The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by ordinance number 92-029 has rendered the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, St. Lucie County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenors, Brian Charboneau and Kathy Charboneau, are the owners of a parcel of real property located in the County, which is the subject of the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The parties stipulated that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Okeechobee County, on the north by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County. Geographically, the County consists of approximately 600 square miles, or approximately 384,000 acres. Approximately 513 square miles, or approximately 328,320 acres, of the County are unincorporated and subject to land use planning by the County. The significant man-made features of the County include Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Highway 70 and the Fort Pierce International Airport. The airport is operated by the County. There are two incorporated areas within the County: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The majority of urban development within the County is located within these municipalities and consists mainly of detached, single-family residential dwellings and multifamily units. The estimated permanent population projected in the Plan for the County in 1990 was approximately 151,700. Including seasonal population, the estimated population for the County for 1990 was approximately 182,400. The majority of the County's land area is used for citrus production. The majority of the agricultural land use in the County is located within the County's unincorporated area, to the west of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, which both run generally north and south through the County. As a result of recent cold weather in areas of Florida north of the County, citrus production in the County has increased in recent years by approximately 35,500 acres between 1978 and 1992. Major natural divisions of the County are the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (including barrier islands), the Eastern Valley and the Osceola Plain. Adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. On January 9, 1990, the County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Plan applies to, and governs growth within, the unincorporated area of the County. The Plan excludes areas within the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. (Unless otherwise specified, any further reference to the County constitutes a reference to only the unincorporated areas of the County subject to the Plan.) The Plan was based, in part, on an earlier comprehensive plan adopted by the County in 1975 pursuant to the former Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan were adopted by the County by ordinance. Data and analysis submitted by the County to the Department with the Plan was not adopted by the County by ordinance. The Department reviewed the Plan and on March 21, 1990, filed a Statement of Intent to find the Plan not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A notice of the Department's determination was published in a local newspaper. The Department determined that the Plan was not "in compliance", in part, because of a conclusion that the Plan allocated twice as much land area to residential land use categories as data concerning the expected population of the County for the year 2015 justified. The Department, therefore, concluded that the Plan was not based on data and analysis, and did not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County and the Department entered into settlement negotiations which resulted in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in October of 1990 disposing of the Department's objections to the Plan. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department agreed that it would find the Plan "in compliance" if the County adopted certain remedial amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The terms of the agreement were subsequently carried out. See DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments were adopted in part due to the Department's concern about the the proliferation of urban sprawl. This concern was addressed through the remedial amendments by adding certain development controls and requiring clustering of residential development on lands classified agricultural. The remedial amendments also included Policy 1.1.2.4 and Policy 1.1.2.5. Policy 1.1.2.4 is quoted, infra, in finding of fact 123. Policy 1.1.2.5 provides: Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-agricultural uses to protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with enforcement of nonagricultural development or creation of nuisances by agricultural operations. DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments also include Objective 1.1.5 and related policies governing development within the Urban Service Area. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflect a long-term planning period of twenty-five years, ending with the year 2015. In the Introduction of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan (DCA exhibit 1 and St. Lucie County exhibit 1), there is a general description of the Future Land Use Element: The Future Land Use Element has been divided into a series of sections which analyze the existing patterns of development within the community, portray future patterns of develop- ment and recognize unique or special areas within the community that should be considered in future land use determinations. Integral to the success of the Comprehensive Plan are the Goals, Objectives, and Policies which will be used to direct the location and intensity of development for the variety of uses necessary for a healthy and diversified community. Page 1-1, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes the following "major development philosophy": Over the years, the County has been requested to approve development proposals that would permit the encroachment of urban uses in areas previously used for agricultural purposes. Many of these areas are outside of what may be considered the communities existing urban form or pattern. As discussed later in this element, the cost of providing the necessary community services to these development sites is becoming an increasing community concern. . . . Page 1-6, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan goes on to recognize the importance of citrus production: The major use of land within the unincorporated areas of the County is agriculture. Well over 60 percent of the County is presently used for the production of citrus, cash crops or ranching activities. These agricultural activities account for St. Lucie County being ranked among the top citrus producers in the State of Florida, contributing substantially to the local and regional economy. Page 1-11, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Sixteen general categories of future land use are identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan: Agriculture: 5 and 2.5. Residential: Estate, Suburban, Urban, Medium, High. Residential/Conservation. Conservation-Public. Commercial. Industrial. Public Facilities. Transportation/Utilities. Historic. Mixed Use. Special District. The density of development for the residential categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per acre for Estate, 2 units per acre for Suburban, 5 units per acre for Urban, 9 units per acre for Medium and 15 units per acre for High. The density for residential use of the agriculture categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per 2.5 acres for Agriculture-2.5 and 1 unit per 5 acres for Agriculture-5. Population estimates contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan are based upon estimates of population of the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The Plan indicates that the County has determined that the University's "high" projections appear to reflect more accurate population projections for the County. The projections concerning population contained in the Future Land Use Element and in this Recommended Order are based upon those "high" projections. Based upon the Plan's data and analysis projections, it is estimated that the permanent population of the entire County was 135,715 in 1988 and 318,650 in 2015. With the seasonal population added, based largely on agriculture related increases in population, the population was estimated at 154,141 in 1988 and 382,380 in 2015. Thus, the estimated increase in the population for the entire County from 1988 to 2015 is 182,935 permanent residents and 219,522 permanent and seasonal residents. In the County alone, the permanent population is estimated to be 54,226 in 1988. For the year 2015, the estimated permanent population is 93,045. With the seasonal population added, the population for 1988 is estimated at 65,119 and 111,654 for the year 2015. Therefore, the estimated total increase in population for the year 2015 is 38,779 permanent residents and 46,535 permanent and seasonal residents. For the year 1988, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes an estimate that the existing acreage being used for residential purposes was 16,900 acres. The Plan's Housing Element includes an estimate of only 12,369 acres of residential land use in 1988. To determine projected residential land use needs for the year 2015, the Future Land Use Element provides the following: For the purpose of determining the future land use needs in the community, a ratio has been established which is based upon current (1988) development conditions. This ratio was determined by dividing the seasonal population of the County in 1988 by the estimated amount of land consumed by broad land use category type. . . . Page 1-22, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Actually, the ratio was determined by dividing the permanent population of the County in 1988, and not the seasonal population, by the estimated amount of land being used for residential purposes. The ratio of population in 1988 to residential acreage use in 1988 results in an estimate of the historical, minimum amount of residential acreage used in the County per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is concluded in the Plan that 312 acres (16,900 acres in residential use in 1988 divided by 54,226 permanent residents in 1988), or .312 acres per person have been used historically for residential purposes. Based upon the estimate of land in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element of the Plan, the ratio is .228 (12,369 acres in 1988/54,226 1988 population). Applying the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 to the projected seasonal population in the year 2015 of 111,654, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan estimates that the total residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will be 34,836 acres: 111,654 x .312 = 34,836. The estimated total residential acreage needed in the year 2015 based upon the estimated residential acreage in 1988 contained in the Plan's Housing Element is 25,457 acres: 111,654 x .228 = 25,457. If the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 is applied to the projected increase in permanent population by the year 2015 of 38,779, the additional residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will only be 12,099 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 28,999 acres of residential land for permanent residents by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 12,099 projected need). Using the Plan's Housing Element ratio of .228 and the projected increase in permanent population results in a conclusion that there will be a need for an additional 8,841 acres of residential land. Based upon the projected population growth in permanent and seasonal residents for the year 2015 (46,535 increase in seasonal population) and applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people (.312), the projected additional acreage needed for residential use by the year 2015 is 14,518 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 31,418 acres of residential land for the seasonal population by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). Applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people to determine projected additional residential acreage need and using the projection of acreage in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element, there is a need for only 26,887 total acres of residential land (12,369 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). In the Plan, the County applied the historical residential ratio of .312, which is based upon 1988 permanent population, to the total projected 2015 permanent and seasonal population of 111,535 and concluded that there is a need for a total of 34,836 acres for residential use in 2015. This amounts to a total of 17,936 additional acres (34,836 - 16,900). Based upon the calculations contained in findings of fact 33 through 37, the Plan's projection of additional residential acreage is incorrectly high. Whether the Plan's higher estimate of need is used does not, however, appreciably affect the following determinations. Therefore, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the Plan's incorrect estimate of additional residential acreage needed will be used. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflects the County's conclusion that there are approximately 70,989 acres of land in the County available for residential use, not including potential residential development of land designated for agricultural use of one dwelling per 2.5 acres or per 5 acres, and excluding land involved in three amendments to the Plan, including the subject amendment. The 70,989 acres includes acreage already in residential use in 1988 (16,900 acres) and vacant acreage available for residential use through the year 2015. It is estimated in the Plan that there are 2.34 people per dwelling unit in the County. The remedial amendments to the Plan the County agreed to adopt did not remove any of the 70,989 acres of land allocated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use, modify densities, or modify the agricultural classifications of the Future Land Use Map. The Plan designates a portion of the County as an Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The Urban Service Area is generally described, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . This area represents the preferred regions for development at urban intensities. The area indicated is the most likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided by either a municipal utility or a privately operated regional enterprise. The intent of the urban service area designation is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability of the community to meet its service needs. The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather, it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of this plan [to 2015]. . . . . Page 1-40, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The western boundary of the Urban Service Area runs generally north and south along the western boundary of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. Future Land Use Objective 1.1.4 and Policies 1.1.4.1 through 1.1.5.9 deal with the Urban Service Area. Objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Objective provides: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development shall be directed to areas where the provision of urban and community services/facilities can be ensured. Page 1-59, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. In pertinent part, the Policies related to Objective 1.1.4 provide the following: Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, through the development of density bonus and incentive programs in the Land Development Regulations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary before encouraging/supporting the conversion of property in the agricultural and suburban areas to higher intensity urban uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the adopted levels of service within this plan. Policy 1.1.4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the ser- vices and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.4.3 Encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the incorporation of the following into the County's Land Development Regulations: The establishment of minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments; The establishment of minimum open space ratios of 30 percent or greater in all planned unit developments including within the PUD documents assurances on the part of the developer that such areas will remain as open space to protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities. The establishment of minimum open space standards; The establishment of provisions ensuring the long term preservation of remaining open spaces; The establishment of a mixed use district combining residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other income producing uses providing significant functional and physical integration among uses; The establishment of minimum standards for the provision of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip capture; and, The establishment of specific requirements to provide efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in planned unit developments. Policy 1.1.4.4 Provide for the calculation of gross residential density on lands that lie above the mean high water elevation. Provide for the ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous property. Pages, 1-59 through 1-62, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Plan indicates that the Urban Service Area is likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided. There is no firm commitment in the Plan, however, to provide central water and sewer services for development within the Urban Service Area. Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Plan provides that urban development activities are restricted to the Urban Service Area. The Policy also provides that "urban development activities" include "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre . . ." for purposes of the Policy. The densities of Policy 1.1.5.1 for residential development are more dense than what is generally considered as an "urban density". The land located outside of the Urban Service Area is classified almost exclusively as Agriculture-2.5 or Agriculture-5. There are a few areas which abut the Urban Service Area boundary line which are classified for residential use, including a few small parcels which were in existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The Plan does not indicate the current or future existence of urban development within the Urban Service Area. A wide range of development densities and intensities are provided for in the Plan for the Urban Service Area. With regard to development in the Urban Service Area, the Plan provides, in part, the following: It is the position of St. Lucie County that in order to permit the mechanics of the free market system to operate openly, there must be a choice in where to locate future development. Offering the possibility of various development areas, when located within the defined urban service area, is not supportive of a pattern of urban sprawl. Page 1-24, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Amendments to the Plan. Since the determination that the Plan was "in compliance", the Plan has been amended three times, including the subject amendment. One amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 2.1 acres of land from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlong Amendment"). Another amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 9.57 acres of land from Residential Urban to Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Hayes Amendment"). Finally, the subject amendment amends the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 164 acres of land owned by the Intervenors from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Amendment"). The Charboneau Amendment. On September 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance No. 92-029 approving the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, as adopted by the County, is effective only if it is ultimately determined that the amendment is "in compliance". After review of the Charboneau Amendment, the Department determined that it was not "in compliance". This determination was reflected in a notice which the Department caused to be published and in the Department's Statement of Intent of November 11, 1992. The Charboneau Amendment modifies the future land use classification of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate. Agriculture-2.5 allows residential use of the property of no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. Residential Estate would allow residential development of the property of one unit per acre. The Charboneau Property and the Surrounding Area. The subject parcel consists of approximately 164 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Property"). The Charboneau Property is generally rectangular shaped with several parcels of land in the southern portion of the parcel which are not included in the Charboneau Amendment. Those "out parcels" retain their future land use designation of Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. The Charboneau Property represents approximately five one-hundredths of one percent of the 328,230 acres of unincorporated land in the County. The northeastern portion of the Charboneau Property consists of cleared land used for grazing a small number of cattle. The remainder of the property is not being actively used for agriculture or other purposes and is covered by pine flatwood and palmettos. The Charboneau Property is located in approximately the geographic center of the County. It is outside, but on the fringe, of the major development areas of the County. The Charboneau Property is bounded generally on the east by Gentile Road, a two-lane dirt road running north from State Road 70. State Road 70, also known as Okeechobee Boulevard, is located to the south of the Charboneau Property. State Road 70 is a major east-west arterial road. It connects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 area, which are located within the Urban Service Area to the east of the Charboneau Property, with Fort Pierce. Access to the Charboneau Property is off Gentile Road. The Charboneau Property is located to the west and outside of the Urban Service Area designated by the Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Charboneau Amendment, the parcel of property generally contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property was also located outside the Urban Service Area. The boundary of the Urban Service Area had been located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel and the Charboneau Property are separated by Gentile Road. In conjunction with the adoption and transmittal to the Department of the Charboneau Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners of the County initiated, directed and ratified a relocation of the Urban Service Area boundary approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This placed the Urban Service Area boundary at Gentile Road. This modification in the Urban Service Area was consistent with the Plan, which allows a modification of the boundary of the Urban Service Area of up to 1,500 feet without plan amendment. As a consequence of the modification of the Urban Service Area, most of the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property is contiguous to, but still outside, the Urban Service Area. On the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a canal. The canal is approximately thirty feet wide, although the width of the water in the canal is less. The canal is approximately six feet deep. To the north and northeast of the canal are citrus groves in active agricultural production. The property (hereinafter referred to as the "Coca- Cola Property"), is owned by Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Property is classified as Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan. Except for certain small pockets of property which border on the Charboneau Property which are described, infra, the property to the north, northwest and west of the Charboneau Property are used predominantly for citrus. Most of this property consists of large tracts of corporate-owned land. To the north of the Coca-Cola Property are also large tracts of property owned by government agencies. To the northeast of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the University of Florida which is used for citrus research. To the northwest of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the United States Department of Agriculture. The County also operates a livestock farm in the area. To the northwest of the Charboneau Property and to the west of the portion of the Coca-Cola Property abutting the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property known as Fort Pierce Gardens. Fort Pierce Gardens is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The future land use classification of Fort Pierce Gardens is Agriculture- 2.5. The lots in Fort Pierce Gardens range in size from one acre to five acres. There are a few houses already constructed and a few more houses under construction in Fort Pierce Gardens. Development of Fort Pierce Gardens is less than half complete. Adjacent to the western boundary of the Charboneau Property is a tract known as Pine Hollow Subdivision. Pine Hollow Subdivision is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. It is approximately the same size as the Charboneau Property. The future land use classification of the parcel is Agriculture-2.5. Pine Hollow Subdivision consists of 110 platted lots that are being developed in phases. The first phase consists of thirty lots which are still under development. A County maintained road has been constructed in phase one. Development of the other phases has not begun. The remaining portion of the tract has three rough-cut dirt roads. The subdivision is less complete than Fort Pierce Gardens. Lots in Pine Hollow Subdivision are slightly larger than one acre. Homes in the subdivision will use wells and septic tanks. To the west of Pine Hollow Subdivision and Fort Pierce Gardens is a large area of land used for citrus. These lands are designated Agriculture-2.5 and Agriculture-5. To the south and southwest of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property with an airstrip which has been used by crop-dusting airplanes. The airstrip is oriented in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The airstrip and the parcel of land to the south of the Charboneau Property and north of State Road 70 is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the future land use map. The airstrip is not currently being used for crop-dusting aircraft. Improvements have recently been made to the airstrip, however, which evidence an intent to use the airstrip in the future for crop dusting activities. Hearsay evidence corroborates this finding. The land to the south of the Charboneau Property and south of State Road 70 is in use for citrus production. The parcel between the Charboneau Property and State Road 70 is named Walsh Farms. The property to the south and southeast of State Road 70, while currently used for citrus production, is designated Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map, allowing development of two dwelling units per acre. This property is, however, located inside the Urban Service Area. To the east of Gentile Road is a parcel of property approximately the same size, north to south, and about half the size, east to west, as the Charboneau Property. This parcel has been developed as what was characterized as rural ranchette. There are approximately eighteen large lots of four to five acres up to ten to twenty acres. The lots in the parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Ranchette Property"), have single-family homes constructed on them and the lots also have some citrus and horses. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the Ranchette Property was being used for commercial agricultural purposes. The parcel is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the Future Land Use Map. One parcel of approximately 2.5 acres located within the Ranchette Property was the subject of the Furlong Amendment. To the immediate east of the Ranchette Property, bounded on the south by State Road 70 and on the east, in part, by the Florida Turnpike, is an area designated as Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map. The area, which lies within the Urban Service Area, is largely undeveloped at this time except for a development known as Hidden Pines. Hidden Pines is a vested subdivision. Hidden Pines consists of lots of approximately one acre. The homes on these lots are served by wells and septic tanks. The subdivision is nearly completely built-out. Approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Charboneau Property is the center of an area immediately to the north of where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 cross. From this point, the Florida Turnpike travels to the northwest, and closest to the Charboneau Property, from the crossing with Interstate 95. Interstate 95 travels to the northeast, and furthermost from the Charboneau Property, from the crossing. Immediately to the north of the crossing State Road 70 intersects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 in a generally east-west direction. The western boundary of this area is approximately two-thirds of a mile from the southeast corner of the Charboneau Property. There is an interchange of the Florida Turnpike immediately to the north of the crossing and just to the south of State Road 70. There is also an interchange of Interstate 95 to the north of the crossing at State Road 70. State Road 70 becomes a six-lane arterial road to the east of the Florida Turnpike. There are no level of service deficiencies on this portion of State Road 70. The area within and immediately outside the area north of the crossing, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike, is designated as the Okeechobee Road/I-95 Mixed Use Activity Area. The area may be used for varied, compatible commercial uses and residential use up to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Activity Area is currently being developed. There are hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants and an outlet mall already in existence in the area. Another outlet mall is being constructed. Reynolds Industrial Park, consisting of approximately 200 acres, is being developed. To the northeast of the Charboneau Property and the Coca-Cola Property to the east of Gentile Road is an area designated Residential Estate. This area is within the Urban Service Area and currently is undeveloped. Part of the property is used for citrus production. In summary, the area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property, is designated for agricultural uses except for Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision. Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision are isolated islands of development within an area actively used for agriculture purposes. Insufficient Data and Analysis to Justify an Increase in Residential Acreage by the Designation of the Charboneau Property As Residential Estate. In the Department's Statement of Intent, it was concluded that the Charboneau Amendment is not "in compliance" based upon the lack of data and analysis to support the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture- 2.5 to Residential Estate with a designated density of one dwelling per acre. Currently, the Agriculture-2.5 classification of the Plan allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, or a total of approximately 65 residential units on the Charboneau Property. The Plan, however, requires that any non-agricultural development of over twenty units within an Agriculture-2.5 classification must maintain open space of at least 80 percent of the project site in order to retain some viable agricultural use of the property. Residential Estate does not require clustering of units or open space. A total of approximately 163 residential units, one per acre with no open space, or a maximum of an additional 98 residential units can be constructed on the Charboneau Property if the Charboneau Amendment is approved. When the Charboneau Amendment was submitted to the Department for review, the County failed to provide any data or analysis in support of a potential increase in residential units of 98 units or the change in classification of the appropriate use of the Charboneau Property from agricultural to residential. For example, no analysis of the number of acres in the County which are available for development at one unit per acre was performed by the County. The data and analysis of the Plan and, in particular, the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, allocate a total of 54,089 acres for new residential development in the County through the year 2015 to accommodate the need for residential property for projected increases in population (70,989 total acres available - 16,900 acres in use in 1988). If the acreage used for residential purposes in 1988 evidenced by the Housing Element is used, the Plan allocates a total of 58,620 acres for new residential development (70,989 total acres available - 12,369 acres in use in 1988). Based upon the Plan, there is a need for only 17,936 additional acres of residential property to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. See finding of fact 38. With 54,089 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 17,936 additional acres, there are 3.01 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. If the Housing Element historical ratio of use is used, there are only 13,088 acres of residential property needed to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. With 58,620 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 13,088 additional acres, there are 4.47 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. Applying the historical ratio of residential use to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 12,099 acres for residential use by the year 2015. Finding of fact 35. This projection represents 4.47 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (54,089 projected acres/12,099 projected need). Applying the historical ratio of residential use based upon the Housing Element of the Plan to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 8,841 acres for residential uses by the year 2015. Finding of Fact 35. This projection represents 6.63 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (58,620 projected acres/8,841 projected need). Although approved by the Department, the evidence in this case proved that the Plan contains a designation of sufficient land in the County through the year 2015 to more than adequately meet the reasonably anticipated need for residential property. In fact, the Plan over-allocates land well in excess of any reasonable expectation of the amount of property needed to meet such needs. Even based upon the Plan's projections, the County has allocated more than 3 times the land needed to meet the County's own projections for the need for residential land for the year 2015. While the existing provisions of the Plan are not subject to review, when asked to consider an amendment providing for an increase in residential property, the existence of excessive residential property should not be ignored. In this case, to ignore the realities of the excessive allocation of land for residential purposes in the County contained in the Plan and approve the classification of additional property as residential, would simply exacerbate an already existing excessive allocation. The conclusion that there is excessive land available for residential purposes already contained in the Plan is supported by the population per unit in the County of 2.34. If it is assumed that the 54,089 acres of land available for residential development in the County are developed at a low density of one unit per acre, there will be adequate residential land available for an additional 126,568 people: 54,089 acres, or 54,089 units, x 2.34 people per unit = 126,568 people. Based upon a projected permanent and seasonal population increase by the year 2015 of 46,535 people, there is available for residential use 2.71 times the acreage available to meet future residential needs. In light of the fact that residential property may be developed at much higher densities pursuant to the Plan, assuming development of one unit per acre is conservative, and the number of people that may be accommodated is much higher than 126,568 people. Although not reflected in the Plan, there has been a removal of some property classified as residential property from residential use since the adoption of the Plan. The County has acquired 94 single-family homes on 100 acres designated for Residential Estate use. The 100 acres are located to the east of the Ft. Pierce International Airport and were acquired for noise abatement purposes. The homes on the property have been demolished. An additional 90 homes on land classified Residential Urban will also be acquired and demolished. The State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, has also acquired property known as the Avalon tract. The property is located on Hutchinson Island, in the northeast corner of the County. This property had been designated Residential Urban and could have contained approximately 450 units. Even with the removal of the property near the airport and the Avalon tract from the residential property inventory, the Plan contains an excessive allocation of property for residential needs through the year 2015. Based upon the foregoing, data and analysis has not been submitted by the County to justify an increase in residential property or property which may be developed at an increased density. There is already an over-allocation of property for residential land use and, even with the reductions of property near the airport and the Avalon tract, the addition of the Charboneau Property will only result in a Plan with greater over-allocation of land for residential purposes or increased densities. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The ill effects of urban sprawl include inequitable distribution of the costs of development and of providing services, inefficient use of land, unnecessary destruction of natural resources, loss of agricultural lands and increased commuting costs and the resulting pollution. In November 1989, the Department published a Technical Memorandum which describes the Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl". The Department's policy has been further refined and is reflected in proposed amendments to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, proposed Rule 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with, and represent, the Department's policy concerning urban sprawl. The Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl", as set out in the proposed rules and as contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, is consistent with the definition of "urban sprawl" most commonly employed by professional planners. The Department's proposed rules concerning urban sprawl do not have the effect of law. They have not yet been finally adopted. The proposed rules have not been relied upon, however, by the Department or the undersigned as "law" in this case. The proposed rules concerning urban sprawl have only been relied on as an expression of the Department's policy. The Department's policy concerning urban sprawl, as evidenced in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, and as modified by the Department's proposed rules, is reasonable. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum is: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" as evidenced by the proposed rules is as follows: (140) "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in rural areas or areas of interspersed rural and generally low- intensity urban uses, and which are characterized by: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which are not functionally related to adjacent land uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities and the use of areas within which public services are being provided. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patters: (1) leapfrog or scattered development; (2) ribbon or strip commercial or other development; and (3) large expanses of predominantly low intensity and single-use development. Page 21, DCA exhibit 18. There are several indicators as to when a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The indicators, which are memorialized in the Department's proposed amendment to Rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), Florida Administrative Code, are whether a plan amendment: Promotes or allows substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity or single use developments in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes or allows significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are suitable for development but can be expected to remain undeveloped for the balance of the planing period. Promotes or allows urban development to occur in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments but which are bordered on either side by rural land uses, typically following highways or surface water shorelines such as rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Fails to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, endangered or threatened species habitat or habitat of species of special concern, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails to protect agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture. This includes active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant unique and prime farm- lands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Increases disproportionately the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm- water management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation bet- ween rural and urban uses. Fails to promote and support infill development and the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Pages 38-40, DCA exhibit 18 Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the County and the Department which led to the determination that the Plan was in compliance, objectives and polices were added by the County to the Plan to insure that the Plan discouraged the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan, by directing that development primarily take place within the Urban Service Area, evidences an intent on the part of the County to discourage urban sprawl. See page 1-40 of St. Lucie County exhibit 1 and finding of fact 43. Applying the indicators of urban sprawl to the Charboneau Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Charboneau Amendment does not discourage urban sprawl: The Charboneau Amendment allows the development of 164 acres of land as a low-density, single-use development of one dwelling unit per acre despite the lack of need for any additional residential development in the County. It allows urban development in rural areas at a significant distance from existing urban areas while leapfrogging over less dense and undeveloped land within the Urban Service Area more suitable for such development. It allows urban development in an area that is primarily used for agricultural purposes and, consequently, fails to protect agricultural areas. It fails to maximize the use of existing or future public facilities and services by allowing urban development outside of the Urban Service Area. At some time in the future, the residents of the Charboneau Property can reasonably be expected to expect public facilities and services. It will increase disproportionately the costs in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services because the Charboneau Property is located outside the Urban Service Area. It fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. It fails to promote and support infill development and redevelopment. The Charboneau Amendment does not, by itself, create urban sprawl. No development of the Charboneau Property will occur simply because the Charboneau Amendment is found to be "in compliance" until development orders are issued by the County. These facts do not, however, support the suggestion that the Plan will not fail to discourage urban sprawl as a result of the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, even though contrary to Objective 1.1.2 and the Policies thereunder which discourage urban sprawl, if found in compliance, will cause the Plan to contain provisions which not only fail to discourage urban sprawl. It will cause the Plan to include provisions which encourage urban sprawl. Inconsistency with Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan. Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that comprehensive plan elements be consistent with each other and that future conditions maps reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the plan elements. The Department has alleged, and proved, that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and, therefore, creates an inconsistency within the Future Land Use element. Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan provides the following: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan provides the following: The County shall include in its land development regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non- agricultural land uses in a rational and orderly manner. such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: is compatible with adjacent land uses; maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie County soil survey; is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; is consistent with comprehensive develop- ment plans; will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Policy 1.1.2.4 was added to the Plan as part of the settlement entered into between the Department and the County during the review of the Plan. Based upon data contained in the Plan, there were approximately 211,428 acres out of a total of 330,402.7 acres in the County in 1988 devoted to agricultural use. This amounts to approximately 63.9 percent agricultural use. The area outside the Urban Service Area is: . . . recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. . . . Based upon the entire area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property and the property surrounding the Charboneau Property, the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate would create an incompatible use of the Charboneau property. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of the general impact of the conversion of agriculture lands to non-agriculture lands throughout the State of Florida. Of the State's 10.9 million acres of land, approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of farm land are lost to other uses yearly. Contributing to this problem is the fact that, as one parcel is converted to non-agricultural uses, the adjacent property values increase and farmers become discouraged. This impact contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land. To reduce the impact on adjacent agricultural lands caused by the conversion of agricultural land, a clear demarcation between rural and urban land uses should be designated. The Urban Service Area of the Plan serves this purpose in the County Although the evidence failed to prove that agricultural lands adjacent to the Charboneau Property will no longer be used for agricultural purposes upon the conversion of the Charboneau Property or that such a phenomenon has occurred in the County in the past, concern over such impacts are evidenced and recognized by Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. of the Plan. The Charboneau Amendment ignores these concerns. It is, therefore, concluded that the Charboneau Amendment will detract from the continued viability of property outside the Urban Service Area for agricultural uses. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires that a development "maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands." The Charboneau Amendment, even if the domino impact of the conversion of other acreage from agricultural uses may not occur, does not maintain such viability. The Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 because it allows the conversion of agricultural property in an agricultural area (with two parcels of existing, inconsistent uses), outside the Urban Service Area and at a density that is considered an urban density: The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses does not maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. The Charboneau Property contains soils that are approximately equally suited for agricultural purposes or residential purposes. Wells and septic tanks are used on subdivisions in the area and similar soils exist in areas being used for the cultivation of citrus. The Charboneau Amendment is consistent with other portions of Policy 1.1.2.4. While Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan specifically only require that the County adopt land development regulations to govern the conversion of agricultural lands, the Objective and Policy also contain substantive provisions which must be contained in those regulations. Therefore, even though the Charboneau Amendment may not specifically impact the County's compliance with the requirement that it "adopt land development regulations," the substance of the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Objective and the Policy of the Plan and would create an inconsistency in the Plan if found to be "in compliance." Inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Goal 16 of the State Comprehensive Plan and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 16 are as follows: (16) LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. . . . . Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. Converting the Charboneau Property to a non-agricultural classification outside the Urban Service Area is inconsistent with Policy 1 of Goal 16. The existence of the inconsistent uses of Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow, which were allowed because of their existence before the effective date of the Plan, does not justify further exceptions in the area outside the Urban Service Area designated for rural land uses. The existence of a nonconforming use does not justify further nonconforming uses. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. In its Statement of Intent, the Department has alleged that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Regional Plan Policy 16.1.2.2. Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan provides, in part, the following: Land use within the Region shall be consistent with State, regional, and local Future Land Use Maps. . . . Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan goes on to provide for a Regional Future Land Use Map and defines the land use categories to be included in the regional map. Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan provides the following policy statement concerning Goal 16.1.2: Future land use maps of government comprehen- sive plans shall be based upon surveys, and data regarding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population, the character of undeveloped land, the availability of public services, the ability of government to provide adequate levels of service, and the need for redevelopment. The provisions of Policy 16.1.2.2 are also contained in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. As found in more detail, supra, the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 16.1.2.2 because of a lack of data necessary to support an increase in residential land or increased density in the County and because it fails to promote redevelopment by infill or revitalization within the Urban Service Area.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Crestview's (City's) small-scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background B & H is a Florida corporation which owns and operates a number of concrete batch plants and a surveying and engineering company known as Integrated Engineering Solutions, LLC. The parties have stipulated that B & H is the owner of property within the City and submitted comments to the City in support of the change in the land use prior to the adoption of the plan amendment. As such, B & H is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. In 2005, B & H purchased a 75.56-acre tract of vacant, undeveloped land in the unincorporated part of Okaloosa County (County), just southwest of the City. The parcel is generally bounded on its northern side by Interstate 10 (I-10) and by a 150-foot wide Gulf Power Company easement on its southern boundary. All of the property carried a County land use designation of RR, which limits development to one residential unit per five acres. See Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 10.1.e. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). After B & H purchased the property, it applied for development approval (including a land use change from RR to an industrial) from the County. In the face of substantial public opposition, and a negative staff recommendation, B & H withdrew its application during a County Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2007. (The County staff noted that the property "is located in the immediate vicinity of . . . a residential subdivision"; that a wide range of industrial uses would be allowed on the property if it was changed to IN; that the requested action would have the effect of "spot zoning"; that there is no shortage of industrial-zoned lands in other areas of the County; and that "the requested action is not compatible with the proximate residential subdivision and does not result in an appropriate transition of uses, densities, and intensities as expressed in [FLUE] Policy 4.4.") Shortly thereafter, B & H filed a petition for voluntary annexation with the City. On August 27, 2007, the City annexed a 9.98-acre parcel of B & H's land lying in the eastern half of the larger parcel. (The remainder of the larger parcel remains in the County.) B & H then filed an application in the form of a small-scale development amendment seeking a change in the land use on the property from RR to IN. Because the size of the parcel was less than 10 acres, the change in land use was accomplished by this type of amendment, which is not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (Department). See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. According to FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.f. in the City's Plan, the IN category is designed to protect lands for production and distribution of goods and for other industrial activities. A wide range of industrial uses and commercial uses are allowed in this category. Specific uses include light and heavy manufacturing, assembly, training facilities, vehicle repair (including body work and painting), packaging, processing, wholesale business and warehousing, truck terminals, borrow pits, asphalt/concrete plants, heavy equipment sales, service and/or rentals, and other uses similar to those listed herein. Residential uses are prohibited except as an accessory to a permitted use. In addition to the application for a change in the FLUM, B & H submitted an application for site plan approval for a concrete batch plant to be located on the southern end of the subject property. This use would be consistent with the IN category. However, until this proceeding is concluded, the site plan will not be reviewed, modified, or approved by the City, and therefore any development provisions incorporated therein are not final. Further, the proposed use (a concrete batch plant) requires the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. On October 8, 2007, a first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 implementing the amendment occurred at the City Council meeting. On October 22, 2007, a public hearing was held before the City Council. The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the amendment. On November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted another public hearing for the first reading of the amendment. On November 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the amendment and adopted Ordinance No. 1370 enacting the amendment. (New zoning on the land will not be imposed until or unless the plan amendment here is found to be in compliance.) Although not subject to review by the Department, the following day the City sent a copy of the adopted Ordinance to the Department. On December 24, 2007, Petitioner, who resides in Antioch Estates, a nearby residential subdivision located within the City, filed her Petition with DOAH. On February 7, 2008, she moved to amend the Petition and authorization to do so was granted by Order dated February 8, 2008. In her Amended Petition, she generally contended that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in several respects; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; the property being reclassified is greater than 10 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment; the City did not analyze the financial feasibility of the amendment; and the City failed to conduct the necessary intergovernmental coordination and review. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner resides within the City and offered comments in opposition to the amendment prior to its adoption. As such, she is an affected person and has standing to challenge the amendment. At the hearing, Petitioner, who is a planner for the City of Destin but resides in Crestview, acknowledged that before she filed her initial Petition, her husband was contacted by a representative of Couch Ready Mix USA (Couch), a non-party who operates a concrete batch plant 0.8 miles southeast of Antioch Estates on Old Antioch Road, and with whom B & H would compete if the application is approved and a new concrete batch plant constructed on the site. However, Petitioner stated that she would have filed a petition even if her husband had not been contacted by Couch. Even so, it is fair to infer from the evidence that funding for Petitioner's counsel and two experts was provided by Couch. The Subject Property The subject property is a 9.98-acre parcel bordered on the north by I-10 and on the east, west, and south by property owned by B & H, all of which is designated RR and zoned Agricultural. Directly to the east of the larger B & H parcel is a 70-foot strip of vacant land owned by Rhett Enzor, a non- party whose land stretches from I-10 southward to the Gulf Power easement. The Enzor property also carries a RR land use designation and Agricultural zoning. Besides the 70-foot strip on the eastern side, Mr. Enzor owns the other property that surrounds the larger parcel to the south and west; however, the extent of that property is not of record. Just to the east-northeast and adjacent to the Enzor property is a residential subdivision (Antioch Estates) comprised of around 125 homes. The subdivision is divided into two sections - the larger section lying north of I-10 and the smaller section located just south of I-10. It is unclear whether the entire subdivision has 125 units, or if the southern portion alone has that number. In any event, Petitioner and members of the public who offered comments at the hearing reside in the southern portion of the subdivision and oppose the application. At its closest point, the western boundary of the subdivision (particularly lots 51-55) appears to be slightly more than 600 feet from the 9.98-acre parcel, but no more than 70 feet or so from the eastern boundary of the larger parcel. The distance to the proposed concrete batch plant, which will lie in the south-southwest end of the subject property, is slightly less than one-quarter mile. An elementary school (Antioch Elementary School) with an enrollment of around 800 students and 100 staff, built sometime after 1996, is located just east of Antioch Estates. A former borrow pit, Blocker Pit, lies south of the subdivision, while an active borrow pit, Garret Pit, lies around one-half mile or so southeast of the subdivision. Antioch Estates is classified by the City as Low Density Residential (LDR), while the school is in the Public Use land use category. Under FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.a., the LDR category "is limited to residential uses, customary accessory uses, recreation uses, churches and places of worship and planned unit developments. Non-profit and civic organizations may be permitted by special exception. This category is intended for single family homes which may be developed with up to six (6) units per gross acre." Antioch Road appears to be a major arterial road running in a northwest-southeast direction (crossing over or under I-10) just east of the elementary school. (Less than a mile southeast of the school, Antioch Road becomes P.J. Adams Parkway.) All vehicles wishing to access the school, Antioch Estates, or the 9.98-parcel (as well as the larger B & H parcel) must do so by turning off of Antioch Road onto Garret Pit Road, a County-maintained road which intersects with Antioch Road just south of I-10. Within a short distance, Garret Pit Road intersects with Whitehurst Lane, a paved road which runs in a northwest direction from Garret Pit Road to the school and eventually makes a loop in the subdivision. At the Whitehurst Lane intersection, Garret Pit Road turns into a dirt road. Vehicles traveling to B & H's property continue south on Garret Pit Road for 300 feet or so until it intersects with Point Center Road, a privately-owned, unplatted and undedicated dirt road which runs directly west from Garrett Pit Road (and roughly parallel to I-10) through the Enzor strip and into the eastern side of the B & H property. From there, it appears that vehicles would turn south for a short distance on Borrow Pit Road (also referred to as Barrow Pit Road on certain map exhibits), another dirt road which eventually turns westward when it reaches the southern boundary of B & H property. The 9.98-acre parcel is around 66 feet north of Borrow Point Road. According to a B & H witness, Point Center Road and Borrow Pit Road are not actually roads, but are more akin to dirt trails which trucks now use to reach the excavating and land fill sites. Finally, Point Center Road passes approximately 140 feet south of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of Antioch Estates. When the subject property was annexed into the City, it retained the County FLUM designation of RR and zoning of Agricultural. The FLUM and zoning designations are retained until a plan amendment and rezoning is approved by the City. Under the County's Plan, residential uses in RR must not exceed one unit per five acres. There is currently an inactive borrow pit (covering around six acres) on the southern part of the 9.98-acre parcel, which extends westward into the larger parcel. B & H says it has no intention of resuming this operation. A small storage facility with "manholes," "pipe," and other "equipment" sits on the southwestern corner of the property, while a small wetlands area of less than an acre occupies the northwestern corner. To the west of the subject parcel on the northwestern corner of the larger parcel is an active, permitted 7.5-acre Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill. There is some ambiguity in the testimony over the actual size of the landfill; however, in DEP's letter of intent dated March 17, 2006, which transferred Permit No. 0002800-002-SO from the original owner (Point Center, Inc.) to B & H, it stated that B & H is authorized to operate a 7.5-acre disposal unit until March 17, 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit B. Although the useful life of the existing C & D landfill will eventually run out, at the hearing B & H's Project Manager stated that the company has an application pending with DEP to expand the landfill. The status of that matter is unknown. Expansion of a non-conforming land use, however, may be problematic. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. Besides the active C & D landfill, B & H is also periodically retrieving fill dirt from the larger parcel for site work operations, using up to 30 dump trucks for this work. According to a witness, the larger parcel still has around 3,000,000 cubic yards of usable dirt. Whether B & H is authorized to conduct borrow pit operations on the larger parcel is not of record. More than likely, once the landfill is used up (or no later than March 2010 when the permit expires unless it is renewed), the non-conforming use will have run its course, and the RR designation will apply to all future activities on the larger parcel. Although the entire B & H parcel was classified as RR, the borrow pit and C & D landfill are non-conforming uses under the County's Plan, presumably having been in existence before the County's Plan was adopted. A non-conforming use is one where the actual use of the property is not consistent with the future land use of the comprehensive plan or not consistent with the zoning of the property. There are very strict parameters as to whether or not you can change or modify a non-conforming use. Normally, changes to non-conforming uses are not allowed. A non-conforming use can not be expanded. B & H has acknowledged that it intends to seek annexation of the entire larger parcel into the City. With the exception of the C & D landfill, it is also planning to request a FLUM amendment from RR to IN for the remainder of the larger parcel. Thus, if the instant application is approved, it is fair to say that this action will be the forerunner of an effort to reclassify the entire 75.56 acres (except the 7.5-acre landfill) as industrial property, leaving only the 70-foot strip of Enzor property as a RR buffer between the industrial land and the subdivision. Petitioner's Objections Ten-Acre Maximum Petitioner's first objection is that the amendment does not meet the statutory criteria for a small-scale development amendment because the use involves more than 10 acres. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he proposed amendment [must involve] a use of 10 acres or fewer"). Petitioner argues that parcel size is not the only determinant of what must be included in the amendment, and that any acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use is considered in determining whether the small scale development amendment criteria are met. Petitioner argues that B & H failed to include in the amendment all acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use. It is undisputed that the subject parcel is 9.98 acres, as determined by Kermit George, who sealed the property's survey for B & H, and as confirmed by City employee Teresa Gaillard by using the Autocad software program. Relying primarily upon site plans for the concrete batch plant filed by B & H with the City, however, Petitioner contends that the acreage (.0604 acres) related to a 66-foot driveway which will access the south side of the property from Borrow Pit Road, the acreage (1.607 acres) related to the use of Borrow Pit Road after turning off of Point Center Road, the acreage (.052 acres) for an easement necessary to run a County water line from B & H's southern property line to the smaller parcel, and the 150-foot buffer on the east side of the site (which will be required by the City when or if a concrete batch plant is permitted and built) must be included in the total amount of acreage. Excluding the buffer, Petitioner has calculated this additional land to total 1.7194 acres. Petitioner argues that even if only one of the above items is included, it would cause the size of the amendment to exceed ten acres and lose its status as a small-scale development amendment. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the dirt trail that makes up Borrow Pit Road, as well as the 66-foot trail from Borrow Pit Road to the subject property, are already being used by B & H trucks or other vehicles to access the landfill and borrow pit area. Therefore, this "infrastructure" will be used for other purposes, irrespective of whether development on the 9.98-acre parcel occurs. At the same time, the City's planning expert noted that good planning practices do not require that the land necessary to access a parcel with roads or utilities, and off-site buffering, be included in calculating whether the "use" of the parcel exceeds 10 acres. Except as to the buffering issue, this interpretation of the statutory language is more logical and reasonable than Petitioner's approach and is hereby accepted. Compare Parker v. St. Johns County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2658, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 34 at *12 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2002, DCA Feb. 27, 2003)("[i]t would be unreasonable to construe Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as requiring local governments and applicants to calculate pro rata share impacts of off-site utilities, determine proportionate acreage based on those impacts, and apply those figures to the small scale acreage calculations"). The issue of whether the acreage related to the off- site buffering should be included as a use is not so clear cut. The City Land Development Code (LDC) requires that there be appropriate buffering between industrial and residential land uses. While the pertinent portion of the LDC is not of record, the evidence submitted by B & H and the City shows that an approximate 150-foot buffer will be necessary on the eastern side of the parcel. A City witness testified that the buffering "would normally take place upon the property being developed." However, because the use will occur in an existing borrow pit (which is 20 feet below the surface of the adjacent land), the City concluded that it would be more appropriate to place any required vegetative buffer and fencing off-site on the edge of the larger parcel, also owned by B & H. The buffering is an integral part of the project being placed on the parcel. In other words, the plant cannot be built without the required buffering. Therefore, the land on which the buffer and fence will be placed should be included as an integral part of the property's use. Compare St. George Plantation Owners' Association, Inc. v. Franklin County et al., DOAH Case No. 96- 5124GM, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *18-20 (DOAH Feb. 16, 1997, Admin. Comm. Mar. 25, 1997) where three off-site absorption beds required to serve a wastewater treatment plant were considered an integral part of the facility, thereby increasing the size of the amendment's "use" from 9.6 to 14.6 acres. By adding the acreage for the 150-foot off-site buffer and fencing to the 9.98 acres, the use of the property that is the subject of the amendment clearly involves more than 10 acres and cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment. Data and Analysis Petitioner also objects to the amendment as not being supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Paragraph (2)(a) of the rule requires that "plan amendments . . . shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." To be based on data "means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Id. Petitioner points out that B & H has acknowledged (by way of answers to Requests for Admissions and stipulated facts in its Motion in Limine) that it did not present to the City any studies or data related to noise, traffic, property values, air pollution, or protected natural resources that may be impacted by, or attributable to, a concrete batch plant being placed on the subject property. She also argues that to the extent an analysis was made in the City's staff report (as to infrastructure demands, protection of wetlands and natural resources, traffic, financial feasibility, and compatibility), it was based on incorrect data or was otherwise insufficient. The City's planning consultant prepared the staff report for the City, which summarizes the data and analysis supporting the amendment. See § 1, Joint Exhibit E, which is a six and one-half page staff report. The analysis was performed on the premise that a concrete batch plant would be located on the subject property. The staff report indicates that "[t]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for the development of a concrete batch plant." See page 1, § 1, Joint Exhibit E. The staff report contains in summary form the data and analysis supporting the amendment. Section 1 reflects that the City relied upon (a) FLUM map sheet 7-5, which indicated that all adjacent lands except I-10 on the north side are in the RR land use category while lands in the vicinity are classified as LDR, MDR, Conservation, Public Lands, Industrial, and Commercial; (b) data reflecting that the existing use of land on the subject property is vacant and undeveloped; the larger B & H parcel contains a C & D landfill and is otherwise vacant; adjacent properties include numerous single-family homes and subdivisions, existing and planned multi-family projects, planned commercial uses, and a school; and wetlands are located in the northwest corner of the subject property; (c) data showing that the type of development on the property will be a concrete batch plant; (d) data showing that the amendment will "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems" (potable water, sewer, solid waste, recreation/open space, drainage, and traffic) because it will eliminate potential future demands for residential units that would otherwise be allowed on the RR property; (e) data reflecting that the change in land use is compatible and suitable with adjacent lands because the proposed facility is "not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses," and the adjacent properties are owned by B & H; (f) data showing that the site is generally level with an average elevation of 100 feet; (g) data in the Soil Survey of Okaloosa County, Florida indicating that the soil "is suited for the planned use and development of the subject property"; (h) data reflecting that there is "a small area with wetland soils" in the northwest corner of the property which will not be developed; and (i) data indicating that there are no historic and archeological resources on the property. The consultant also reviewed the current Plan to determine if the plan amendment was consistent with all relevant provisions and concluded that the "amendment is consistent with and furthers the adopted Comprehensive Plan." He added that at the same time the small-scale amendment was being considered, the City was also considering a set of large-scale amendments to its Plan (presumably to the FLUM), and the data and analysis used for those amendments provide further support for the amendment being challenged. However, the nature of the large- scale amendments, and their underlying data and analysis, are not of record or otherwise identified. Finally, the City did not perform a concurrency analysis since it says that the Department no longer requires one at the amendment stage and instead defers that task until the development process begins. Whether the City specifically considered the concerns noted in the County's staff report recommending a denial of the land use change is not clear. However, the staff report discounted the notion that the amendment would encourage urban sprawl (or "spot zoning" in the words of the County staff report) since it promotes urban infill development. In response to a criticism by Petitioner, at hearing the City's consultant utilized further data from City sources, presumably available at the time the amendment was adopted, which indicate that the total available capacity for new customer usage from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the water requirements related to the proposed industrial usage. Without providing specifics, the consultant also opined that if the County is called upon to provide water to the site, as B & H now intends, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. In analyzing the impacts on infrastructure, the City assumed that a change from RR to IN, and the placement of a concrete batch plant on the property, would "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems." The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that when comparing the new traffic that would be generated by potential residential units on the property versus a concrete batch plan, the latter would probably generate an increase of at least 110 vehicle trips per day, most by heavy trucks, which is more than five times the number of trips used in the City's analysis. In contrast, the staff report stated that the projected demands from development of the plant "[i]n theory, [could result in] up to 20 trucks trips per day" but this high a number was "not likely." In this respect, the data being used and analyzed were not correct or were incomplete, and the City's assumptions drawn from that data were flawed. Thus, as to these impacts, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Although the staff report also failed to reflect the increased water usage that would be generated by the concrete batch plant, at hearing the City relied upon available data to show that both the City and County had sufficient capacity to provide water service for the plant. To a certain degree, compatibility and suitability overlap one another. "Compatibility" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." This criterion is used to evaluate whether the proposed industrial land use is compatible with the uses on nearby or adjacent properties. On the other hand, subsection (128) of the rule defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." This criterion requires a determination of whether the industrial land use category is suitable in this particular area, given the existing characteristics of the land. After reviewing and analyzing data on the issue of suitability and compatibility, the City concluded that because B & H owned all the lands around the site (except on the northern boundary which adjoined I-10), "adverse issues [not otherwise identified in the report] associated with compatibility should be minimized." To further support its finding of suitability and compatibility, the report went on to state that the subject property "is not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses." While the data used by the City (such as the FLUM map) were adequate, the City did not react to it in an appropriate manner. The City is correct in concluding that a change to an industrial land use category may be suitable on land where a non-conforming borrow pit already exists. However, because the proposed industrial use is in "relative proximity" to rural residential land on three of its sides, a large residential subdivision that begins no more than 200 yards away, an access road used by numerous heavy trucks which lies only 140 feet south of the subdivision, and a single outlet for all traffic exiting the subdivision, school, and B & H property, it is fair to infer that there will be a direct or indirect negative impact on those adjacent or nearby uses in contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(123). In this respect, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The City's recognition of the wetlands area on the subject property, and its finding in the report that such lands would be protected if development occurs, constitutes sufficient data and analysis and appropriate reaction thereto to satisfy the statute and rule. Petitioner also contends there was no analysis related to the fact that Point Center Road, the private road used to access the parcel, crosses wetlands "at the bottom of the hills," and the wetlands will be impacted by the change. As pointed out at hearing, however, the road has been there "forever," and filling of the adjacent wetlands occurred many years ago, or long before B & H acquired the property. Other than paving the road if the land change is approved, no other "filling" will occur, and the City's assessment of this matter was sufficient. All other contentions by Petitioner regarding the lack of sufficient data and analysis to support the amendment have been considered and rejected. Financial Feasibility Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible." Relying upon this statute, Petitioner contends that the City failed to analyze whether the amendment was financially feasible. According to Petitioner's expert, when a FLUM change is made, a financial feasibility analysis must be made, which requires that the local government make a facility-based analysis to demonstrate whether the local government has sufficient capacity for the change. Specifically, she argues that there is no commitment from the County to provide water, and that the City did not analyze whether the City or County has the capacity to provide sufficient water to serve a concrete batch plant. Although the staff report addresses this issue in summary fashion and without specifics, at hearing the City's planning consultant testified, without contradiction, that the total available capacity from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the potential water requirements of a concrete batch plant on the site. He also opined, without contradiction, that if the County is called upon to provide the water, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. Based upon this analysis of available data, it is found that financial feasibility was adequately addressed by the city. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner next contends that the City did not evaluate and coordinate the amendment with the County, as required by Section 163.3177(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the City's Plan. The statute provides in part that "[c]oordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of . . . the county . . . shall be a major objective of the comprehensive planning process." The two most relevant provisions in the Plan on this subject, both very general in nature, are ICE Goal 13.A., which states that a goal of the Plan is to "[p]rovide coordination of this plan (ordinance) with Okaloosa County, other local governments (as appropriate) and other governmental agencies providing services within the City[,]" and ICE Objective 13.A.1., which provides that the City shall "review, on an annual basis, actions that have taken place to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan of Crestview with the Plans of other units of government and the Okaloosa County School Board." Although the County was given constructive notice of B & H's annexation request through the publication of a notice in a local newspaper on July 7, 2007, there is no evidence that the County was given specific notice that an application for a change in the FLUM had been filed by B & H and was being processed by the City, or that the County was afforded an opportunity to provide input into that process, if it chose to do so. Given the unique circumstances here, coordination is especially important since the subject property is surrounded on three sides by County land designated as RR with Agricultural zoning, the requested change would create a small industrial pocket in the middle of County RR land, and the County staff had just prepared a report recommending denial of the same change before the City annexed the property. While the cited statute, rule, and Plan provisions clearly do not contemplate that adjacent local governments have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments, or that the City is required to accept alternative suggestions proposed by other entities, at a minimum they contemplate that notice of changes be given to adjacent local governments, and that those local governments be afforded the right to offer input, if any, prior to consideration of the amendment. See, e.g., City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 at *34-35 (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Because there was no coordination here, even minimal, the adoption of the plan amendment contravened the cited statute, rule, and ICE Goal 13.A. Internal Consistency Petitioner next argues that, contrary to the requirement in Section 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, that there be "internal consistency" within a plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan in the following respects: quality of life (Legal Element Section 1.04); compatibility (FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c.); school siting (FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.); and wetlands impacts (Conservation Element Goal 11.A and Objective 11.A.2.). Petitioner first contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the stated general intent and purpose of the Plan, which is found in Section 1.04 of the Plan's Legal Element. That Element contains a "whereas" clause, the Plan's title, jurisdiction for adopting the Plan, the City Council's intent in adopting the Plan, and its effective date. The Element indicates that it is intended to implement Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.001, which sets forth the broad purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5. Section 1.04 provides in relevant part that the Plan is intended to "maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City" and to protect and promote the "public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens." This salutary language is so broad and aspirational in nature that the undersigned does not construe it, or other provisions in the Legal Element, as an appropriate basis for finding an amendment not in compliance. Petitioner's argument is accordingly rejected. Petitioner also argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan's requirement that compatibility of adjacent land uses be ensured. FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c. appears to be the only Plan provision specifically dealing with this issue and it provides that the LDC shall contain detailed provisions to "ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses." B & H and the City take the position that during the zoning and development phase of the process (rather than during the plan amendment stage) the LDC would be used to ensure compatibility, as required by the Plan. However, the issue of compatibility was analyzed by the City and presented to the City Council, and the staff report contains an entire section on compatibility and suitability. See Finding of Fact 30, supra; § 1, pages 3-4, Joint Exhibit E. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the plan amendment stage whether the change in land use is compatible with adjacent or nearby properties. As noted earlier, Antioch Estates is a low-density residential subdivision directly to the east of the B & H parcel. At its closest point, the subject property is around 200 yards from the subdivision. The distance from the subdivision to the proposed concrete batch plant is less than a quarter-mile. At the same time, the road over which the heavy trucks will travel to and from the industrial site is no more than 140 feet south of the southern boundary of the subdivision, and the connecting road eventually terminates at an outlet onto Antioch Road shared by traffic from the subdivision and school. Finally, B & H acknowledges that the proposed change here is a precursor to a request for annexation of the larger parcel into the City and a change in the land use on the larger parcel (except for the land fill) to industrial. This would leave the Enzor property (which is only 70 feet wide) as the sole remaining RR buffer with Antioch Estates. Given these considerations, the change in land use will not "[e]nsure compatibility of adjacent land uses," as required by FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.1., which provides that a "proposed school location shall be compatible with existing and projected uses of adjacent property." (Emphasis added). Since the Antioch Elementary School already exists, it appears that this provision has no application. For the same reason, Petitioner's contention that the amendment contravenes Section 1013.36(3), Florida Statutes, is also rejected. That statute requires that a new school should not be sited adjacent to factories or other properties from which noise, odors, or other disturbances would be likely to interfere with the educational program. While compatibility issues with existing schools are relevant when a map change is being made, they can only be considered in the context of Plan provisions which directly apply to those issues. Summary In summary, because the amendment involves a use of more than 10 acres, it does not meet the criteria in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to impacts on infrastructure (traffic) and compatibility; the amendment contravenes the statutory, rule, and Plan requirement that it be coordinated with other local governments; and it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c., which requires compatibility of adjacent uses. All other contentions raised by Petitioner have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small-scale development amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Jefferson 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. At issue in this case is a plan amendment adopted by the County. Petitioner, Jack Hamilton, is a resident of Jefferson County. He owns and operates a nursery, orchard and cattle operation on his property on the east side of Highway 19, approximately two miles north of Monticello, Florida. The land, which is approximately 135 acres in size, is presently designated in a land use category known as Agriculture 2. For the last twenty years or so, the Jefferson Nursing Center (JNC), a nursing home, has been situated on a seven acre parcel of land surrounded on three sides by petitioner's property. Here, petitioner challenges a plan amendment which allows nursing homes, including JNC, in the Agriculture 2 category. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus he has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan (plan) on July 19, 1990. Through inadvertence, in the original plan, institutional uses such as churches, schools, nursing homes, parks and recreation areas were not specifically allowed as permitted uses in any residential or agriculture district even though such uses were commonly found in both types of districts. Even so, on an undisclosed date, the plan was determined by the DCA to be in compliance. On April 1, 1994, the County submitted to the DCA various amendments relating to a proposed petroleum pipeline project. During the course of preparing those amendments, the County became concerned for the status of all of the existing churches, nursing homes, schools, and other institutional uses in the County, because of their not being specifically mentioned in the plan. To avoid any question about the status of these uses and their treatment in the Land Development Code, which implements the plan, the County included an amendment to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5-9 to provide for the adoption of land development regulations to permit all public land uses. On June 8, 1994, the DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report concerning the proposed public land uses amendment. Among other things, the DCA determined that the language in the amendment was too broad. In response to the ORC, on August 3, 1994, the County adopted revised Ordinance 94-10, which amended the comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use District, adopt a Public Facilities Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. Under this amendment, only existing public uses were included within the district, and these were specifically identified on a series of maps and a List of Public Facilities, both of which were included as part of the plan amendment. On September 26, 1994, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 94-10 not in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This determination was based in part on the fact that the amendment did not sufficiently detail what land use regulations and restrictions would apply in the district. On March 28, 1995, the County submitted to the DCA for its review a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance 94-10 and amending the County's comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District, adopt a Public Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. This proposed amendment provided that the current land use district designation, and all applicable regulations for that district, would continue to apply to lands included within the overlay district. It also provided standards for any future additions to the overlay district. On June 2, 1995, the DCA issued its ORC Report concerning the proposed Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District amendment in which it continued to object to the proposed district. In response to the ORC, and after consulting with the DCA, on July 20, 1995, the County adopted Ordinance No. 95-07. That ordinance repealed Ordinance No. 94-10 and amended the comprehensive plan to allow (a) churches in all land use categories except Conservation District and (b) adult care facilities, day care facilities, and nursing homes in any land use district that allows residential use. Ordinance No. 95-07 was not adopted pursuant to a compliance agreement. On September 7, 1995, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 95-07 in compliance. Petitioner timely filed his appeal of the DCA's determination that Ordinance No. 95-07 was in compliance. As amended, the petition contends that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, lacks standards pertaining to density and intensity of development for nursing homes, and is internally inconsistent with the plan. As such, he contends the amendment is arbitrary and capricious, and not fairly debatable. Although the issues in the case have been framed by petitioner in this manner, in simple terms his primary concern is that nursing homes, and specifically JNC, are incompatible with agricultural uses and do not belong in the Agricultural 2 land use category. The Plan Amendment Identification and adequacy of data and analysis When it forwarded Ordinance No. 95-07 to the DCA for review, the County did not specify in its transmittal letter what data and analyses it was relying on to support the amendment. In an earlier telephone conversation between the County planner and the DCA, however, the County indicated that it was relying on the existing data and analysis originally submitted with its comprehensive plan. The DCA established that this is not unusual and is an acceptable practice for smaller counties. Indeed, there is nothing in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the identification of the supporting data and analysis be conveyed to the DCA in writing. Jefferson County is a small, rural county with only one person in its planning department. For counties with limited technical staff, the DCA normally provides technical support, and it customarily reviews the plan and existing data and analysis to identify those portions of the documents which are relevant to, and support, a plan amendment. Thus, in accordance with its practice for smaller counties, the DCA did not require the County to make a complete assessment of the plan and point out various page and reference numbers, but instead it performed that task. There was no showing that petitioner, or any other member of the public, was prejudiced in any respect by the DCA doing this. Besides the existing plan data and analysis, the DCA also had in its files the map and list specifically identifying each public use existing in the County and its location, including all churches, day care facilities, and nursing homes. The map and list were available at the public hearings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance 95-07, and identified JNC within the Agriculture 2 district. Petitioner, who was a long-time member of the County Planning Commission, attended those hearings. There is no evidence that he, or any other member of the public, was unable to participate in the amendment process in a meaningful way. In determining the text amendments to be in compliance, the DCA relied upon certain data in the plan, including the existing population survey, soil survey and soil suitability data; a table comparing population composition showing the population existing and the need for elderly housing; the silviculture map as a factor in determining site suitability; the land use map showing the general overview of all land use types in the County; an analysis of the uses in the different land use categories; and a map plat showing petitioner's property, the location of the JNC, the proximity of two mixed-use business/residential areas to the north and south, and the residential densities in the area. The DCA also considered policies in the traffic circulation and transportation elements of the plan, a table of existing traffic conditions, existing housing data, an inventory of group homes, and special housing needs within the County, including housing for the elderly. Finally, the DCA considered Housing Element Policy 5-3 and Objective The policy provides that the County shall establish nondiscriminatory standards and criteria addressing the location of group homes and foster care facilities as well as other special needs housing. The objective calls for adequate sites for group homes and facilities in residential areas or other appropriate areas of residential character. Petitioner's expert concedes that nothing prohibits the County from adopting an amendment which allows nursing homes in an agricultural district so long as adequate data and analysis are present, and appropriate nonresidential intensity standards are found in the plan. Given the foregoing data and analysis, it is found that petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment lacks adequate data and analysis. Compatibility of uses Petitioner has also contended that the plan amendment allows uses (nursing homes) which are incompatible with agricultural uses. In this regard, petitioner offered his lay opinion that nursing homes are incompatible with agriculture uses because in the event of a problem during normal agricultural operations, such as a shift in the wind direction during burning or crop spraying, bedridden nursing home patients cannot be easily transported out of harm's way. With appropriate site planning features, petitioner's expert agreed that nursing homes are not inherently incompatible with agricultural land uses. The Code contains such site design criteria which are designed to eliminate or minimize incompatibilities. For example, it contains provisions regarding setbacks, a site planning process, and screening and buffering requirements. The fact that petitioner's agricultural operation and JNC have coexisted for more than twenty years is some evidence that the uses are or can be compatible. The County's proposed amendment to allow adult care facilities, day care facilities and nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category is not inconsistent with any other objective or policy, is found to be fairly debatable, and is therefore in compliance. Density and intensity standards The law (s.163.3177(6)(a), F.S.) requires that comprehensive plans contain density and intensity standards for each land use. Petitioner contends that, notwithstanding this statutory requirement, there are no standards in the amendment or the comprehensive plan for density or intensity of development of nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category. It is noted that the Agriculture 2 land use district description in Policy 1-3 of the FLUE provides a residential density but does not contain an intensity standard. FLUE Objective 1 provides, however, that "(f)uture growth and development shall continue to be managed using the County Development Code," which was adopted in April 1981. That Code spells out densities and intensities for each area. The objective further directs that the regulations be revised to address issues identified in Section 163.3203, Florida Statutes, compatibility of uses, and incentives to upgrade infrastructure. In addition, FLUE Policy 6-2 provides that the development review and approval process in the Code be the vehicle for limiting densities and intensities of development consistent with the availability of infrastructure. This policy has already been determined to be "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Rule 9J-5.005(8)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes a local government to include in its comprehensive plan documents adopted by reference but not incorporated verbatim into the plan. In this case, the County adopted in its Code specific land development regulations governing growth and development, including density and intensity standards. There was no evidence that the Code fails to meet the statutory requirement that densities and intensities be included in the plan. Indeed, as a general rule, comprehensive plans in Florida either specifically describe all of the particular uses allowed in each district, or they generally describe such uses and let the particular uses to be allowed be determined in land development regulations. Here, the County has opted for the second type. This being so, it is found that petitioner has failed to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan and plan amendment lack appropriate standards governing densities and intensities.
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 County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 95-07 to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire 149 Carr Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32312-9032 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David La Croix, Esquire 521 West Olympia Avenue Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-4851
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, and revised in part by the remedial amendments in Ordinance Number 2010-O-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether amendments are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality in Volusia County and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Hammock Creek is a Delaware limited liability company registered with the State of Florida. It owns the property that is the subject of the Plan Amendments. Through its representatives, Hammock Creek submitted comments to the Edgewater City Council at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. Petitioner Richard Burgess resides in the City, owns real property in the City, and operates a business in the City. At the public hearings on the original amendment package adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, Petitioner made comments on behalf of Edgewater Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development, Inc. (ECARD), as its vice-president. ECARD was an intervenor in this proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its petition before the final hearing. Petitioner submitted written comments on his own behalf at the adoption hearing for the remedial amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-O-01. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments create a new land use category, the Restoration Sustainable Community Development District (“Restoration SCD”), which is described in a new Restoration SCD Sub-Element of the FLUE: The Restoration SCD is the result of a conscious planning approach based on the most current New Urbanist research and advanced practices. The compact development pattern is designed to and shall provide for a diverse community with distinct place types and multiple experiences that are appealing to residents, employees, and visitors. It shall provide for walkability, a broad range of inclusive household demographics, the ability to connect the community directly to a natural experience, transit ready design, and a high level of environmental stewardship and planning. * * * In order to facilitate this vision, the City shall recognize that density is important to the restoration SCD outcome, but no more important than the mixing of uses, the development of a diverse population through the provision of housing choice and employment centers, the connection of streets and the design of structures and spaces on a human scale. The Restoration SCD land use category applies to 5,187 acres of land on the west side of Interstate 95 that are owned by Hammock Creek. The Restoration SCD site is not currently being used, but in the past was used for silviculture. The Restoration SCD site was annexed into the City in 2005, but is being assigned a future land use designation for the first time. The Volusia County land use categories for the property are Environmental Systems Corridor, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres, and Forestry Resource, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 20 acres, or up to one unit per five acres with clustering. The Restoration SCD Sub-Element includes the Restoration SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map, which divides the site into three areas: Conservation, SCD Conservation/Restoration, and SCD Community Development. The SCD Community Development area is also referred to as the “Build Envelope” because it is the only area where development can occur. The Build Envelope is approximately 25 percent of the total land area. At least 50 percent of the Restoration SCD site is required to be permanently protected open space. The SCD District is integrally related to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) proposed for the lands that are the subject of the Plan Amendments. The Resolution SCD includes several of the development controls listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(j) which discourage urban sprawl, including: open space requirements; clustering; the establishment of minimum development density and intensity; phasing of urban land use types, densities, and intensities; traditional neighborhood development form; buffering; planned unit development requirements; restriction of the expansion of the urban area; and jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Edgewater is a relatively old Florida City that was developed with strip commercial along the highway and other development forms that were typical before the enactment of Chapter 163 and the requirement for comprehensive planning. The Restoration SCD introduces modern development principles and forms. Within each element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, there are data and analysis summaries. There is also a separate section entitled “Population Projections.” The Plan Amendments revise or add information to some of these data and analysis summaries. The Plan Amendments also include some “housekeeping” changes that delete obsolete portions of the Comprehensive Plan and extend several planning horizons in the plan from 2010 to 2020. Mixed Uses Petitioner contends that the Restoration SCD lacks adequate policies to implement the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mixed uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c). Restoration SCD is the future land use designation for the entire site. Policy 3.1.1 describes seven subcategories of uses within Restoration SCD: Residential, Mixed-Use Town Center, Work Place, Transit-Ready Corridor, Utility Infrastructure Site, Schools, and Open Space. Various policies of the Restoration SCD Sub-Element establish minimum and maximum percentages for the subcategories of uses. Table I-4 in the Plan Amendments shows the various land uses, their densities and intensities, and their acreages. The Restoration SCD land use designation has an overall residential density cap of 8,500 residential units and a non-residential intensity cap of 3,300,000 square feet. Policy 7.1.1 ensures a continuing balance of residential and non-residential development by tying the number of residential building permits that can be issued to the square footage of non-residential development that has been constructed. For example, residential units cannot exceed 1,500 until 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses have been constructed. Format Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments are not consistent with the format requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(1) because the sources, dates, and other information associated with tables, figures, and other materials included in the Plan Amendments are not identified. Exhibit A to the new Restoration SCD Sub-Element does not show a source, preparation date or name of the preparer. FLUE Table I-3 shows a source and name of the preparer, but not a preparation date. FLUE Table I-4 shows a source, a preparation date, and name of the preparer. Within the Population Projections section of the Comprehensive Plan, Table P-1 shows a source, but not a preparation date or name of the preparer. Table P-2, Figures P-1 and P-2, and Tables P-3 through P-5 do not show sources, preparation dates, or names of the preparers. Tables P-6 and P-7 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. Table P-9 does not show a source, preparation date, or name of the preparer. Within the Housing Element, Tables III-13 through III- 15 and Tables III-17 through III-20 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. The tables and figures that Petitioner objects to are included in the Comprehensive Plan as supporting data and analysis. They are not parts of goals, objectives, or policies. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) requires that maps include major natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. The Resolution SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map does not show geographic features or government boundaries. There are other maps in the FLUE that show natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1 refer to Map “H”, which is part of the DRI Development Order. Petitioner objects to the omission of Map “H” from the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of the Department’s Division of Community Planning stated that it is not the practice of the Department to treat a format error or omission as requiring a determination that a plan amendment is not in compliance. Adoption by Reference Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments adopt regulations and other materials by reference, but not in accordance with Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g), which requires that the reference “identify the title and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted.” Petitioner asserts that the following provisions include inadequate adoptions by reference: Policy 1.1.1, Policy 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, Policy 4.1.3, Policy 4.1.7, Policy 4.1.11, Goal 5, Policy 6.1.1, Policy 8.1.4, Policy 9.1.1, Policy 10.1.1, Policy 11.1.1, Policy 11.1.4, and Policy 12.1.6. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, and Policies 4.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.7, and 4.1.11 refer to state, regional, and federal laws or regulatory programs, but they do not purport to adopt these laws and programs by reference. The purpose of these provisions is not for the City to apply or have any role in the regulatory process or decision-making associated with the referenced laws and programs. The wording of these provisions is consistent with the City’s assertion that its intent is merely to provide notice of related permitting programs with which the developer will have to comply. Goal 5 refers to New Urbanism and other land use design principles as described in the literature of the Congress of New Urbanism, the Urban Land Institute and similar organizations, but the goal does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. The goal states that design policies will be adopted by the City in the future. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Goal 5. Policy 6.1.1 refers to affordable housing and defines the term as a percentage of Volusia County’s Average Median Income. The policy does not purport to adopt any materials by reference. Policies 8.1.4 and 11.1.1 refer to design principles which are to be adopted in the future. The policy does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policies 8.1.4 or 11.1.1. Policy 9.1.1 addresses school concurrency and refers to a Capacity Enhancement Agreement (“CEA”) entered into by the City, the developer, and the Volusia County School Board to ensure that schools are timely planned and constructed to serve the student population. The policy does not purport to adopt the CEA by reference. Petitioner did not show that the CEA is not self-executing. Policy 10.1.1 refers to “green” development practices that meet the certification programs of the United States Green Building Coalition or the Florida Green Building Code, which will be incorporated into the DRI Development Order. The policy does not purport to adopt these certification programs by reference. No specific green design practices are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policy 10.1.1. Policy 11.1.4 refers to vehicle trips as calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This is the standard manual used by all traffic engineers. The policy does not purport to adopt the manual by reference. Planning Timeframes Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments cause the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent because there are different planning horizons in the Plan. The Plan Amendments extend several planning horizons to 2020, but the planning horizon in the Recreation and Open Space Element remains 2010, the water supply work plan has a planning horizon of 2018, and the Public School Facilities Element has a planning horizon of 2025. Petitioner did not identify an adverse effect created by the different planning horizons. The City is currently preparing its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments. The EAR process is statutorily mandated, periodic review and update of the entire Comprehensive Plan. It is the logical process for reviewing and revising planning horizons in the plan. Conservation Element and Housing Element Data Petitioner contends that the support documentation that is included as part of the Conservation Element is not the best available data. However, Petitioner did not produce better data, except for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s more recent listed species rules, or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Similarly, Petitioner contends that some of the support documentation that is included as part of the Housing Element is not the best available data. Petitioner did not produce better data or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Need Petitioner contends that the best available data do not show a need for the residential and nonresidential land uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Population Projections section in the Comprehensive shows a projected City population of 34,481 by 2020. The Department determined that the 2020 population forecast was reasonable. It is not the practice of the Department to require local governments to update their population projections every time an amendment is adopted. The 2020 population projection is derived from forecasts of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research BEBR. BEBR forecasts county populations, from which city population projections must be extrapolated. BEBR frequently under-forecasts population growth for cities. BEBR forecasts do not account for localized factors that can change the attractiveness of a particular area to prospective new residents and, therefore, stimulate population growth. Applying an “allocation factor,” the Department determined that the number of residential units allowed by the Plan Amendments was reasonably in line with the 2020 forecast. An allocation factor is a multiplier applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. In addition, population projections are not the sole consideration in determining the need for a plan amendment. In the case of the Restoration SCD, higher densities and intensities are necessary as a part of the intended development form. Higher densities and intensities are also necessary to achieve the objectives of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, including the encouragement of transit-oriented and energy-efficient communities. A need analysis for non-residential land uses in the Resolution SCD was not conducted by the City because the non- residential uses are intended to serve and be integrated with the residential uses, and are required to be developed in pace with the residential development. The Department found this approach acceptable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O- 10 and revised by Ordinance Number 2010-O-01, are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Franklin County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter authorizes the County, under certain conditions, to adopt what is known as a small scale development amendment to its comprehensive plan. At issue in this case is a small scale development amendment adopted by the County on October 3, 1996. Petitioner, St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), is a not-for-profit corporation organized for the protection and management of the Plantation Area of St. George Island. The island lies just south of Apalachicola, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus it has standing to bring this action. Intervenors, Ben Johnson and Coastal Development Consultants, Inc., are the owners of approximately 58 acres on St. George Island known as the Resort Village Property. The property is adjacent to the St. George Island Airport. A portion of intervenors' property, 9.6 acres, is the subject of the plan amendment being challenged. The nature of the dispute Intervenors' property is subject to a 1977 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order adopted by the County in 1977. The order has been amended from time to time. Among other things, the order provides conceptual approval for the development of "one or more high quality resort hotels or motels, together with such affiliated uses as may be appropriate or desirable, such as gift and tourist shops, restaurants, recreational activities and similar activities." Intervenors desire to develop the Resort Property Village consistent with the 1977 DRI order. The first part of the project consists of approximately 9.6 acres which they have designated as Phase I. The land is located within the Plantation Area of St. George Island and has a land use designation of residential. In June 1995, intervenors submitted detailed site plans for Phase I to the County. On August 1, 1995, the County conducted a public hearing to review the proposed site plans and specifications for Phase I. It adopted a motion which directed its staff "to review and perfect the plans presented, so that the Board can consider the final approval of the plan." It also directed its staff to provide advice concerning the procedure to be followed. After consulting with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended to change the land use to accommodate the commercial uses, the staff recommended that the County adopt a small scale development amendment by changing the designation on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for 9.6 acres from residential to commercial. By a 3-2 vote, on October 3, 1996, the County adopted Ordinance No. 96- 22 which changed the designation for the 9.6 acres on the FLUM from residential to commercial. Because the amendment affected ten or fewer acres, the County opted to make the change with a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. According to the site plan which accompanied a Notification of Proposed Change filed with the County on May 26, 1996, the Phase I development includes four hotels, 10,250 square feet of commercial space, 300 square feet of retail space, a beach club, a 325 seat conference center, various support and recreational facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Phase I site plan, however, does not include the three subsurface absorption beds which are required to service the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. If the absorption beds were included, they would increase the size of Phase I from 9.6 to approximately 14.6 acres. In a petition challenging the adoption of the small scale amendment, petitioner contends that, if the absorption beds are properly included in the land use amendment, the land use area would exceed ten acres and thus would require a full-scale land use amendment subject to DCA review. In response, the County and intervenors have contended that, under the current plan, there is no need to change the land use where the wastewater treatment facility will be located since such facilities are allowed in any land use category. As such, they contend there is no requirement to include such property in Ordinance 96- 22. The Wastewater Treatment Facility The proposed development will be served by a wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a permit to Resort Village Utility, Inc., a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to serve the entire 58-acre Resort Village property. The permit provides that the plant can accommodate up to, but not exceeding, 90,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The facility consists of the wastewater treatment plant, lines to the plant from the development which carry the untreated wastewater to the plant, and lines from the plant to three sub-surface absorption beds where the treated effluent is disbursed. The absorption beds required for the Phase I project wastewater treatment facility will not serve any residential customers. Rather, they will only serve Phase I and any other subsequent phases of Resort Village development, which is a commercial development. Construction must begin on the wastewater treatment plant once the flow of waste effluent reaches 7,500 gallons per day, or if the wastewater from restaurants reaches 5,000 gallons per day. The Phase I project is required to use this facility once the rate of flow of waste effluent exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. Until these thresholds are met, the project will rely temporarily on aerobic systems to handle and treat waste effluent. Under the permit issued by the DEP, the wastewater treatment facility required for Phase I consists of both a wastewater treatment plant and three absorption beds. Through expert testimony of a DEP professional engineer, it was established that the absorption beds were integral to the design and successful operation of the facility. The County and intervenors acknowledge this fact. Therefore, the "use" that is the subject of the amendment is the entire wastewater treatment facility, including the absorption beds, and "involves" some 14.6 acres. Since the plan amendment does not involve "10 or fewer acres," as required by statute, the amendment cannot qualify as a small scale development amendment and is thus not in compliance. In making these findings, the undersigned has considered a contention by the County that Policy 2.3 of the comprehensive plan sanctions its action. That policy reads as follows: Public utilities needed to provide essential service to existing and future land uses in Franklin County shall be permitted in all the land use classifications established by this plan. Public utilities includes all utilities (gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, etc.) whether publicly or privately owned. At hearing, the County planner construed the term "public utilities" as being "minor (utility) infrastructure," including wastewater treatment plants not exceeding 100,000 gallons per day. Relying on this provision, the County reasons that the proposed facility is "minor" infrastructure, since it will only have 90,000 gallons per day capacity, and thus it can be placed in a residential land use category. They go on to argue that, since no change in land use classification is needed to permit the facility, it is unnecessary to include the facility in the plan amendment. According to the County, however, the plant (but not the beds) was included only because it was easier to draw a map for the entire 9.6 acres rather than excise that portion of the land where the plant will be located. Under the same theory, the County has placed at least two existing wastewater treatment facilities in the residential land use category. Those facilities, however, predate the adoption of the comprehensive plan in April 1991, and both serve residential, as opposed to commercial, developments. Moreover, the County admitted that it lacks any "clear" policy about the meaning of "public utilities," and it has never adopted a land development regulation to implement the interpretation given at hearing. The County's position is contrary to conventional land use planning practices which define "utilities" as infrastructure such as water or electrical lines that transport a service and would, by their very nature, be required to cross different land uses. Conversely, conventional land use planning practices define "facilities" as infrastructure that performs a service, such as power plants or pumping stations. This infrastructure does not cross different land use categories. In this case, the absorption beds perform a service by further processing and treating waste effluent from Phase I. Therefore, conventional land use planning practices would logically call for the plant and related absorption beds to be classified as "public facilities" under Policy 2.2(i) of the County's comprehensive plan. That policy defines the term as including "water and sewer facilities." The classification would also be compatible with the definition of "public facilities" found in DCA Rule 9J-5.003(105), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the County and intervenors point out that the facility may not be constructed for many years, depending on the rate and amount of development that occurs in Phase I. Thus, they contend that there is no immediate requirement for the County to change the future land use designation of the property where the absorption beds will be located. But given the fact that the beds and plant are a single, interrelated system, the County cannot choose to change the land use designation for a portion of the facility while ignoring the remainder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining Ordinance No. 96-22 adopted by Franklin County on October 3, 1996, as not in compliance for failing to meet the criteria of Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Alfred O. Shuler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320-850 L. Lee Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1169 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether the Department of Community Affairs (Department) should be precluded from prosecuting the instant challenge to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) of Metropolitan Dade County (Metro-Dade, Dade County or County), as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28, on the ground that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites to instituting such a challenge? Whether the Redland Citizens Association, Inc., the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Evelyn B. Sutton, Martin Motes, Frances L. Mitchell, Rod Jude, Bruce Rohde and Carol Rist (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Objectors") are "affected persons," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, entitled to intervene in this matter and pursue their challenge to the CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28? Whether Carol Rist's motion to amend her petition for leave to intervene in this matter should be granted? Whether the challenged amendments made to the CDMP through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28, specifically those resulting from the approval of Applications 39, 40 and 47, have rendered the CDMP not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes? Whether John H. Wellenhofer is entitled to an award of fees and costs against the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Metropolitan Dade County: A General Overview Metropolitan Dade County is one of Florida's coastal counties. It is located in the southeastern part of the state and is bordered by Broward County on the north, by Monroe County on the south and southwest, by Collier County on the northwest and by the Atlantic Ocean on the east. Within the boundaries of Metropolitan Dade County are 1,413,629 acres, or approximately 2,209 square miles, of land and water. The major natural features of the County are the Florida Everglades National Park, tropical vegetation, an Atlantic Ocean coastline with several peninsulas and inlets, including Biscayne National Park at Biscayne Bay, and several barrier islands and reefs. The County contains several bodies of water, including various lakes, rivers and streams. Among the most noteworthy water bodies are the Intracoastal Waterway in the eastern part of the County and the expansive wetland systems and their accompanying wildlife habitat located primarily in the western part of the County. Among the major man-made features of the County are I Florida Turnpike, the Metrorail System, canals, causeways connecting Miami Beach and the barrier islands to the mainland, Miami International Airport, Kendall Airport, and Homestead Air Force Base. Metropolitan Dade County is Florida's most populous county with a population approaching two million people. On average, Dade County's population has grown by approximately 36,000 persons per year since the 1970's. There are 26 incorporated municipalities located in Metropolitan Dade County, including the City of Miami, whose downtown area may be viewed as the principal focal point of the entire metropolitan area. Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Amendment, Charter and Selected Ordinances In 1956, the statewide electorate adopted Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1885 Florida Constitution granting "the electors of Dade County, Florida, . . . power to adopt, revise, and amend from time to time a home rule charter of government for Dade County, Florida, under which the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County shall be the governing body." 4/ The following year, the electors of the County adopted such a home rule charter (Charter). Section 1.01 of the Charter provides that the "Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government." The power to "[p]repare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county" is expressly mentioned in Section 1.01 as within the Board's authority. Other powers of the Board specifically enumerated in Section 1.01 include the power to provide, regulate, develop and enforce master plans for the control of traffic; to provide and regulate sewage collection and disposal, waste collection and disposal and water supply programs; to establish and administer drainage programs; to establish and administer conservation programs; and to establish and administer housing programs. Section 4.07 of the Charter establishes a Department of Planning as a unit of central metropolitan County government. This section provides as follows: The department of planning shall be headed by a planning director appointed by the County Manager. The planning director shall be qual- ified in the field of planning by special training and experience. Under the supervision of the Manager and with the advice of the Planning Advisory Board elsewhere provided for in this Charter, the planning director shall among other things: Conduct studies of county population, land use, facilities, resources, and needs and other factors which influence the county's development, and on the basis of such studies prepare such official and other maps and re- ports as, taken together, constitute a master plan for the welfare, recreational, economic, and physical development of the county. Prepare for review by the Planning Advi- sory Board, and for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations for the unincorporated areas of the county and minimum standards governing zoning, subdivision, and related re- gulations for the municipalities; and prepare recommendations to effectuate the master plan and to coordinate the county's proposed capital improvements with the master plan. Review the municipal systems of planning, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations and make recommendations thereon with a view to coordinating such municipal systems with one another and with those of the county. By ordinance, codified in Section 2-106.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, the Department of Planning has been designated as the County's local planning agency "responsible for the preparation of the Comprehensive Development master plan for the county." Section 4.08(A) of the Charter directs the Board of County Commissioners to, "by ordinance create a Planning Advisory Board." The Board has done so. The Planning Advisory Board (PAB), as established by the Board, is a nine-member body. The members of the PAB are citizens appointed by the Board. Section 5.02 of the Charter describes the powers that may be exercised by the County's municipalities. It provides as follows: Each municipality shall have the authority to exercise all powers relating to local affairs not inconsistent with this Charter. Each municipality may provide for higher standards of zoning, service and regulation than those provided for by the Board of County Commis- sioners in order that its individual character and standards may be preserved for its citizens. Comprehensive Planning in the County: An Historical Perspective Metropolitan Dade County's first Comprehensive Development Master Plan was adopted by the Board in 1965. This initial version of the CDMP was based upon the unrealistic projection that the County would have two and one half million residents at the planning horizon. To accommodate this projected population, it provided for a spread pattern of low density residential growth, served by numerous expressways. Substantial changes to the CDMP were made in 1975 based upon a lower, more realistic population projection and a consideration of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The result was a plan that provided for a more compact form of urban development concentrated around nodes of activity in the eastern portions of the County. The 1975 version of the CDMP introduced the concept of an urban development boundary. The urban development boundary (UDB) was, and remains to this date, an important part of the plan's urban containment strategy. As its name suggests, the UDB is a line drawn on the plan's future land use map (FLUM) that indicates where urban development will be permitted to reach by the end of the planning period. Since 1975, the CDMP has been amended on various occasions. On eight of these occasions, including most recently in 1990, the amendments have included an expansion of the area inside the UDB. As a result of these amendments, the area inside the UDB has increased by more than 32,000 acres. Notwithstanding the various amendments that have been made to the CDMP, its overall approach, focus and direction have remained essentially the same since 1975. Since 1975, the CDMP's policies have "encourage[d] in-filling, redevelopment, and contiguous development in order to lessen urban sprawl and the associated transportation and energy costs." For years, the CDMP has required the coordination of development with services, the protection of agriculture as a viable economic use of land, the encouragement of a broad spectrum of housing allowing for choice of location, the protection of communities from encroachment by incompatible uses, and a wide variety of other goals, objectives and policies which remain the foundation of the CDMP. The 1988 CDMP In December 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 88-110 entitled "The Master Plan Amendatory Ordinance" (Amendatory Ordinance). The Amendatory Ordinance revised and reformatted the CDMP in an effort to comply with changes made to the state's growth management laws in 1985. The CDMP's primary planning horizon was extended by the Amendatory Ordinance to the year 2000. Like the current version, the version of the CDMP adopted in 1988 (1988 CDMP) had an statement of legislative intent and the following eleven separate elements, containing goals, objectives and policies and other textual material, as well as maps depicting future conditions, including a future land use map: land use; traffic circulation; mass transit; port and aviation; housing; conservation; water, sewer and solid waste; recreation and open space; coastal management; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Prior to the adoption of the Amendatory Ordinance, the County's Planning Department prepared a "support component," containing background data and analyses, for each of the foregoing elements. These "support components" were used in the formulation of the 1988 CDMP and they were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for the Department's consideration during the compliance review process. The 1988 CDMP: Land Use Element "Support Component" The "support component" for the 1988 CDMP land use element (LUSC) was a 232-page document that analyzed existing and future land uses in Dade County, including the amount of land that would be needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth, the County's projected population, the environmental characteristics of the County's undeveloped land, the availability of urban services in the County, and those areas in need of redevelopment. According to the LUSC, as of 1985, of the County's 1,413,629 acres, 86,111.5 acres (6.09%) were devoted to residential uses, 9,389.1 acres (.66%) were devoted to commercial uses, 770.3 acres (.05%) were devoted to hotels, motels and other transient uses, 15,128.9 acres (1.07%) were devoted to industrial uses, 8,967.6 acres (.63%) were devoted to institutional uses, 660,620.7 acres (46.73%) were devoted to parks and recreational open space, 5/ 69,091.3 acres (4.89%) were devoted to transportation, communications and utilities, 93,187.6 acres (6.59%) were devoted to agriculture, 18,268.9 acres (1.29%) were inland waters, 162,640.0 acres (11.51%) were coastal waters, and 289,453.2 acres (20.48%) were undeveloped or vacant. Of this undeveloped or vacant land, 149,823.5 acres (10.55%) were environmentally sensitive. The LUSC examined the pattern of growth in Dade County over the years and reported that, in the 1970's and 1980's, growth occurred primarily in the unincorporated area on the western fringe of the urbanized portion of the County. According the LUSC, this pattern of growth is anticipated to "persist throughout the remainder of this century and beyond." This projection was accompanied by the following explanation: Urban development opportunities are limited on the coastal ridge and on the barrier islands because there is little remaining developable land. It is on the western fringes that land is available. In Dade County these western growth areas extend from the Broward line to the farm lands and open areas of South Dade. With respect to what the future holds for the "urban interior," the following was stated: In the County's urban interior, its central city areas, growth will be modest or nonexis- tent. In most of these areas there is little remaining developable land and projected de- clines in average household size will offset whatever new development occurs. The Downtown area . . . is projected to show some modest gains in the 1990s and beyond, as downtown development efforts succeed in attracting more residents to the County's heart. The LUSC also contained an analysis performed by the Planning Department of the supply of vacant land available for development and the demand that would exist for such land on a countywide and sub-area basis during the planning period. 6/ In determining the supply of land available for residential development, the Planning Department considered the development potential of only vacant and agricultural land inside the UDB, as it existed prior to the adoption of the 1988 CDMP (pre-1988 UDB). Neither redevelopment opportunities, nor the residential capacity of land outside the pre-UDB, were taken into consideration. For each tract of vacant and agricultural land inside the pre- 1988 UDB, the Planning Department ascertained the number of units that would be able to be built, employing a methodology that was described as follows in the LUSC: This determination is based on the current [pre-1988] CDMP Land Use Plan density classi- fication, with numerous exceptions: In areas where no neighborhood or municipal plan has been adopted since the CDMP map classification was established for the parcel, existing zoning is used if greater than agricultural use (AU) or general use (GU). Where the existing zoning is used and land is zoned and platted for single family use, the development capacity of this land is determined by counting the vacant platted lots. In addi- tion, whenever the density of zoned land is further limited by covenants or approved site plans, those conditions are reflected. Where land is unplatted and zoned for estate den- sity residential, but is designated on the CDMP in a higher residential density category and is substantially surrounded by land that is zoned or designated for higher residential density, the land is assigned the density of the surrounding development. Similarly, small parcels zoned AU or GU are assigned a zoning classification comparable to surrounding de- velopment. AU and GU parcels 10 acres or larger are assigned the Plan density appli- cable to the area. In places where neighbor- hood or municipal plans have been adopted or completed since the CDMP classification was established for the parcel and the neighborhood or municipal plan shows a higher use or den- sity, the neighborhood or municipal plan density is used in estimating the development capacity. In instances where the existing zoning permits greater development than the neighborhood or municipal plan proposes, the zoned density is utilized. The gross supply for each area is discounted by a factor of 6 percent to reflect the finding that 6 percent of land in fully developed areas is typically vacant at any given time. The methodology employed by the Planning Department to determine the supply of land available in the County to accommodate growth is professionally accepted. To determine the demand that would exist for residential land during the planning period, the Planning Department first estimated the 1985 countywide population and then projected what the countywide population would be in the years 2000 and 2010. In so doing, it utilized a component methodology, which examined the three components of population change --births, deaths and migration. This methodology is professionally accepted. The Planning Department also made population estimates and projections for each of the minor statistical areas (MSAs) in the County. In making these estimates and projections, it used an extrapolation methodology that is professionally accepted. 