seat racetrack (instead of a 5,625 seat facility); a 125,000 square- foot casino; a 400,000 square-foot amusement center; a 2,333 room hotel; 350,000 square feet of accessory retail; and a new 100,000 square-foot theme park. The analysis sought to represent the existing condition of the property as reflecting a reasonable amount of development which could actually be built on the property. While these assumed uses dramatically expand the existing development on the parcel, each is permitted under the CR category, and the intensities are substantially lower than those allowed under the FLUE limitations. The assumed pre-amendment development was compared with an assumed post-development condition of a 11,591 seat racetrack; a 96,561 square-foot casino; a 309,091 square-foot amusement center; a 1,750 room hotel; 270,455 square feet of accessory retail; and a 77,273 square-foot theme park. Thus, PPI's post-amendment assumptions represented a reduction in the pre-development conditions. The October study concluded that the plan amendments would generate 6,578 net new daily trips and 568 net new total afternoon peak-hour trips (i.e., trips during rush hour). It further concluded that a number of roadway segments would continue to operate at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F in the future no matter whether the amendments were approved or not. Notably, only State and County roadways were impacted, and those impacts have been further evaluated by the Planning Council through its own traffic impact study. To mitigate these impacts, the revised study identified various improvements or modifications to the three affected segments, Racetrack Road east of Powerline Road, Racetrack Road east of Southwest 23rd Avenue, and Powerline Road north of McNab Road. These modifications were accepted as adequate mitigation by the City. Although Petitioner questioned whether the proposed mitigation could be enforced without being incorporated into the Plan, the City takes the position that PPI's representations are enforceable. If additional mitigation is required, PPI has agreed that this can be provided during the permit stage. After receiving PPI's second impact analysis, the City noted that it was "more detailed" than the City's abbreviated analysis performed after PPI's first study; it agreed with PPI's use of FARs for each land use category (as recommended by the DCA) to determine the maximum development that could occur; it agreed that the accepted analysis "shows a lower net increase in the demand for public facilities and services than the City's analysis"; and it concluded that "the project can meet all applicable concurrency requirements." By then, the City was also aware that the County had adopted PPI's companion amendments, and the Planning Council, with the MPO's technical assistance, had made its own evaluation of traffic impacts before amending its own Plan. The Planning Council used a different methodology to analyze traffic impacts for CR land use amendments. Unlike PPI, the Planning Council's analysis did not assume the maximum development potential in either the before or after condition. Rather, it converted the acreage of uses in the before and after conditions by assuming a development potential of 10,000 square feet per acre for all non-residential uses, which equals a 0.23 FAR. It also assumed that the only new use would be the addition of 1,300 new residential units. The Planning Council analysis concluded that the amendments would add 305 afternoon peak-hour trips to the regional roadway network, or fewer than that found in PPI's study. The County further concluded that the net increase in trips would not significantly impact the two major roadways in the area, Powerline Road and Atlantic Boulevard, and that they would continue to operate at LOS F even if the amendments were not approved. Under current Planning Council review standards, any impact that is less than three percent of the capacity of a roadway is considered insignificant. There were no impacts that exceeded this threshold. The Planning Council's traffic impact analysis and supporting data are a part of the data and analysis supporting the City's amendments. Petitioner contends that PPI's second traffic study is flawed in several respects. One concern is that the assumptions made by PPI in determining the pre- and post-amendment conditions on its property "significantly overestimate the development in the pre-approval condition," and therefore "grossly underestimate the net increase in traffic." Using different assumptions, Petitioner's expert prepared his own traffic impact analysis which substantially reduces the pre- amendment maximum development on the property. In all, Petitioner's expert prepared 11 different scenarios, some showing no impacts at all, but he eventually decided to use the tenth version, which is probably the most favorable to his position. The permitted uses under the City's CR category are extremely broad and mimic the permitted uses under the "very, very broad" CR category in the County's Plan. Petitioner's expert opined that because the CR land use is so "ill-defined," the "best indicator" of what could be built in the before condition "appeared to be the plat." A plat is a development permit approved by, and recorded with, the County. It normally reflects what a property owner intends to build on his property at the time the plat is approved or in the very near future. The County then uses the plat to determine the amount of impact fees to be paid by the owner. Because it can be amended at any time, usually when a land use amendment is being processed or when more development is contemplated, a plat is not used to determine the maximum potential development capacity on a parcel. Notably, PPI could easily file an application for approval of a new plat on the CR land showing exactly what it assumed in pre-amendment conditions. The existing plats themselves were not made a part of the record. By using recorded plats for his entire analysis, including the CR land, which he admitted was "a little unusual," Petitioner's expert significantly reduced the amount of development in a pre-amendment condition, increased the difference between pre- and post-amendment traffic, and created more post-amendment traffic impacts on the road network. However, this assumption is contrary to the plats' intended use, it does not represent a parcel's true development potential, and at best it produces results that are no more reasonable than the results presented by PPI. The City's Future Conditions Analysis (FCA) makes up a part of the narrative portion of the TE and forecasts future travel demands, land use growth, and traffic operations within the City. The FCA was "developed to be consistent with the MPO travel demand process and incorporates the [MPO's] analysis, findings and recommendations as appropriate for the City." Jt. Ex. 1, TE, p. 60. Petitioner contends that PPI failed to coordinate with the MPO data and analysis (specifically the LOS standards and traffic volumes), incorporated by reference into the TE, when it prepared its pre-amendment conditions. Thus, she argues that the amendments are inconsistent with the data and analysis supporting the TE (and by implication the CIE), and it results in far more traffic in the existing condition than the MPO model assumes. See § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat. The Planning Council traffic impact study is a part of the data and analysis supporting the City amendments. In performing their pre-amendment analyses, both the Planning Council and MPO reviewed the same MPO "analysis, findings, and recommendations" that are incorporated by reference into the City's Plan. Notably, the Planning Council's analysis concluded that the additional traffic generated by the difference between the assumed pre- and post-amendment conditions would not cause significant impacts on the regional transportation network. Testimony presented by the City and PPI established that all relevant portions of the City Plan were reviewed for consistency, and unless a provision was found to have some significance, no reference to that provision was made in the traffic impact analysis, application, or staff report. Even if PPI's traffic impact study does not overtly state that PPI coordinated with the MPO data and analysis before making its pre-amendment assumptions, the Planning Council data and analysis are sufficient to show that the required review and coordination were made. The City reacted appropriately to the data. Petitioner's expert also leveled criticisms regarding the following aspects of PPI's traffic impact study: the level of internal trip capture; by-pass capture; and pedestrian access internal to the site, i.e., walking to a site. Petitioner did not prove that the assumptions supporting those aspects of the study were unreasonable. Petitioner has failed to establish beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis regarding transportation impacts, or that they are inconsistent with other data and analysis supporting the Plan. Affordable Housing Petitioner contends that affordable housing was not addressed by PPI or the City, and PPI failed to provide any data and analysis with regard to various affordable housing requirements in the City's Plan. Given these omissions, she contends that the City did not react appropriately by approving the amendments. The application contains a section relating to affordable housing. While PPI referred to HE policies 05.03.02, 05.08.02, and 05.08.05 and County Land Use Plan policy 1.07.07, no explanation was given as to how the amendments conform to these provisions. Policy 1.07.07 provides a number of ways to meet the affordable housing policies, methods, or programs to achieve and/or maintain a sufficient supply of affordable housing. One option is that when a plan amendment adds more than 100 residential dwelling units, an applicant must agree to either provide 15 percent of the proposed residential units in the project for affordable housing or make a contribution of $750.00 per residential unit, to be paid to the local government when building permits are issued. To comply with this requirement, an applicant must provide the County a declaration of restrictive covenants. As explained at hearing, rather than undertaking a detailed analysis of its HE policies when reviewing land use amendments, the City routinely follows the dictates of policy 1.07.07 and allows an applicant to "buy out" its affordable housing obligation. It then uses the money for one of the City's housing programs, either to subsidize the demand side, or the existing supply of affordable housing. The City already has an ample supply of affordable housing, and it prefers that developers buy out their obligations since the cash can be used more effectively to achieve HE goals, objectives, and policies. This process was followed here, and the City allowed PPI to "buy-out [its obligation] at $750.00 x 100 percent of the units." In doing so, it relied on PPI's declaration of restricted covenants provided to the County, the fact that an in-lieu fee would best meet its affordable housing needs, and its expectation that the money would then be used to support one of its housing programs. This information (data) was available to the City and was in existence at the time the amendments were adopted, it was presented at final hearing, and it is sufficient to support the amendments. See § 163.3177(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis regarding affordable housing or that the City did not react appropriately to that data. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) requires that the "elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent." Petitioner contends that the amendments are inconsistent with four FLUE policies; one TE objective and two TE policies; one CIE policy; and three HE policies. Petitioner also argues that the amendments are inconsistent with FLUE section 3.02K, which establishes criteria that must be met in order for a property to qualify for a RAC designation. Among other criteria, FLUE subsection 3.02K.4 requires that a RAC "provide direct access to existing or proposed airports, ports, and rail mass transportation facilities." It is undisputed that the property is bounded on its east side by the CSX railroad tracks. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) uses those tracks to operate a rail mass transportation facility known as Tri-Rail between Palm Beach and Dade Counties. Through its Board of Directors, the RTA has established station stops at various points on its route; there is, however, no station stop adjacent to PPI's property. Because the property sits adjacent to the railroad tracks, it is eligible to be considered for a station stop. At any time, but logically after this challenge is concluded and development begins, PPI and the City can submit a formal joint proposal for a station stop. Also, PPI can offer inducements to the RTA, such as dedicating land for a station stop and assisting in its funding. In addition, the RTA currently provides a shuttle service, which can easily transport PPI patrons to the station stop. These considerations support a finding that the property has "direct access" to the Tri-Rail, as contemplated by the FLUE. Petitioner contends, however, that in order to have direct access, PPI must have a binding commitment from the RTA to build a station stop before the amendment is approved. This narrow interpretation has been rejected as not being as or more reasonable than the City's interpretation of its Plan. Petitioner next contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with HE policies 05.01.05, 05.03.02, and 05.08.01. In general terms, the first policy requires that the City promote affordable housing; the second requires that the City support public and private sector efforts to create and preserve affordable housing for very-low, low, and moderate- income groups in areas designated for residential land use for future and current residents; and the third policy requires the City to "consider the ability of the proposal to provide affordable housing" and allows restrictive covenants to be used as a tool to meet those needs. PPI's execution of a restrictive covenant to buy out its obligation for affordable housing, and the City's use of those funds to provide affordable housing in the manner as it sees fit, are sufficient to achieve consistency with the requirements that the City promote and support affordable housing, and that it allow restrictive covenants to be used as a tool to meet those needs. Petitioner also contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with CIE policy 13.03.02, which requires that the City provide infrastructure necessary to maintain the LOS standards concurrent with the impact of development. The traffic impact analyses performed by PPI and the Planning Council demonstrate that the amendments will not significantly impact the regional transportation network. To the extent any adverse impacts may occur, PPI has agreed to mitigate those impacts. Petitioner contends that the amendments conflict with TE objective 02.02.00 and policies 02.02.05 and 02.07.02. The objective requires that the City coordinate the transportation system with the uses shown on the FLUM to ensure that adequate transportation services are provided. The first policy requires that the City continue supporting a system that allows development to occur in concurrence with the FLUM and consistent with the established LOS standards. The second policy requires that the City review future land use amendments in concert with maintenance of the adopted LOS standards. For the reasons previously found, the plan amendments are not internally inconsistent with the objective or policies. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE policies 01.01.01, 01.01.02, 01.01.03, and 01.01.05. These policies require that the City adopt and maintain services based on LOS standards; review all proposals for development using the adopted LOS standards; phase development concurrent with the availability of infrastructure; and review proposals for new development to identify the cumulative impacts of the development on public services and facilities. For the reasons previously stated, the plan amendments do not conflict with these policies. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are internally inconsistent with objectives or policies in the FLUE, HE, CIE, and TE.