7/ Pursuant to this methodology, a portion of the countywide projected population was allocated to each MSA based upon such factors as long- term subarea growth trends, estimates of current subarea population and existing subarea housing units, and subarea development capacity. The Planning Department estimated that the 1985 countywide population was 1,771,000 and it projected that the countywide population would be 2,102,000 by the year 2000 and 2,331,000 by the year 2010. Its population estimates and projections for MSA 6.1 and MSA 6.2, which collectively comprise an area of the County on the western urban fringe known as West Kendall, and MSA 7.2, which is part of the South Dade area of the County, were as follows: 1985- MSA 6.1: 76,961; MSA 6.2: 36,820; MSA 7.2: 32,791; year 2000- MSA 6.1: 135,932; MSA 6.2: 94,628; MSA 7.2: 44,127; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 162,611; MSA 6.2: 124,414; MSA 7.2: 52,518. It was noted in the LUSC that the West Kendall area was the "fastest growing part of Dade County in the 1970's and early 1980's" and that this area was "projected to account for about 38% of the County's growth" from 1985 to 1990. MSA 7.2 was described in the LUSC as among the "rapidly developing areas" of the County. The countywide and MSA population estimates and projections made by the Planning Department not only appeared in the LUSC, but they were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and included in the future land use element of the 1988 CDMP. After making these population estimates and projections, the Planning Department sought to ascertain the future demand for new housing in the County. As it explained in the LUSC: This projection is a function of the projected population increase. The methodology assumes that the mix of housing units in that area will remain as it is currently and that house- hold sizes will decline slowly. Residential unit requirements are derived from the pro- jected increase in households with a 5 percent allowance for vacancy of dwelling units. The Planning Department projected that countywide demand would be 9,150 total units annually until 1990, 10,731 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 10,983 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 11,449 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005 and 11,734 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. For MSA 6.2 and 7.2, the Planning Department's demand projections were as follows: MSA 6.2- 1,498 total units annually until 1990, 1,739 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 1,630 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 1,453 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 1,288 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010; MSA 7.2- 269 total units annually until 1990, 309 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 332 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 360 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 373 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. Having projected future housing demand, the Planning Department then compared the projected demand to the supply of available residential land and concluded that, assuming no additional residential capacity was added, there was a sufficient aggregate supply of single-family and multifamily housing units inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate projected growth until the year 2008. 8/ With respect to MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, the Planning Department concluded that the former had sufficient residential capacity to last until the year 2001 and that the latter's supply of residential land would be depleted a year earlier. Notwithstanding its conclusion that there was a sufficient supply of residential land inside the pre-1988 UDB to last until the year 2008, the Planning Department recommended that the 1988 version of the CDMP provide even more residential capacity within the UDB. 9/ It explained its position on the matter as follows in the LUSC: [The urban development boundary] contains sufficient capacities to sustain single family development until 2004 and multi-family development until 2014. However, it is recognized that decisions regarding the development and purchase of residences involve complexities that trans- cend the single consideration of the presence of vacant zoned land. Market conditions, neighborhood pressure, transportation or service deficiencies, and investment deci- sions can impede development of vacant parcels. 10/ The proposed land use plan for 2000 and 2010 includes substantially more additional land than indicated above to insure that no short- ages will occur. . . . [T]he proposed LUP map for 2000 and 2010 in- cludes capacities for an additional 23,590 single family-type dwelling units in the area located between the 1990 urban development boundary of the comprehensive plan LUP map which is currently in effect, and the pro- posed year 2000 UDB of the proposed plan map. The Planning Department also inventoried the supply of land available for industrial and commercial development in the County. As reported in the LUSC, it determined that, as of 1985, the County had almost a 50-year supply of industrial land and a 16.6-year supply of commercial land. It further determined, and reported in the LUSC, that, as of 1985, MSA 6.2 had a 5.1-year supply of commercial land and a 92.5-year supply of industrial land and that MSA 7.2 had a 10.1-year supply of commercial land and a 48.7-year supply of industrial land. The 1988 CDMP: Compliance Review and Stipulated Settlement Agreement The 1988 CDMP was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review. On January 30, 1989, the Department issued its statement of intent to find the 1988 CDMP not "in compliance." The Department's objection to the plan concerned the low level of service standards the plan established for certain roadways. The Department subsequently, by petition, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Thereafter, the Department and County entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was to make certain changes to the 1988 CDMP to satisfy the concerns expressed by the Department in its statement of intent. The changes involved the 1988 CDMP's capital improvements element and its traffic circulation element. The County was to amend the capital improvements element to incorporate the primary components of the County's existing concurrency management system. The traffic circulation element was to be amended to establish three geographical zones or "tiers." One of the zones, the area inside the UDB east of the Palmetto Expressway (N.W. 77th Avenue), was to be denominated the "Urban Infill Area." 11/ The level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were to be lower than those for roadways in the other two zones. Although these level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were extremely low, and may have been unacceptable under other circumstances, it was felt that they were necessary, at least on a temporary basis, to promote infill development and encourage the use of mass transit, including the County's rapid rail system, which is underutilized. The agreement provided that if the County made these changes, the Department would find the 1988 CDMP, as amended in accordance with the agreement, "in compliance" and would recommend to the Administration Commission that the compliance proceeding that had been initiated by the Department be dismissed without the imposition of any sanctions. The County made the changes described the settlement agreement by adopting Ordinance No. 90-37. On June 14, 1990, the Department published its notice of intent to find the 1988 CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-37, "in compliance." This finding was made notwithstanding that the LUSC indicated that there was enough land inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate residential development well beyond the year 2000 and there had been, as a result of the Amendatory Ordinance's westward extension of the UDB and its redesignation of certain lands inside the realigned UDB, an addition to the existing supply of land available for residential development. The 1989-1990 CDMP Amendment Application Cycle A total of 71 applications to amend the CDMP were filed during the 1989-1990 CDMP amendment application cycle (Amendment Cycle). Twenty-seven of these applications were filed by private citizens as authorized by County ordinance. The remaining applications were filed by the Planning Department. Of the 27 privately filed applications, 25 requested changes to the FLUM and two requested changes to the text of the CDMP's land use element. The Planning Director filed a like number of applications to amend the FLUM. Application 39 Among the privately filed applications was Application 39, which was submitted by John H. Wellenhofer. The subject of Application 39 was a 25-acre parcel of land owned by Wellenhofer (Wellenhofer's property). Wellenhofer's property is in Study Area G and MSA 6.2. It is bounded on the north by Southwest 116th Street, on the south by Southwest 118th Street, on the east by Southwest 142nd Avenue and on the west by Southwest 144th Avenue. The property was located near, but inside, the UDB as established by the 1988 CDMP (1988 UDB). Through Application 39, Wellenhofer requested that the land use designation of his property on the FLUM be changed from "industrial and office" to "low density residential" (up to six dwelling units per gross acre). Application 39 and the Tamiami Airport The southern boundary of Wellenhofer's property lies two blocks, or approximately 660 feet, to the north of Tamiami Airport. The Tamiami Airport, which was opened in 1967, serves as a general aviation reliever for Miami International Airport. Tamiami is 1,380 acres in size and is the busiest general aviation airport in the County. The aircraft that use Tamiami are light aircraft, principally single and twin propeller driven airplanes. Tamiami does not, and in any event is not equipped to, handle commercial aircraft. Tamiami has three runways: (1) the north runway (9L-27R), an east- west runway; (2) the south runway (9R-27L), a parallel east-west runway; and the diagonal runway (13-31), a northwest-southeast runway. The north runway, which is the runway closest to Wellenhofer's property, lacks facilities to permit navigation by instrument for flights at night or in inclement weather. The flight pattern for the north runway is an oval shape. Wellenhofer's property is not under any portion of this flight pattern, nor is it under the flight patterns for the other two runways. It lies in the center of the oval created by the flight pattern for the north runway. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where aircraft, for one reason or another, deviate from these flight patterns. Residential communities in the vicinity of Tamiami already exist. A recent proposal to lengthen the south runway was opposed by a large number of the residents of these communities. In the face of such opposition, no action was taken on the proposal. Because of the noise generated by airport operations, residential uses in the area surrounding an airport may be incompatible with those operations. 12/ The CDMP recognizes that there is the potential for such land use incompatibility. It mandates that the federal government's 65/75 LDN contour standard contained in 14 C.F.R., Part 150, be used to determine if a particular residential use in the vicinity of an airport would be incompatible with the operations at that airport. The noise contour at 65 LDN for the north runway at Tamiami does not leave the airport property and barely leaves the runway itself. That is not to say, however, that one standing on Wellenhofer's property cannot hear the sound of aircraft using the airport. Wellenhofer's property is separated from Tamiami by land that is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. An identical 660 foot, "industrial and office" buffer separates the airport from the residential lands that lie to the south of the western end of the airport. The area immediately to the north, to the south and to the east of Tamiami is denominated an "employment center" in the CDMP. Accordingly, a substantial amount of land in this area, particularly to the east of the airport, has been designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. Land immediately to the west of the site of current airport operations at Tamiami is designated on the FLUM for "transportation-terminals" use. Immediately west of this land is a large expanse of land, outside the UDB, which is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. The CDMP's port and aviation facilities element indicates that "future aviation facility improvements are proposed to be made on or adjacent to the sites of existing airports" in the County and that the "westward 1,900 foot extension of the southern runway at Tamiami Airport" is one such proposed improvement that will be the subject of future consideration. Application 40 Another application filed by a private applicant during the Amendment Cycle was Application 40. It was submitted by the Suchmans. The subject of Application 40 was 320 acres of land (Application 40 property) located in Study Area G and MSA 6.2 and bounded on the north by Southwest 136th Street, on the south by Southwest 152nd Street, on the east by Southwest 157th Avenue and the Black Creek Canal, and on the west by Southwest 162nd Avenue. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the north and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the north of the Application 40 property is land that is shown on the FLUM as part of the western end of the Tamiami Airport. The CSX railroad tracks run parallel to the southern perimeter of the airport and they bisect the Application 40 property. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is north of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "low density residential communities" use. The land immediately to the south and the west of the Application 40 property is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. At the time of the filing of Application 40, the area immediately surrounding the Application 40 property was undeveloped and in agricultural use. By the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, however, residential development was underway on a portion of the land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks. Further to the east is a large scale residential development known as "Country Walk." The Suchmans own 190 acres of the Application 40 property. All but 30 acres of the land they own is on the western side of the property. The Suchmans first acquired an interest in the property in 1973 or 1974. They are in the real estate business and they purchased the property for investment purposes. While the Suchmans are not involved in the agricultural business, over the years they have leased their land to tenants who have used it for agricultural purposes. Since about 1987, it has become increasingly difficult, albeit not impossible, for the Suchmans to find such tenants. At least up until the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, their property was being actively farmed. The Suchmans, through Application 40, originally sought to have the land use designation of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks changed from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" and to have the land use designation of the remaining 280 acres of the property changed from "agriculture" to "low density residential." 13/ Subsequently, at the final adoption hearing, they amended their application. The Suchmans' amended application sought redesignation only of that land within the boundaries of the Application 40 property that the Suchmans owned: the western 20 acres of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks (from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" use); and 170 acres of the remaining land (from "agriculture" to "low density residential"). Under the amended application, the 130 acres of the Application 40 property not owned by the Suchmans was to remain designated for "agriculture" use. 14/ In addition to seeking the redesignation of their land, the Suchmans' application, in both its original and amended form, requested that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass all 320 acres of the Application 40 property. Application 47 Application 47 was also filed by a private applicant. It was submitted by Alajuela N.V. The subject of Application 47 was an 160-acre tract of land (Application 47 property) located in Study Area I and MSA 7.2 and bounded by Southwest 264th Street on the north, Southwest 272nd Street on the south, Southwest 157th Avenue on the east and Southwest 162nd Avenue on the west. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the south and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the south and to the east of the Application 47 property is land designated on the FLUM for "estate density residential communities" use (up to 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre). The land immediately to the north and to the west of the Application 47 property is designated "agriculture" on the FLUM. Through its application, Alajuela N.V. requested that the land use designation on the FLUM of the Application 47 property be changed from "agriculture" to "estate density residential" 15/ and that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass this property. Alajuela N.V. owns the entire western half of the Application 47 property. The eastern 80 acres is divided into a number of parcels, the majority of which are under five acres, with different owners. The eastern half of the Application 47 property contains 15 acres of Dade County pine forest. The Application 47 property lies approximately three-quarters of a mile both to the west and north of the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade, which, according to the LUSC, "[s]ince 1970 . . . [has] experienced particularly heavy development and intensification of land use." This puts it on the southern fringe of an area of South Dade known as the Redlands. While the boundaries of the Redlands are not precise, it is generally understood to range from Southwest 184th Street on the north to the urbanizing areas of the City of Homestead on the south and from U.S. 1 on the east to a meandering line on the west where predominantly mixed agricultural and residential uses end and large-scale agricultural operations generally uninterrupted by residential development begin. While there is significant agricultural activity in the Redlands, primarily involving grove and nursery operations, 16/ an increasing residential trend has been established, particularly on the urbanizing fringes of the area and on parcels less than five acres in size that, because of the grandfathering provisions of the CDMP, are not subject to the restriction imposed by the CDMP that lands designated for "agriculture" use not be used for residential development in excess of one unit per five acres. Residential developments lying south of the Application 47 property constitute the urbanizing area of the City of Homestead. Homestead is a CDMP- designated activity center and, according to the LUSC, it was the fastest growing municipality in Dade County during the period from 1970 to 1987. Homestead's northern jurisdictional limits lie approximately two miles south of the Application 47 property. A substantial portion of the land between the Application 47 property and Homestead is presently undeveloped. The Application 47 property is approximately four and one half miles, by road, from the Homestead Air Force Base, a CDMP-designated employment center. Also in proximity to the Application 47 property are the Homestead/Florida City Enterprise Zone; the Villages of Homestead, which is a 7,000 acre development of regional impact; and commercial and industrial development along the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade. 17/ The land immediately surrounding the Application 47 property is currently being used primarily for agricultural purposes, however, there is also residential development, as well as vacant land in the area. The western half of the Application 47 property is presently in active agricultural use. The eastern half of the Application 47 property is also the site of agricultural activity. Unlike the western half of the property, however, the eastern half is not used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Residences are located in this half of the property. Other Applications of Note Application 58, which was filed by the Planning Department, sought an amendment to the text of the land use element which would allow new agricultural uses in utility easements and right-of-way areas inside the UDB. Application 62 was another application filed by the Planning Department. Through Application 62, the Planning Department sought to have the Board of County Commissioners update and revise the countywide and MSA population estimates and the MSA population projections for the years 2000 and 2010 that had been adopted as part of the CDMP's land use element in 1988. In Application 62, the Planning Department recommended that the 1985 countywide and MSA population estimates found in the CDMP be replaced by 1989 estimates, including the following: countywide- 1,894,999; MSA 6.1- 92,715; MSA 6.2- 50,841; and MSA 7.2- 33,511. With respect to the population projections adopted in 1988, the Planning Department requested that they be modified to reflect a different distribution of the projected countywide population. The proposed modifications, as they pertained to MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, were as follows: year 2000- MSA 6.1: 137,612; MSA 6.2: 89,404; MSA 7.2: 42,012; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 175,504; MSA 6.2: 124,380; MSA 7.2: 53,823. In making these modified projections, the Planning Department utilized the same professionally accepted methodology it had used to make the projections that had been adopted in 1988. The Planning Department did not propose in Application 62 that any material change be made to the year 2000 or the year 2010 countywide population projections. A third application filed by the Planning Department was Application This application sought to have the Board of County Commissioners amend the text of the land use element to provide for the establishment of Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) by the adoption of land use regulations. Under the proposed amendment, TNDs, designed to provide a mix of employment opportunities, to offer a full range of housing types, and to discourage internal automobile use, among other objectives, would be permitted in areas designated for residential use on the FLUM. Planning Department's Preliminary Recommendations Report On August 25, 1989, the Planning Department prepared, for the benefit of the Board of County Commissioners, and published a two-volume report (PR Report) containing its initial recommendations on the 71 applications filed during the Amendment Cycle, as well as the background information and analyses upon which those recommendations were based. In its PR Report, the Planning Department analyzed, among other things, the amount of land that was needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth. In conducting its analysis, the Planning Department employed essentially the same, professionally accepted methodology, previously described in this Recommended Order, that it had used in 1988. The population estimates and projections upon which it relied were the updated and revised estimates and projections that were the subject of Application 62. The Planning Department estimated that in 1989 the County's residential capacity was 247,438 total dwelling units (134,333 single-family units and 113,105 multifamily units). Countywide demand was projected to be 9,157 total dwelling units a year from 1989 to 1995, 10,920 total dwelling units a year from 1995 to the year 2000, 11,440 total dwelling units a year from the year 2000 to the year 2005, and 11,601 total dwelling units a year from the year 2005 to the year 2010. Under this scenario, in the year 2010, there would remain a residential capacity of 22,689 total dwelling units. According to the Planning Department's analysis, this remaining countywide residential capacity would be depleted in the year 2012 (depletion year). The Planning Department forecast an earlier depletion year, 2009, for single-family units. In addition to analyzing countywide residential capacity, the Planning Department conducted an analysis of the amount of land that was available in the County for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Department's analysis revealed that the County had sufficient commercial capacity to last until the year 2008 and that it had sufficient industrial capacity to last until the year 2041. The Planning Department analyzed residential, commercial and industrial capacity, not only on a countywide basis, but on a subarea basis as well. This subarea analysis yielded the following forecast as to Study Areas G and I and MSAs 6.2 and 7.2: Study Area G- depletion year for residential land: year 2005 (all dwelling units), year 2006 (single-family units), and year 2005 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2003; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2076. Study Area I- depletion year for residential land: year 2019 (all dwelling units), year 2016 (single-family units), and year 2030 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2015; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2091. MSA 6.2- depletion year for residential land: year 2006 (all dwelling units), year 2002 (single-family units), and year 2025 (multifamily units); 18/ depletion year for commercial land: 1995; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2075. MSA 7.2- depletion year for commercial land: year 2009; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2078. In its PR Report, the Planning Department also surveyed the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions in each study area of the County, with particular emphasis on the lands that were the subject of the various applications to amend the FLUM (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "application properties"). The PR Report noted that Study Area G, "a large area (approx. 