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 Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2011-24 and 2011-25 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2013, 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 19th day of June, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, Amendment No. 98-3, is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Alliance"), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. The Alliance was organized in July 1998 primarily to respond to proposed land use designation changes for the property that is the subject of this proceeding and for other property. The Alliance has three officers (a President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and an eight-member Board of Directors. The officers and directors of the Alliance all reside in Martin County, Florida. The members of the Board of Directors are from different neighborhoods in Martin County. The Alliance maintains a mailing list of approximately 500 individuals who are considered "members" of the Alliance. These individuals have all expressed interest in the activities of the Alliance, but have not taken any formal steps to join the Alliance, such as paying dues or completing an application for membership. In fact, the Alliance does not collect dues or have a membership application. Petitioner, Mary A. Merrill, is an individual who resides in an area of unincorporated Martin County, Florida, known as "Hobe Sound." Ms. Merrill serves as President of the Alliance. During the process of adopting the amendment which is the subject of this matter, Ms. Merrill and the Alliance made comments and objections. Respondent, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. The County is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County, and on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a portion of Okeechobee County. Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Partnership"), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. The Land Partnership's general partner is Hobe Sound Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Company") and the limited partners are a number of trusts organized for the benefit of various members of the Reed family. The Land Partnership is the owner of the property which is the subject of this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The County's Comprehensive Plan. General The County has adopted a comprehensive land use plan as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Martin County Florida Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 1999/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The Future Land Use Element The Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE"), consisting of the following: Section 4-1, "Background Information"; Section 4-2, "Analysis of Land Use Features"; Section 4-3, the "Future Land Use Map and Map Series"; Section 4-4, "Goals, Objectives and Policies"; Section 4-5, "Performance Standards"; and Section 4- 6, "Implementation Strategies." Sections 4-1 and 4-2 consist of what the County refers to as "narrative" sections which the County gives less weight to in determining whether an amendment to the Plan is "in compliance" than it gives Section 4-4, which contains the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. These narrative sections of the Plan, however, are not "data and analysis." They were adopted as a part of the Plan. See the second unnumbered page of the Plan. The FLUE establishes 13 separate and distinct land-use categories. These land-use categories determine the uses to which property subject to the Plan may be put. The Plan's Future Land Use Map and Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), depicts all property subject to the Plan and depicts the land use category assigned to all property in the County. Among the land use categories established in the FLUE pertinent to this proceeding is the "Institutional" land use category. To distinguish this category from the "Institutional- County" land use designation of the FLUE, the category is referred to as the "General Institutional" category. Property designated as General Institutional is subject to the following sub-categories or intensities of use: "retirement home, churches, schools, orphanages, sanitariums, convalescent, rest homes, cultural organizations, military, colleges, hospitals, federal, municipal, utilities, and rights- of-way." Section 4-4.M.1.h.(3). of the FLUE, provides the following Policy governing the use of General Institutional property: General Institutional - The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities such as, but not limited to schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. . . . While Institutional use is reserved for the above uses, this shall not prohibit for- profit medical offices and other ancillary facilities owned by a non-profit hospital as long as they are part of a Planned Unit Development. . . . . . . . The Plan also establishes land use categories in the FLUE for the residential use of property. All land which is designated for residential development on the FLUM is subject to Section 4-4.M.1.e. of the FLUE: The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resource and plan for fiscal conservancy. There are seven types of designated residential land use categories created by the Plan. Those uses include the following: 10 units per acre for "high density;" 8 units per acre for "medium density;" 5 units per acre for "low density residential;" 2 units per acre and 1 unit per acre for "estate density;" .5 units per acre for rural areas. There is also a "mobile home density" category. The lowest density of .5 units per acre is reserved for those areas that are designated as rural. The estate density categories are used for areas are located "generally on the fringe of the urban service districts and generally are not accessible to a full complement of urban services." Sections 4-4.M.1.e.(1) and (2) of the Plan. Of primary pertinence to this proceeding is the residential land use designation of "Low Density Residential." Residential land designated "Low Density Residential" is limited by Section 4-4.M.1.e.(3). of the FLUE as follows: Low Density Residential Development. The low density residential designation is reserved for land accessible to existing urban service centers or located in the immediate expansion area. Densities permitted in this area shall not exceed five (5) units per gross acre. Review of specific densities shall be directed toward preserving the stability and integrity of established residential development and toward provided equitable treatment to lands sharing similar characteristics. Design techniques such as landscaping, screening and buffering shall be employed to assure smooth transition in residential structure types and densities. Generally, where single family structures comprise the dominant structure type within these areas, new development on undeveloped abutting lands shall be required to include compatible structure types on the lands immediately adjacent to existing single family development. Excessive Residential Property and the Active Residential Development Preference Planning System. Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that the County has designated an excessive amount of land for residential use. This section of the Plan indicates that, at the time the Plan was adopted, there was a projected need for 26,231 acres of land to accommodate the projected population of the County to the Year 2005. It also indicates that, as of the date of the Plan, 35,834 acres of vacant land had been designated for residential use, well in excess of the amount of land necessary to meet demand. Despite the requirements of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, requiring appropriate planning for residential needs within a local government's jurisdiction, the Plan was approved by the Department as being "in compliance" with the designation of an excessive amount of land for residential use in the County. Instead of requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with planning for future residential land use needs, the County and the Department entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifying that the Plan include a requirement that the County undertake the collection of more current land use data and refine the various land use predictive factors it had been using. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement also required that the County institute an Active Residential Development Preference Planning System (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP System"), to monitor the timing and location of residential development in the County. Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan provides a Policy dealing with future residential land use requirements for the County. The Policy reports the over-allocation of vacant land designated for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy specifically provides, in part: While the current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is, an active residential development "125% test" will be used in conjunction with location and land suitability requirements in the review and approval of future land use and/or project requests. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, location within the Primary, or Secondary Urban Service District; consistency with the Capital Improvement Element; protection of natural resources; and adequate provision of facilities and services at the adopted level of service. The Policy goes on to provide that residential development in the County will be maintained at 125 percent capacity through the ARDP System and describes other measures to reduce the amount of excessive residential property to be developed in the County. Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991. Consistent with Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan, the County has adopted the ADRPP System. Environmental Protection Considerations in the FLUE Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten the "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." Therefore, the Policy provides that any such development is to be planned to minimize the threat by "assuring that the environmentally sensitive and threatened habitats are preserved." The Policy also provides: Certain areas in Martin County are recognized and beginning to be identified by federal, state and local programs as environmentally sensitive. These areas provide special value in producing public benefits, including: recreational opportunities, life support services, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, scenic values, water purification, water recharge and storage, and sensitive habitats critical to the survival of endangered wildlife and plants. Urban development in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas can significantly reduce their environmental values. Additionally, there are important public health concerns associated with development in these areas, particularly in relation to potable water and waste disposal in low lying areas. . . . Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation. Coastal Management Element Section 8.4 of the Plan establishes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The area subject to this Element is described on maps adopted as part of the Element, including the map depicted in Figure 8-1. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal management area established by the Element. Section 8.4.A.2.a. of the Plan provides "land use decisions guidelines" requiring a consideration of the impacts of development on fish, wildlife, and habitat, including cumulative impacts. These guidelines, however, apply to development within the coastal management area established by the Plan. Conservation and Open Space Element Chapter 9 of the Plan establishes the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Element are set out in Section 9-4 of the Plan. Section 9-4.A. of the Plan establishes the following Goal: The goal of Martin County is to effectively manage, conserve and preserve the natural resources of Martin County giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries and wildlife with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon. Section 9-4.A.2.a. of the Plan requires that the County continue to enforce and improve its Wellfield Protection Ordinance. The Wellfield Protection Ordinance is intended to regulate land use activities within the zones of influence of major wellheads. Section 9-4.A.2.b. of the Plan provides the following: New potable water wells and wellfields shall be located in areas where maximum quantities of regulated materials (e.g. hazardous and toxic materials) do not exceed the proposed criteria of the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. At the time future wellfield locations are identified, establishment of incompatible land uses within the zones of influence of such wells shall be prohibited. Objective 9-4.A.9. of the Plan provides for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitat. Policy 9- 4.A.9.a. of the Plan provides the following: Land use decisions shall consider the effects of development impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat and the cumulative impact of development or redevelopment upon wildlife habitat. In cases where rare, endangered, threatened or species of special concern are known to be present, a condition of approval will be that a preserve area management plan be prepared at the time of site plan submittal. . . . To ensure adequate protection, protected plants and animals, which cannot be provided with sufficient undisturbed habitat to maintain the existing population in a healthy, viable state on site, shall be effectively relocated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Potable Water Service Element Chapter 11 of the Plan establishes a Potable Water Service Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 11-4. Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan provides that, by 1991, the County was to establish programs to conserve and protect potable water resources within the County. The specific components of the programs are provided. None of those provisions are relevant to this matter. Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 13-4. Section 13-4.A.1. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: Martin County will maintain existing ground water and surface water quality, improve areas of degraded ground water and surface water quality and prevent future contamination of ground water supply sources. Section 13-4.A.2. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: "Enhance the quantity of ground water recharge and maintain desirable ground water levels." The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, recognize the significance of ground waterrecharge and groundwater levels in the County. Preservation of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels is a significant goal of the County. None of the Policies established to carry out the foregoing Objectives specifically eliminate the use of vacant land located near wells for residential purposes. Plan Amendment Adoption Procedures Procedures for the adoption of amendments to the Plan are established in Section 1.11, "Amendment Procedures," of the Plan. Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan provides the following procedures for evaluating changes to the FLUM: In evaluating each land use map amendment request, staff begins with the assumption that the 1982 Land Use Map, as amended, is generally an accurate representation of the Board of County Commissioners and thus the community's intent for the future of Martin County. Based on this assumption, staff can recommend approval of a requested change providing consistency is maintained with all other Elements of this Plan if one of the following four items is found to be applicable. That past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses and there is adequate availability of public services; or That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. That the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need which enhances the health, safety or general welfare of County residents. In the event that staff can not make a positive finding regarding any of the above items, then staff would recommend denial. (Emphasis added). The Plan requires that the Director of the County's Growth Management Department, after review of a proposed amendment, submit recommendations to the Local Planning Agency for consideration. The Local Planning Agency is required to certify its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Miscellaneous Provisions of the Plan. Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that requires that the County revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. The County's Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement. The County and the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), entered into a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Agreement"). The Designation Agreement was entered into pursuant to Section 163.3244 of the Act. Pursuant to the Designation Agreement, the Department designated the County as a "sustainable community." Among other things, the designation of the County as a sustainable community eliminates the need for the County to have the Department review and comment on amendments to the Plan that affect areas within the urban growth boundary or "Primary Urban Services District" created by the Plan. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is a parcel of real property located in the Hobe Sound area of unincorporated Martin County. The Subject Property consists of approximately 24.5 acres of land. The land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM is General Institutional. The Subject Property is undeveloped, vacant land. It is comprised of sandy soils, native upland scrub habitat with native Sand Pine groundcover. The Subject Property was described in an Executive Summary of the proposed plan amendment considered by the County as follows: The parcel is located in an area considered to be one of the last contiguous large areas of native upland scrub habitat in Florida. Groundcover is almost entirely native Sand Pine with some primitive trails and small areas of disturbed land. Endangered species found on the parcel include the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoise. Sand Pine is considered to be endangered, unique or rare and the Comprehensive Plan policy 9- 4.A.7.f(2) states that "Where possible, increased conservation (twenty-five (25) percent of the total upland area) of native upland habitats which are determined to be endangered, unique or rare in Martin County, or regionally rare will be required by Martin County." The Subject Property is bounded on the north by Saturn Avenue, a two-lane residential street; on the south and west by undeveloped land; and on the east by U.S. Highway One, a multi- lane divided highway. The property to the north is designated Low Density Residential; the property to the east is designated for commercial uses; and the property to the south and west is designated General Institutional. While located relatively close to the Intercoastal Waterway, the Subject Property is not located on the "coast." The Subject Property was previously owned by the Hobe Sound Water Company, a privately owned water utility. At the request of Hobe Sound Water Company, the Subject Property was designated as General Institutional. No wells currently are located on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was acquired from the Hobe Sound Water Company by the Land Partnership. The undeveloped land located to the south of the Subject Property is owned by South Martin Regional Utilities (hereinafter referred to as "SMRU") and is utilized for a water plant and wells. SMRU acquired this land and the remainder of the land used by the Hobe Sound Water Company from the water company. There are five wells located on the property to the south of the Subject Property. The property to the west of the Subject Property is also owned by SMRU but is not being utilized for wells. The property acquired by SMRU was, and remains, designated as General Institutional. The Subject Property serves as a significant ground water recharge area because of the porous nature of the soils of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the Primary Urban Services District of the Plan. The Subject Amendment and Its Review. The amendment at issue in this proceeding was initiated by the Land Partnership after it acquired the Subject Property from the Hobe Sound Water Company. At the time of the acquisition of the Subject Property, the Land Partnership knew or should have known that it was designated for General Institutional use. The Land Partnership requested a change in the land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM from General Institutional to Low Density Residential or "the most appropriate land use designation." The proposed amendment was reviewed by the staff of the County's Growth Management Department. Among other things, the staff considered whether any of the four items specified in Section 1-11.C.2 of the Plan applies to the amendment. The staff determined that the first and fourth items listed in finding of fact 41 did not apply, that the second item was somewhat applicable, and that the third item applied to the amendment. The proposed amendment was also reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "TCRPC"). Comments concerning the proposed amendment were prepared by the TCRPC, but were withheld because review by the TCRPC is not required due to the sustainable communities designation for the County. The draft comments of the TCRPC, however, raised objections to the proposed amendment due to concerns over the potential endangerment to the wellfields in the area and the potential destruction of critical habitat and vegetation. No copy of the TCRPC's regional plan was offered in evidence in this case. Nor did anyone associated with TCRPC testify about the draft comments. The Department also informally reviewed the proposed amendment. Rather than prepare an Objections, Comments, and Review report on the proposed amendment, the Department prepared informal comments, which it provided to the County. Those comments were responded to by the County. Hearings to consider the proposed amendment were conducted by the Local Planning Agency. On January 21, 1999, the Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted. The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 98-3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The Amendment was adopted by the Board on September 28, 1999, as a part of Ordinance No. 553. The evidence failed to prove that any relevant procedure for adopting the Amendment was violated by the County. The Amendment changed the land use designation for the Subject Property from General Institutional to Low Density Residential on the FLUM. This designation would allow the development of the Subject Property for a maximum of 122 residential units. Data and analysis supporting a potential increase of 122 units of additional residential property did not exist when County adopted the Amendment. Nor does such data and analysis exist now. ARDP System Data. Since the implementation of the ARDP System the County has been collecting and analyzing data concerning residential development in the County. No timely annual update of that data and analysis had been prepared prior to the adoption of the Amendment. The most recent data available was from 1995. During the adoption process for the Amendment, at the request of a member of the Board, an ad hoc report containing data and analysis concerning residential development in the County was prepared and presented to the Board. A full and detailed report was prepared subsequent to the adoption of the Amendment. The report, the ARDP Memorandum of June 7, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP Memo"), was reviewed and approved by the Board. The report was also received in evidence during this de novo proceeding and has been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the ARDP Memo for the five-year period 2000-2004, there is a need for 6,252 residential units needed to serve population increases. The 125 percent cap of the ARDP System on new residential units allowed in the County is 7,816 units. This amounts to an additional 1,564 units authorized by the ARDP System over the actual number of units needed based upon population projections. The number of approved/unbuilt units and other offsets against the number of allowed new residential units for the County during this period totals 7,015 units. Consequently, there are 801 units (7,816 minus 7,015) available for development through the end of 2004. These available units are more than sufficient to cover the additional units which may arise as a result of the development of the Subject Property pursuant to the Amendment. For the five-year periods of 2005-2009 and 2010-2014, there are 6,314 and 6,578 units available for development through the end of these periods, respectively. Despite the foregoing, the approval of an addition of 122 units of residential property will increase an already excessive designation of property for residential use. The Impact of the Amendment. The most significant impact of the Amendment is to further increase the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the amount of the increase in the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. The Amendment will also negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals. Development of the Subject Property, however, as Low Density Residential or General Institutional has the potential for the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat. That negative impact is not inconsistent with what the Plan allows. The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a ground water recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of ground water in and around the Subject Property as a result of development. The only action that will preserve the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area would be to keep the property undeveloped. Neither the current land use designation of General Institutional nor the proposed land use designation of Low Density Residential will ensure that the Subject Property remains undeveloped. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the negative impacts of the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes "urban sprawl" as defined in the Plan. The Need for a FLUM Amendment. In order for the Amendment to be approved, since it is an amendment to the FLUM, it must be shown that one of the four items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan is met. The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment. The remaining two items of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan are: That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. While there has been an increase in the amount of development to the north of the Subject Property, the area immediately around the Subject Property has not changed. The evidence failed to prove that any change in the character of the area surrounding the Subject Property "has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. . . ." The second item listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan has not been met. The County's determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property: Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers. As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The latter two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property. Although the fact that the Land Partnership knew or should have known of the land use category of the Subject Property and the limitation of the uses to which it could put the property before it purchased it, it still appears reasonable to conclude that the third item of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan applies to the Amendment. I. Petitioners' Challenge. On October 28, 1999, the Alliance and Ms. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division challenging the Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Pursuant to the Amended Petition, Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act, the TCRPC's strategic regional policy plan, and portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners also alleged in the Amended Petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3194, and 163.3244 of the Act. These allegations are not relevant to the determination of whether the amendment is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Commission enter a final order finding that the Amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 David A. Acton Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administration Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-1197 Raymond W. Royce, Esquire Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-3208 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Wakulla County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-12 on March 28, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The Parties Respondent, Wakulla County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Petitioner, St. Marks River Protection Association (SMRPA), is a non- profit corporation whose basic purpose is to conserve and protect the St. Marks River. A majority of its members own property or live within the County. Many live along the St. Marks River and fish, swim, dive, and view the various life along the river system. Petitioner participated in the amendment process by appearing at hearings and submitting written comments. Therefore, it has standing to bring this action. Intervenor, N. G. Wade Investment Company, owns the real property which is the subject of the amendment in this proceeding. It also submitted comments to the County during the transmittal and adoptive phases of the process. The Nature of the Dispute The County adopted its current comprehensive plan (plan) on September 2, 1992. On October 15, 1992, DCA issued its notice of intent to find the plan not in compliance. The matter is now pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in Case No. 92-6287GM. However, the County and DCA have reached a settlement in concept in that case and are drafting language for an acceptable remedial amendment. On February 24, 1993, intervenor made application for a plan amendment to change the future land use map portion of the plan on 240 acres of land in northeastern Wakulla County from agriculture-1 to industrial land use. The plan amendment was adopted by the County on March 28, 1994, and was found to be in compliance by the DCA on May 19, 1994. On June 3, 1994, petitioner filed a petition challenging the plan amendment on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with other parts of the plan, regional policy plan, and state plan as they relate to water quality, protection for ground and surface waters, wildlife habitat, traffic and provision of public services. Thereafter, the matter was referred to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing and has been assigned Case No. 94-3289GM. The Plan Amendment The amendment implements the County's policy to develop an industrial park and to expand the County's employment base by 1995. It was transmitted to the DCA in October 1993 for a compliance review. During its review process, the DCA considered comments from various entities, including the Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC), the Northwest Florida Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department (TLCPD). The DCA raised several objections to the amendment in its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) issued on January 28, 1994. These included criticisms that (a) the amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis, (b) the County had not properly coordinated with other affected government jurisdictions, and (c) it was not clear that the policy structure of the plan concerning industrial land uses provided adequate assurance that the proposed future land use map amendment would be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, including the need to protect natural resources. After coordinating with the DOT, ARPC, and TLCPD, and in response to the ORC, the County provided more land use analysis and a new traffic analysis. In response to the criticism concerning the protection of natural resources, the County submitted a summary of data and analysis of the soils, subsurface geology, and groundwater conditions on the site to show that the site was suitable for industrial development. On March 28, 1994, the County adopted the amendment and submitted the adoption ordinance and responses to the ORC to the DCA. As modified, the amendment called for a change in the land use designation from agriculture - 1 to industrial "for a proposed 240-acre light industrial planned unit development called Opportunity Park." The property is approximately one mile from State Road 363 and the Leon County line, and the land around it is presently subject to timber harvesting. The size and scope of industrial activities that could take place at Opportunity Park would be constrained by other provisions of the plan including floor area ratio, limitations on pre- and post-development ground and surface water flow rates, and requirements for wastewater reuse. After reviewing this material, the DCA accepted the County's response to the ORC and determined that the additional data and analysis were adequate. In determining whether the level of the data and analysis was adequate, the DCA took into consideration the fact that the County is a small, rural county with modest planning resources and with a very modest rate of population growth. Indeed, the County had only 14,202 people according to the 1990 population census, and it projects a growth rate of only 500 persons per year through the year 2000. The DCA also recognized that the County is in dire need of economic development. This is borne out by the fact that approximately 58 percent of its land is within conservation areas managed by the federal or state governments, 33 percent of the land is in agricultural use, and only 0.32 percent is in industrial land use. By letter dated April 28, 1994, the DCA received a recommendation from the ARPC to find the amendment generally consistent with the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan. Thereafter, on May 18, 1994, the DCA issued its notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance with the Act. Criticisms of the Amendment Generally In its petition, SMRPA has raised a number of grounds regarding what it perceives to be shortcomings in the plan amendment. First, petitioner contends that the amendment lacks adequate data and analysis, it fails to protect natural resources, and it violates the traffic element of the plan. Petitioner further contends that the amendment is inconsistent with those parts of the plan which concern the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times, the County failed to coordinate the amendment with adjacent local governments, and the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies of the plan's economic development element. Finally, petitioner asserts that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan concerning water supplies and fire fighting equipment, the amendment encourages urban sprawl, it fails to preserve the internal consistency of the plan, and it is contrary to the state and regional policy plans. Data and Analysis Updates to the data which support the County's plan indicate a need in the County for approximately 500 acres of additional industrial use. While the County did not provide the DCA with an analysis or description of the methodology that was used to arrive at the estimate of gross acreage needed in the supporting data, it offered demonstrative evidence that showed that approximately 200 acres of land that are currently designated for industrial use cannot be developed consistent with the County's plan because of existing constraints due to flooding. The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County did not consider or have available sufficient data and analysis to support a need for the new industrial land use in the County. Protection of Natural Resources The data and analysis supporting the County's plan designates the amendment area as having a high recharge potential to the Floridan Aquifer. The plan's supporting data and analysis also shows the entire County as on the Woodville Karst Plain and as an area prone to sinkhole formation. However, these general characteristics must be tempered by the site-specific data described below. An analysis of site-specific data consisting of soil boring tests and results, which data were considered by the County at the time of the adoption of the amendment, show that the area is underlain with clay confining layers which sit above the Floridan Aquifer. Therefore, the land is not in an area of high or even moderate recharge to the Floridan Aquifer because of the presence of these clay confining layers. An analysis of the site-specific data revealed that, unlike most areas of the County, the amendment area is not on the Woodville Karst Plain. Rather, it is on an ancient sand dune system known as the Wakulla Sandhills, a series of relic sand dunes overlying the St. Marks limestone formation. At the same time, the more persuasive evidence shows that the amendment area is not prone to sinkhole formation. Indeed, the existing depressions on the site are most likely deflation basins caused by wind activity on the sand hills and are commonly known as "blowouts." The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County failed to consider or did not have available to it sufficient data and analysis to indicate how the subject amendment will protect the groundwater recharge areas to the Floridan Aquifer. The evidence also failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies of the County's plan. As to the issue concerning the protection of surface and groundwater quality, the County's soil survey performed by the United States Department of Agriculture shows the amendment area as having severe soil ratings for septic tanks. Even so, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that any development activity undertaken in the amendment area would be unlimited and would adversely impact natural resources. In fact, an analysis of the site-specific data indicates that the presence of the clay confining layers would severely retard the percolation of stormwater or wastewater to the Floridan groundwater acquifer. Although there is evidence of the presence of a surficial (perched) aquifer in the area that might contain pollutants, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the surficial aquifer is a natural drinking water resource in need of protection. There are no surface water streams in the vicinity of the amendment area. Also, there are no unusual site characteristics which would tend to cause pollution of surface or groundwater from industrial usage of the site. Potential discharge from industrial activities into the groundwater at the site would not affect Wakulla Springs or the St. Marks cave systems because these features are four to five miles away and are upgradient of the site. The evidence fails to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that industrial activities at the amendment site will adversely impact the water quality in the St. Marks River. As to the protection of wetlands, SMRPA provided no evidence concerning the existence, nature, extent or value of wetlands that would be impacted by use of the amendment area for industrial purposes. As to the protection of endangered or threatened species, SMRPA alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan concerning habitat protection for endangered or threatened species. There were, however, no endangered or threatened species observed on the amendment site. One gopher tortoise was observed leaving the site while two gopher tortoise burrows were also seen. While it is true that the gopher tortoise is a species of special concern, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has a permit program for the gopher tortoise that includes relocation of the tortoise or payment to a mitigation bank for habitat acquisition. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies and objectives of the County's comprehensive plan. As to the protection of forests and agricultural lands, petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan, which state that the County shall encourage continuing use of land for agriculture. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the conversion of 240 acres of land from agricultural use to industrial use is in conflict with the general objective to encourage the continuing use of land for agriculture. Traffic Petitioner alleged that the amendment will allow development that will permit violations of the levels of service established for impacted roadways and policies 1.2 and 5.5 of the plan's traffic element. Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the levels of service established for impacted roadways and traffic circulation would be violated by the amendment. Therefore, petitioner failed to show that the amendment was in conflict with the cited policies. Hurricane Evacuation Times Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with objective 2(c) and policy 2.11 of the plan's coastal management element concerning the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would result in an increase of the existing hurricane evacuation times. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with objective 1.1 and policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.4 of the plan's intergovernmental coordination element. Those provisions relate to the need to coordinate the County's land use map amendments and review the relationship of any proposed development to the existing comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. The evidence failed to show a lack of intergovernmental coordination of the impact of the plan amendment on the comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. In fact, the evidence showed that the County coordinated with adjacent local governments, including the City of Tallahassee and Leon County. Economic Development Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with policies of the plan's economic development element. Specifically, it cites policies 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, which concern the County's objective to expand the employment base by 1995 by indentifying which businesses and industry jobs can be increased. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would not expand the County's employment base by 1995. In fact, the evidence showed that the amendment will assist the County in achieving economic stability and will expand the employment base of the county by providing more job opportunities. Indeed, the eastern part of the County is now experiencing a trend towards industrial and commercial development, and a prison is being constructed adjacent to the site. At the same time, however, a decline in the County's seafood industry and layoffs at Olin Corporation, a major employer, reflect a need for new jobs. Finally, the amendment implements policy 6.1 of the economic development element which provides that "the County shall cooperate with the private and public sector to develop an industrial park with required facilities and services to attract businesses and industries." Water Supplies and Fire Fighting Equipment Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan because there are inadequate water supplies and fire fighting equipment in the area to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that there would be inadequate water supplies and fire fight equipment to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. Failure to Discourage the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleged that by placing an industrial site at the subject location, the amendment would encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area of the amendment. Failure to Preserve the Internal Consistency of the Plan Petitioner alleged that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan as required by the Act, in that it is in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Based on the findings of fact above, it is clear that the amendment is not in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan, as required by the Act. The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, as a whole. The Regional Policy Plan The Apalachee Regional Planning Council has adopted the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives to the counties in that region, which includes Wakulla County. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Standing On November 15, 1993, and March 26, 1994, or during the adoptive stage of the amendment, SMRPA filed comments and objections in form of letters with the County. On June 3, 1994, SMRPA filed its petition for formal administrative hearing with the DCA challenging the plan amendment. Throughout the course of this proceeding, intervenor has challenged the standing of petitioner on the theory that the corporation was dissolved prior to filing its petition, and even though the corporation was later reinstated, it was not the same corporation that filed comments and objections during the adoptive stage of the amendment. The facts underlying this claim are as follows. On April 27, 1989, petitioner filed articles of incorporation with the Department of State. On August 13, 1993, the corporation was administratively dissolved. On June 1, 1994, Virginia P. Brock, an officer of SMRPA, released the corporate name and stated that the officers and directors did not have any intention of reinstatement of the corporation. On May 30, 1994, new articles of incorporation for SMRPA were filed with the Department of State. This corporation had common officers and directors with the dissolved corporation. The articles of incorporation were rejected by the Department of State on June 10, 1994, on the ground all outstanding fees and taxes owed by SMRPA had not been paid. After such outstanding taxes and fees were paid through 1994, the Department of State deemed the status of SMRPA to be "active" as of June 14, 1994. Such reinstatement related back and took effect as of the effective date of the dissolution of the corporation on August 13, 1993, and the corporation was carry on its affairs as if no dissolution occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the Wakulla County comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3289GM Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Rejected as being unnecesary. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 11. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-26. Rejected as being unnecessary. 27-74. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 75-76. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26-29. 77-82. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 83-88. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 89. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 90. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. 92-93. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 95. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Respondent DCA 1-5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-3. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11-13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 27-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 42-43. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. 44-45. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. 46-47. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 48-49. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 50-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 52-53. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 54-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 56-57. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 58-60. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. Intervenor and County: 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-6. 2-4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5-7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 8-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 26-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 28-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire Casey J. Gluckman, Esquire Route 5, Box 3965 Tallahassee, FL 32311 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1111 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