81 sq. mi.) located along the westerly fringe of southwestern Dade County," was characterized by the following environmental, physical and archaeological/historical conditions: Study Area G encompasses the western portions of the Snapper Creek (C-2), C-100 and Black Creek (C-1) canal drainage basins. Natural ground elevations range from five to six feet msl in the northwestern portion of the area to ten to fifteen feet in the part of the Study area generally south of SW 120 Street. Similarly, there is a gradient in the soil conditions from the NW to the SE. In the NW quarter of the area, generally west of 144 Avenue and north of Kendall Drive, the limerock substrate is covered with seasonally flooded Everglades peats and mucks. The southern and eastern three quarters of the study area is generally characterized by well drained rocklands interspersed with poorly drained marls in the former transverse glades. Where organic soils exist, they must be re- moved prior to filling to meet County flood criteria. Therefore as much as four feet of fill may be required to meet the County cri- teria in the northwestern part of this area. The average groundwater table elevations range from above five feet in the northwest to four feet in the southeast. Therefore, the area of Bird Drive and much of the area north of Kendall Drive west of SW 137 Avenue has tradi- tionally experienced considerable flooding and drainage problems. * * * Approximately 70 percent (5,522 acres) of the Bird Drive Basin is vegetated with native wet- land wet prairie, shrub and tree island habi- tats. However, 3,083 acres are heavily or moderately invaded by the exotic tree, Malaleuca. In 1987 the County initiated a Special Area Management Planning (SAMP) pro- cess for this area to develop a wetlands miti- gation plan and funding proposals that will facilitate development in some portions of the Bird Drive Everglades Basin. The poten- tial presence of a new 140-million gallon per day (mgd) Biscayne Aquifer water wellfield in the western part of the Bird Drive Basin has made the feasibility of on-site wetland miti- gation highly questionable for the Basin area. Therefore, the County is exploring several off-site mitigation options as part of the SAMP. Proposals to develop in this Basin are presently constrained by language in the adopted components of the CDMP which tie de- velopment orders to the conclusion of the SAMP, unless the applicants can demonstrate vested rights. * * * In the portion of the study area south of Kendall Drive, the most significant environ- mental resources are stands of native pinelands. There are several environmentally sensitive pinelands in Study Area G, however, none of the properties included in applications 34-4 contain significant natural, historical o archaeological resources. . . . Table 1G of the PR Report contained the following information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Wellenhofer's property and the Application 40 property: Wellenhofer's Property: Soils- rockdale/rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin- C-100; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The Application 40 Property: Soils- rockdale, marl; depth of organic soils (marl)- one foot; drainage characteristics: good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin: Black Creek Canal; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Study Area I, "a large (approx. 164 sq. mi.) region of south Dade County," were described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area I includes portions of CDMP Envi- ronmental Protection Subarea A, Biscayne National Park; Subarea D, the C-111 Wetlands; Subarea E; the Southeast wetlands; and Subarea F, Coastal Wetlands and Hammocks. These areas have been so designated because they contain important, relatively unstressed high-quality wetlands, which provide important water quality and wildlife values. Study Area I also includes a large part of CDMP Open Land Subarea 5. In most of the area east of Krome Avenue and west of U.S. 1, natural ground elevations range from ten to fifteen feet msl on the ridge and from five to ten feet in the former sloughs. The area east of the Turnpike and south of Florida City is less than five feet mean sea level. The highest average groundwater levels are at or above the ground surface throughout most of the area east of the Turnpike Extension and south of Florida City. Saltwater intrusion in the Aquifer extends two to five miles inland in this low lying area. In the area west of the Turnpike and east of Levees-31N and 31W, the soils are rocklands except in the former sloughs where marls pre- dominate. East of the Turnpike and south of Florida City, marls are the dominant soil type except along the coast where peats occur. The Black Creek (C-1), C-102, Mowry (C-103), North Canal, Florida City and C-111 canal sys- tems drain much of the northern and eastern portion of this study area. The area east of the Turnpike has recurring flooding and drainage problems due to its low elevation and flat gradient. The western portions of the C-102, C-103 and much of the C-111 drainage basins have limited flood protection. There is no flood protection in the area south of the Florida City Canal east of US 1 or in most of the area west of US 1 and south of Ingraham Highway. . . . * * * This study area also includes most of the environmentally sensitive natural forest com- munities that remain in Dade County. Appli- cation 47 contains a 15-acre pineland which presently receives maximum protection because it is outside the UDB and zoned AU. At the most, 20 percent of the pineland could be re- moved under the provisions of Chapter 24-60 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . Table 1I of the PR Report contained the following additional information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of the Application 47 property: Soils- rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eleven to twelve feet; drainage basin- C-103; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The PR Report also provided general information regarding existing land uses within each study area and more detailed information regarding existing land uses within and adjacent to each application property. The following was said with respect to existing land use patterns within Study Areas G and I: Study Area G- About half of this study area is suburban in character while the other half is primarily agriculture or undeveloped. The study area also contains a special agricul- tural area known as "horse country" for eques- trian related activities. The urbanizing portion is primarily residential with support- ing commercial and industrial activities. Residential areas include a range of housing from detached, single dwelling units to attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. The area also contains two major recreation facilities-- Metrozoo and a county park. The major concentration of commercial activities has occurred along major thoroughfares such as North Kendall Drive. Some industries and offices are clustered in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, a major general aviation facility located in the study area. Study Area I- This study area includes var- ious types of agricultural activities and rural development as well as suburban develop- ment largely oriented to US 1. The suburban development is primarily residential with supporting commercial uses. Although most of the housing is detached, single dwelling units, residential areas also include attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. There are also several districts for industries and offices, some of which are oriented to expressway and railway systems. More than half of this study area is used for agriculture or is undeveloped. Much of the area is floodplain and the eastern fringe is subject to coastal flooding. Some of these areas are used for parks, preserves and water management areas. The area also contains several wellfields for public water supply, which are located inland from the coast and a major military installation-- Homestead Air Force Base. The PR Report stated the following with respect to the existing land uses within and adjacent to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property: Wellenhofer's Property: The area, which con- tains 25 acres, is being used for agricultural purposes. Land located in the vicinity to the south and west is also being used for agriculture while zoned IU-C. The land on the north side is being developed for residential purposes. Boys Town home is located immediately to the west. The site is located one quarter mile north of Tamiami Airport. . . . The Application 40 Property: The area, which contains 320 acres, is being used for agricul- tural purposes. . . . Land in the vicinity on all four sides is also being used for agriculture. Tamiami Airport is located to the northeast of this site. The Application 47 Property: Most of the land in this area is being used for agriculture. The remainder is being used for rural residences or is vacant. The vacant parcels are zoned for agriculture (AU). Land in the vicinity on all sides has the same character. It is primarily agriculture with scattered rural residences or vacant parcels. These vacant parcels are also zoned for agri- culture (AU). The PR Report examined not only existing land use patterns, but future development patterns as well. The future development pattern set forth in the 1988 CDMP for Study Areas G and I were described in the PR Report as follows: Study Area G- The future land use pattern adopted for this area provides primarily for continued residential uses at low, and low-medium densities, with industrial and office development bordering the Tamiami airport. Nodes of commercial uses are pro- vided for at certain major intersections cen- trally located to serve the resident popula- tion. The western portions of the Study Area are slated for continued agricultural produc- tion, while the extreme northwest corner of the Area is designated as Open Land to pro- tect the West Wellfield. Study Area I- The future development pattern established for this area provides for mixed residential infilling (primarily estate, low density and low-medium-density, with some medium-high density located along SW 200 Street east of US 1). Commercial infilling is provided for along both sides of US 1 and along SW 312 Street. Major industrial areas are established south of SW 312 Street and west of 142 Avenue, west of SW 177 Avenue in the Homestead-Florida City area, north and south of 248 Street west of US 1 and south of SW 184 Street between US 1 and the HEFT [Homestead Extension to the Florida Turnpike]. The areas outside of, but contiguous to, the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) are, for the most part, designated Agriculture, with land to the south and east designated as Open Land graduating to Environmental Protec- tion designations further south. . . . The PR Report also contained an evaluation of the current and future condition of public services in each study area, including an analysis, where possible, of each application's impact on these services. The public services addressed were roadways, transit, schools, parks, water, sewer, solid waste, and fire and rescue. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on roadways were described as follows in the PR Report: Application 39: [Application 39 will result] in reduced peak hour trips affecting the year 2010 network in this [study] area. None of the roads within the area of this application were projected to operate worse than LOS D in the year 2010. Application 40: Due to its proximity to SW 177 Avenue, the combined 1422 peak hour trips generated by this amendment primarily impact SW 177 Avenue, which is already projected to operate at LOS F. The long term adopted standard for this road is LOS C. Even without this application the road does not meet this adopted standard. Application 47: Application 47 . . . if de- veloped would generate approximately 171 residential based peak hour trips in 2010. . . . Generally, this application would have negligible impacts on the LOS traffic conditions in 2010. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on transit were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: In general, no signi- ficant amount of transit trips would be generated by the amendment applications in this Study Area [G], even though a number of the applications (i.e. . . . 39, 40, ) are located in areas projected to have service improvements by 2010. Therefore, no additional service improvements are warranted beyond those that will be required to serve the area in general for 2010. Application 47: [N]o significant amount of transit trips would be generated by Applica- tion . . . 47. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on schools were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: It is estimated that the applications [in Study Area G] would in- crease the student population by [a total of] 2,784 students. . . . Application 40 would generate 874 additional students; . . . The other applications for residential use [including Application 39] would generate less than a hundred new students each. Application 47: If Application 47 were ap- proved, it would generate an additional 239 students at all grade levels. The greatest impact would be felt at the elementary school level, where an additional 129 students would have to be accommodated. Redland Elementary, which is the elementary school that would pro- bably serve the subject Application Area, is operating at a utilization rate of 163 percent. Additional classrooms are planned for construc- tion at Redland Elementary over the next few years, raising this school's number of Exist- ing Satisfactory Student Stations (ESSS) from 523 to 901. In addition, a relief school for Redland Elementary is to be built in this area by mid-1993, providing an additional 885 SSS. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on parks were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: Study Area G cur- rently meets the park level of service stan- dard (LOS) and is expected to meet the LOS in the year 2000. . . Despite the rapid popula- tion growth in the area, the LOS has remained above standard in part because of recreational facilities and open space that are provided in the planned residential developments which characterize the Study Area. Approval of those applications requesting new residential uses in Study Area G could result in a lowering of the LOS for parks if new park land is not provided. Application 47: By the year 2000, MSA 7.2 is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional parks are provided. * * * Application 47 lies within MSA 7.2 which is currently above the LOS standard but is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional park land is provided. The PR Report indicated that the fire and rescue response times to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were four minutes, 13 minutes, and three to four minutes, respectively, and that roadway accessibility to all three sites was good. With respect to the Application 40 property, the PR Report further noted that it "would be serviced by the planned Richmond Station after its completion in 1992-93," which would reduce the response time to the site to no more than six minutes. Water and sewer service in Study Areas G and I was described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area G: Water and sewer service is provided to Study Area G by WASAD [Metro- politan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department]. The area is characterized by large residential developments which have been built over the past decade. Water and sewer service was constructed by area devel- opers in many cases, and most of the developed area is served. . . . . [T]he 'Horse Country' area west of the Turnpike is not connected to either water or sewer. Potable Water Supply Water is supplied to Study Area G by WASAD's Alexander Orr Water Treatment Facility. This facility's current design rating is 178 MGD, and the historical maximum day water demand has been 146 MGD. . . . The Orr facility currently produces water which meets all federal, state and county drinking water standards. WASAD has recently made improve- ments to the Alexander Orr facility and devel- oped a long term expansion program. By 1990, it is expected that the plant will attain a rated capacity of 220 MGD. A major improvement to the distribution system in this Study Area is the completion of the 36/48 inch main which extends along SW 137 Avenue from SW 122 Street to SW 184 Street. In conjunction with other improvements, the system in this area is being connected to the South Miami Heights and the Orr Treatment Plants, providing adequate capacity for the southern portion of Study Area G. Improvements that are scheduled for 1989-90 include the extension of the 36 inch water main along Kendall Drive to SW 157 Avenue, and continued construction of the 96 inch raw water main that will deliver water from the new West Wellfield to the Alexander Orr Treat- ment Plant. Sewer Study Area G is served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility. This facility has a current design capacity of 75 MGD. Based on a 12-month running average daily flow for this plant was 75 MGD. . . . Expansions to the South District facility are programmed for completion in 1994 to increase the design capacity to 112.5 MGD. Sewage effluent produced by this plant also conforms to federal, state and county effluent standards and is disposed of via deep well injection. Study Area I: Most of Study Area I is in agri- cultural use and relies primarily on private wells and septic tanks. WASAD serves the devel- oped areas in unincorporated Dade County. Florida City provides water service within the city limits and sewer service is provided by WASAD. A portion of the study area is also served by the City of Homestead. Homestead's franchised service area extends a short dis- tance outside the City limits: it is bounded irregularly on the East, on the West by SW 192 Avenue, by the City limits on the South, and on the North by SW 296 Street. Water distri- bution and sewage collection systems are main- tained by the Air Force to serve Homestead Air Force Base. Potable Water Supply The northeast corner of the Study Area is con- nected to WASAD's regional water supply system and is served by the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. . . . [T]he served area south of SW 248 Street is not yet connected to the regional system. This area is served by the former Rex Utility system, which is now owned by WASAD, and by the City of Homestead. The Rex system has a rated capacity of 16.2 mgd and a maximum water demand of 8.81 mgd. The Homestead plant has a rated capacity of 9.9 mgd and a maximum demand of 7.7 mgd. . . . Water produced by these treatment plants meets federal, state, and county drinking water standards. A major improvement scheduled for this area is a 48 inch main which will run south along SW 127 Avenue from 248 Street to SW 280 Street to connect the existing systems to the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. Upon completion of this main in 1990 or 1991, the . . . treatment plants of the Rex system will be phased out. . . . Sewer Florida City and the unincorporated portion of Study Area I are served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility, which has a current design capacity of 75 mgd and an average daily flow of 84.2% of rated capacity. Expansions to the South District facility, programmed for completion in 1994, will increase the design capacity to 112.5 mgd. Sewage effluent treated by this plant conforms to the federal, state and county effluent stan- dards and is disposed of via deep-well injection. . . . The only remaining sewage treatment plant in Dade County is operated by the City of Homestead. The plant is designed to treat 2.25 mgd and its capacity is in the process of being evaluated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- tion. The Homestead system currently operates under an agreement to divert a portion of its wastewater to WASAD for treatment and disposal. . . . The following was indicated in the PR Report concerning the water and sewer service available to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 Property: Wellenhofer's property: distance to nearest water main- 1320 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 142nd Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- 4000 feet; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 137th Avenue. The Application 40 Property: distance to nearest water main- 0 feet; diameter of this main- 24 inches; location of this main; SW 152nd Street and SW 157th Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- one mile; location of this main- SW 136th Street and SW 147th Avenue. The Application 47 Property: distance to near- est water main- 2640 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and 280th Street; distance to nearest sewer main- 3960 feet; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and SW 284th Street. 19/ The significance of the availability of water and sewer service to a particular application property was described as follows in the PR Report: Although specific requirements under Chapter 24 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County vary with land use, most new development in Dade County is required to connect to the public water or sewer system, or to both. The timing of new development is heavily depen- dent on the availability of these services. Where water and sewer service does not exist and is not planned, the services may be pro- vided by the developer. When construction is completed, the facilities are donated to the utility. The proximity of an application area to exist- ing or programmed water and sewer lines is an important indicator of whether or not the area is likely to develop within the 2000 time frame of the Urban Development boundary. . . . The following observations were made in the PR report regarding solid waste services in the County: The Metro-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management provides both collection and dis- posal services for Dade County. The Department is responsible for the final dis- posal of solid waste generated anywhere in the County and for residential collection in the urbanized portions of unincorporated Dade County. Residents in sparsely developed areas of the County are responsible for delivering their waste to a proper disposal site. In general, industrial and commercial businesses often use private haulers who can provide customized service that is not available from the County. . . . Countywide, the solid waste disposal system has sufficient capacity to maintain the adopted level of service of 7 pounds per person per day through 1995. The Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) The Board of County Commissioners took preliminary action on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle and transmitted to the Department its proposed amendment to the CDMP. Accompanying the proposed amendment was the PR Report. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) on February 2, 1990. A copy of the ORC, accompanied by a cover letter, was sent to the Mayor of Metropolitan Dade County, the Honorable Stephen P. Clark, that same day. The cover letter advised the Mayor that if he "would like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request should be received by the Department, certified mail, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date." The following were the statements made in the ORC that referenced Applications 39, 40 and 47: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIONS * * * Analysis 1. 9J-5.006(2)(b) The analysis of the character of the existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to deter- mine its suitability for use does not support the plan amendments that propose to extend the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) by 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that the UDB as cur- rently delineated ensures an adequate supply of each land use will be available for the planning timeframe. In addition, the existing analysis identifies this region as environmen- tally sensitive and not suitable for urban uses. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the adopted Metro-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) or include analysis that would justify extension of the UDB for urban uses while not causing adverse impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands in the East Everglades Area. 2. 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. The analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, as re- vised in Amendment 62, does not support plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which propose to extend the UDB by an additional 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that there is ade- quate amount of land uses designated within the current UDB to accommodate the projected population within the planning timeframe. Therefore, the extension of the UDB into the East Everglades area would encourage urban sprawl. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to be consistent with the analysis. The plan amendments must justify the proposed need for additional land outside of the current UDB to accommodate the projected population. 3. 9J-5.006(2)(e) The analysis of the proposed development of flood prone areas does not support plan amend- ments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which would extend the UDB by 845 acres. The new growth would be directed into the flood prone areas on the eastern edge of the Everglades. . . . Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to not extend the UDB and to either retain the existing land uses or designate land uses that are compat- ible with the environmentally sensitive nature of . . . the Everglades region. Goals, Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.006(3)(b)1. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 1, page I-1, which states that decisions regarding the location of future land use in Dade County will be based on the physical and financial feasibility for providing services as adopted in the CDMP. The analysis demonstrates that the County has not planned on providing services outside the existing UDB; therefore the extension of the UDB at this time would appear to be premature. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 8. 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 3, page I-4, which states that the urban growth shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity rather than sprawl. The analysis of the land needed to accommodate the projected population demonstrates that there will be an adequate supply of vacant land within the UDB for the duration of the planning timeframe. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 12. 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Policy 1B, page I-1, which states that the County will first provide services for the area within the UDB. The amendments are located outside of the existing UDB and the analysis demonstrates that there is no need to extend the UDB for residential or industrial land uses. Recommendation Retain the UDB as currently delineated. * * * Future Land Use Map(s) 14. 9J-5.006(4)(a) Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are not supported by the data and analysis. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These ex- tensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development Boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and to pro- tect the environmental integrity of the Ever- glades. * * * PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES A. OBJECTIONS * * * Goals, Objectives and Policies 1. 9J-5.009(3)(c)1. Plan amendments 38 and 39, which would change industrial/office land use to low density resi- dential, are inconsistent with Policy 4C, page IV-4, which supports zoning that would protect existing and proposed aviation flight paths. These amendments would promote the encroachment of residential land uses into the Tamiami Airport area guaranteeing a future conflict of land uses. Recommendation Retain the existing land uses or propose land uses that would be compatible with the existing airport and the surrounding supporting aviation industries. * * * SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. 9J-5.011(2)(b)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are inconsistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1A, page VII-1, which state that the area within the UDB shall have first priority for urban services as a measure to discourage urban sprawl. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These extensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and protect the environmental integrity of the Everglades. The ORC also addressed the proposed plan amendment's consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and the Regional Plan for South Florida (Regional Plan), which was prepared and adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The following was alleged with respect to the proposed amendment's consistency with the State Plan: STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following sub- sections of s. 187.201, F.S. (1988 Supplement), State Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing (5)(b)3., which requires the supply of safe, affordable and sanitary housing for low and moderate income persons and the elderly, because the proposed amendments would change existing residential uses, that would be feasible for affordable housing, to non-residential uses; and Water Resources (8)(b)4., which requires the protection and use of natural water systems in lieu of struc- tural alternatives and restore modified sys- tems, because the proposed amendments would create land uses which would encroach upon wellfield protection areas; and Coastal and Marine Resources (9)(b)4., which requires the protection of coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of develop- ment, because of the proposed amendment to change definitions which would give residen- tial densities to submerged marine lands; and Natural Systems and Recreational Lands (10)(b)7., which requires the County to pro- tect and restore the ecological functions of wetland systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic and recreational value, because the proposed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area and potentially permit noncompatible land uses within wetland study areas and wellfield pro- tection areas; and (10)(b)8., which requires promotion of res- toration of the Everglades system and of the hydrological and ecological functions of de- graded or substantially disrupted surface waters, because of the proposed amendment which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Land Use (16)(b)2., which requires incentives and dis- incentives which encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, because the pro- posed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area which would encourage urban sprawl; and Public Facilities (18)(b)1., which requires incentive for devel- oping land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities, because the pro- posed amendments would remove residential uses along arterials and reduce the effectiveness of the mass transit system. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and implementing policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consistent with the above-referenced poli- cies of the State Comprehensive Plan. The following was alleged in the ORC concerning the proposed amendment's consistency with the Regional Plan: REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021(1) The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following subsections of the Regional Plan for South Florida: Policy 57.1.2., which requires giving priority to development in areas within which adequate services are either programmed or available, because of the proposed amendments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Policy 64.2.1, which requires that land use around the airport be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary social or economic con- flicts and costs, because of the proposed amendments which would place residential uses in close proximity to Tamiami Airport; and Policy 69.1.1., which encourages appropriate activities to ensure the continued viability of agriculture, because the proposed amend- ments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consis- tent with the policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. Under the heading of "Internal Consistency" in the ORC, the following remarks were made: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.005(5)(b) Each map depicting future conditions in the plan (including the future land use map) must reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element, as those goals, objectives and policies exist or are modified to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., Chapter 163, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.) and the comprehensive regional policy plan, as recommended in this report. Recommendation Ensure that future conditions maps are modi- fied to reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element. COMMENTS See individual elements. Those objections, recommendations and comments made in the ORC that are not recited above specifically referenced applications other than Applications 39, 40 and 47. The Planning Department's Response to the ORC On March 21, 1990, the Planning Department published a written response to the ORC (Response). In its Response, the Planning Department concurred with the position that Applications 39, 40 and 47 should not be approved, but it took issue with certain statements made in the ORC relating to these applications. The Planning Department pointed out that the "East Everglades was the area located west of the L-31 Everglades containment levee and south of the Tamiami Trail," and that "[A]pplications [18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 we]re no closer than two miles [to the east] of the East Everglades" and did not extend to any areas designated "environmental protection" on the FLUM. The Planning Department further noted that the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were not subject to recurring flooding. With respect to the lone objection in the ORC which specifically mentioned Application 39, the Planning Department observed that it "incorrectly cite[d] Policy 4C [of the Port and Aviation Facilities Element of the CDMP]; it should be Policy 4D." The Planning Department added that, although the Department had not so indicated, Application 39 was "also inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Port and Aviation Element which seeks to maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities." Combined Recommendations of the Planning Department and the PAB On February 27, 1990, and February 28, 1990, respectively, following a joint public hearing held on February 23, 1990, the Planning Department, acting in its capacity as the local planning agency, and the PAB adopted resolutions containing their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the final action to be taken on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. Thereafter, prior to the final adoption hearing, the Planning Department published a document entitled "Combined Recommendations of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department (Local Planning Agency) and the Planning Advisory Board" (CR Report), which set forth these recommendations, and summarized the rationale upon which they were based. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended that Application 39 be denied. According to the CR Report, these recommendations were based upon the following considerations: The south boundary of this site is located only two blocks from the Kendall-Tamiami Execu- tive Airport. The application area is within the area designated on County comprehensive plans as industrial/commercial since 1965 to insure airport/community compatibility. The continued non-residential designation of this area also conforms to the standard adopted in 1989 by the State Legislature (but vetoed by the Governor because of unrelated funding pro- visions) which provided that "residential construction should not be permitted within an area contiguous to an airport measuring one-half of the length of the longest runway on either side of each runway centerline." The Aviation Department estimates that the housing proposed in the application area would be subject to more than ten times ambient noise levels which would result in many complaints from occupants. For example, virtually all of the 5,200 petitioners concerned about perceived airport noise impacts of the recently rejected runway extension lived further from the airport than would the occupants of housing proposed within the area. Approval of this application would conflict with the need for the County to protect its airport, and with the need to retain opportunity sites for employment activities in west Kendall. The Planning Department recommended that Application 40 be denied. According to the CR Report, this recommendation was based upon the following considerations: This Application is located in the Agri- cultural area west of Black Creek Canal. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners established that Canal as the Agricultural area boundary in this area of the County, to be amended for urban development only at such time as there is a documented need. The Planning Department believes that the need does not yet exist. 20/ Approval of this Application would be premature. The CDMP currently contains within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB), enough land countywide to sustain projected industrial needs well beyond the year 2010, and residential needs to the year 2015. Within this Study Area there is also enough industrial land to accommodate projected residential growth beyond the year 2010 and to accommodate projected residential growth until the year 2005. While current projections indicate that the single family supply west of the Turnpike between Kendall Drive and Eureka Drive does not contain much surplus beyond the year 2000, the CDMP provides alternative loca- tions, including an abundance of supply in the Turnpike corridor south of Cutler Ridge. The Planning Department will closely monitor growth trends in the various subareas of the County and will recommend adjustments when warranted in the future. The PAB recommended that Application 40 be approved. The CR Report indicated that the PAB's reasoning with respect to this matter was as follows: Because this is the area where people want to live, sprawl is justified and the urban devel- opment boundary should be expanded. In re- sponse to DCA's objections, the PAB noted that services are available adjacent to this Appli- cation. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended the denial of Application 47. The following reasons were given in the CR Report for their recommendations: The area is currently designated Agricul- ture on the Land Use Plan map, and is used for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commis- sioners recommends that the area designated Agriculture should not be redesignated for urban use until there is a documented need for more urban land. Approval of this Application would be very premature. The CDMP currently contains enough land within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary in this Study Area to accommodate projected demand well beyond the year 2010. Similarly, in the area west of US 1 there is enough land for single-family type residences to accommodate projected demand through the year 2010. There is no current need to promote urban development of this Application area. This site contains fifteen acres of Dade County pine forest listed in Dade County's forest land inventory as having high environ- mental quality. It should not be prematurely urbanized. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Department's Participation On March 12, 1990, Mayor Clark mailed, by United States Express Mail, a letter to the Department requesting that it participate in the hearing at which final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners on the outstanding applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. The body of the letter read as follows: The Board of County Commissioners requests that the Florida Department of Community Affairs participate in its hearing to address biennial applications requesting amendments to the 2000-2010 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) for Metropolitan Dade County. This request is made pursuant to Section 9J-11.011(2) of the Florida Adminis- trative Code and Section 2-116.1(4) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The public hearing will be held on Monday, March 26, 1990, at 9:00 AM in the Commission Chambers, 111 N.W. 1 Street, Miami. If neces- sary, this hearing will be continued on Tuesday, March 27, 1990, in the Commission Chambers. The purpose of this hearing is to afford the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to hear the applicants explain their applica- tions and to receive public comments on the applications, on the "Objections, Recommenda- tions, and Comments" report submitted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and on the recommendations of the Planning Advi- sory Board and of the Local Planning Agency. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action to approve, approve with change, or deny each of the applications. Should you or your staff need any assistance or additional information regarding this hearing, please contact Mr. Robert Usherson, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Division, Metro-Dade Planning Department, at (305)375-2835, (Suncom) 445-2835. The Department, by letter, advised Mayor Clark that it would send a Department representative to "participate" in the hearing. The body of the letter read as follows: In response to your request of March 12, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the March 26, 1990, public hearing to adopt the proposed Metro Dade County comprehensive plan amendments. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's February 3, 1990 [sic] Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department's position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Depart- ment's position or approving proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. The Department's representative will be without authority to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's representative will be authorized, however, to comment on proposals to resolve objections included in the report. Final approval of any proposal may only be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. The Department's role with respect to approv- ing proposed revisions will begin upon adop- tion and submittal of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Admin- istrative Code. If I may be of further assis- tance in this matter, please contact me at (904)488-9210. The Department representative selected to attend the final adoption hearing was Harry Schmertman, a Planner IV with the Department. Schmertman had not been involved in the preparation of the ORC. He reviewed the report, however, before attending the hearing. Schmertman arrived at the Commission Chambers on the morning of March 26, 1990, prior to the commencement of the hearing. Upon his arrival, he spoke with the County's Planning Director and requested that he be recognized at the outset of the hearing. The Planning Director responded that "the Mayor would take care of that." Following this conversation, Schmertman took a seat "[a]pproximately five or six rows back [from the front] in the center of the auditorium." Thereafter, the hearing formally convened. Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, before any applications were discussed, Mayor Clark introduced Schmertman and indicated that he was attending the hearing on behalf of the Department. Immediately following the Mayor's introduction of Schmertman, the Chairman of the PAB, Lester Goldstein, presented the PAB's recommendations to the Board. During his presentation, Goldstein expressed disappointment over the various factual inaccuracies in the Department's ORC. Schmertman did not respond to Goldstein's comments, nor did he at any time attempt to modify or explain any statement or position taken by the Department in the ORC. Indeed, he made no public remarks while in attendance at the hearing. While Schmertman did not address the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing, at no time during the hearing was he asked to do so. Furthermore, the members of the Board gave no indication that they did not understand, and therefore needed clarification of, the Department's position on the applications under consideration. At around 4:30 p.m., before the conclusion of the hearing on that day, Schmertman left the Commission Chambers to return to Tallahassee. Neither he, nor any other Department representative, was present for the remainder of the hearing on that day or for the continuation of the hearing on the following day, when public discussion and debate ended and a formal vote was taken on each of the pending applications. 21/ Schmertman did not tell anyone that he was leaving the Commission Chambers. He reasonably believed, however, that there was no need to announce his departure because he was "in a very obvious location . . . and was very visible leaving." No member of the Board, nor any other County representative, asked Schmertman, as he was leaving, to remain until the conclusion of the hearing. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Objectors' Participation The Redland Citizen Association, Inc. (RCA) is a nonprofit Florida corporation, which has as its stated purpose and primary activity the preservation and promotion of the agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands area of South Dade. The RCA engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The RCA has approximately 700 to 800 members, all of whom reside in or around the Redlands in Dade County. At all times material hereto, Martin Motes has been a member of the RCA, resided in a home that he owns in the Redlands, and owned and operated a wholesale orchid nursery business located on property adjacent to his residence, three quarters of a mile north of the Application 47 property. Motes appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the RCA and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Application 47. He argued that the change sought through this application was "premature" and constituted an "unwarranted and unwanted" extension of urban development into a viable agricultural area. Neither Motes, nor any other representative of the RCA, objected to any application other than Application 47. 22/ The Sierra Club is a nonprofit national organization organized for the following purpose: To explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the re- sponsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club, Miami Group, is a local division of the national organization specifically chartered to include residents of both Dade and Monroe Counties. It has a Dade County address. At all times material hereto Bruce Rohde has been a member of the Sierra Club and resided in a home that he owns in Dade County. Rohde appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the Sierra Club and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Applications 40 and 47, among others. He contended that the extensions of the UDB requested through Applications 40 and 47 were "premature." Neither Rohde, nor any other representative of the Sierra Club, objected to Application 39. The League of Women Voters of the United States is a national organization. The League of Women Voters of Florida is a state organization. The League of Women Voters of Dade County, Inc. (League) is a nonprofit Florida corporation affiliated with the national and state organizations. The League's purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is as follows: [T]o promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government and to take action on govern- mental measures and policies in the public interest in conformity with the principles of The League of Women Voters of the United States and The League of Women Voters of Florida. It engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The League rents office space in Dade County out of which it conducts its operations. 23/ At all times material hereto, Carol Rist has been a member of the League, resided in a home that she owns in Dade County, and owned and operated a Dade County business. Rist appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the League and its members, including herself, she expressed opposition to various applications, including Applications 39, 40 and 47. With respect to Applications 40 and 47, her arguments were similar to those advanced by Rohde at the hearing. As to Application 39, she contended that Wellenhofer's property was too close to the airport to be used for residential purposes and that it was a desirable site for the location of an office complex to which residents of the West Kendall area would be able to commute. 24/ At all times material hereto, Evelyn B. Sutton has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Sutton appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. She expressed her opposition to Application 47, contending that its approval would have an adverse impact upon the unique agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands. She did not object to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Frances L. Mitchell has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Mitchell and some of her neighbors retained an attorney, who appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation on their behalf. The attorney advised the Board that his clients were in opposition to Application 47 because it was "premature" and represented unneeded "leapfrog residential development in the heart of the Redlands." Neither Mitchell, her attorney, nor any other representative acting on her behalf, objected to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Rod Jude has resided in a home that he owns in Dade County and owned and operated a Dade County wholesale nursery business. Jude appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. He expressed his opposition to Application 40, arguing that there was no demonstrated need for the conversion of the Application 40 property to non-agricultural uses. Jude also objected to Applications 37, 41 and 42. He did not address either Application 39 or Application 47. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Applicants' Participation Jeffrey E. Lehrman, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 39 on behalf of Wellenhofer. In addition to making an oral presentation, Lehrman gave the members of the Board written materials. During his presentation, Lehrman stated, among other things, the following: Application 39 represented infill, not leapfrog, development; such development would not adversely impact upon, nor would it be adversely impacted by, the Tamiami Airport; there had been significant residential development in the area around Wellenhofer's property in recent years; the approval of Application 39 would not interfere with any existing flight patterns; Wellenhofer's property was not under an existing flight path, but rather was in a "hole-in-the-doughnut" and therefore was distinguishable from properties that were the subject of other applications; Tamiami's north runway was an auxiliary runway unequipped to handle operations at night and in bad weather; the applicable 65/75 LDN noise contour did not intrude upon Wellenhofer's property; the new statute that the Planning Department had referenced in recommending denial of Application 39 had been vetoed by the Governor and therefore was really no statute at all; helicopter training took place on the south, rather than the north, side of the airport; and if Application 39 was approved, a buffer of industrial land would still exist between Wellenhofer's property and the airport. Thomas Carlos, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 40 on behalf of the Suchmans. Carlos was assisted by James Holland, a professional planner with the firm of Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan (Post Buckley), Jack Schnettler, a professional traffic engineer with Post Buckley, Richard Tobin, President of Strategy Research Corporation, Inc. (SRC), a national research firm with offices in Florida, and Richard Roth, Vice- President of SRC in charge of planning research studies. During his opening remarks, Carlos advised the County Commission that the Suchmans had executed a covenant obligating themselves to developing their property in accordance with the Traditional Neighborhood Development concept. He then introduced Holland to the Commission. During his presentation, Holland did, among other things, the following: summarized the contents of Table 1G of the PR Report relating to the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions that existed on the Application 40 property; contrasted the Application 40 property with the undeveloped lands in MSA 6.1 already within the UDB which, he argued, had marginal development potential because of undesirable environmental constraints; opined that, as a consequence of these impediments to development in MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 would experience an increase in demand; showed a graphic depicting land use patterns in and around the Application 40 property, including the amount of land available for residential development in the area; displayed another graphic showing future Urban Services Areas in unincorporated Dade County, including the Tamiami area; in conjunction with the these graphics, argued that the residential development of the Application 40 property was in furtherance of the Tamiami area's designation as an employment center; quoted from a Planning Department report that suggested that development around the Tamiami Airport would reduce metropolitan transportation needs; asserted that the use of the Application 40 property for residential purposes would comply with federal guidelines as well as those found in the CDMP; in support of this assertion, presented a graphic illustrating that no part of the proposed residential portion of the Application 40 property would be included in the 65/75 LDN contours which measure the noise generated by airport operations; and described the urban services which were available or programmed to serve the Application 40 property. Jack Schnettler's presentation addressed traffic and transit issues. He presented a graphic showing the existing and programmed transportation network in the vicinity of the Application 40 property and highlighted particular improvement projects that he considered worthy of note. In describing the this transportation network, he commented that it augmented the employment center character of the area. Schnettler expressed the view that the property would be adequately served by transit and roadways. In addition, he disagreed with the Planning Department's forecast that approval of Application 40 would adversely impact upon the level of service on Southwest 177th Avenue, which, he noted, was located one and half miles to the west of the application property. Tobin and Roth briefly summarized a written report that SRC had prepared for the Suchmans and other private applicants (SRC Report). The report analyzed housing demand in the West Kendall area. The SRC Report concluded that the supply of residential land in MSA 6.2 25/ would be depleted in the year 2004 under a low case scenario, in 1998 under a medium case scenario, and in 1996 under a high case scenario, which the report opined, without explanation or reasonable justification, was "the one most likely to occur." As noted above, in its PR Report, the Planning Department had projected a depletion year of 2006, which the SRC Report criticized as being "out of touch with reality." In making its projections, SRC compared the yearly average of new housing units built and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1980 to 1984, which was a down period for the housing industry in Dade County, to the yearly average of new housing units build and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1985 to 1988, which was a boom period for the housing industry in the County. The information used by SRC regarding the number of housing units constructed and sold during these years was obtained from the Dade County Tax Assessor's office. Under the low case scenario, SRC assumed that housing demand in MSA 6.2 would remain constant at its 1985 to 1988 yearly average of 1,780 units. Under the medium case scenario, SRC assumed that the rate of housing demand would increase by about 35% over the 1985 to 1988 experience (which was 70% above the 1980 to 1984 experience). Under the high case scenario, SRC assumed that the 70% increase in housing demand between 1980 to 1984 and 1985 to 1988 would continue unabated until the supply of residential land was depleted, an assumption that is even more unrealistic than the assumptions underlying low and medium case scenarios. SRC reached these conclusions without analyzing housing demand on a countywide basis. Neither did it rely upon any population projections, notwithstanding that housing demand is driven by population growth. Furthermore, it did not take into consideration the cyclical fluctuations that characterize the housing market, nor did it account for vacant units in its projections. A professionally accepted methodology is one that is replicable, transparent, documented, free of error and inaccuracies, based upon assumptions that are clearly stated and reasonable and designed to avoid improbable and unlikely outcomes given past trends. In projecting housing demand for MSA 6.2., SRC did not utilize a methodology meeting these requirements. In addition to the oral presentations made by Carlos, Holland, Schnettler, Tobin and Roth, the Suchmans also presented to the Board of County Commissioners a written memorandum authored by Carlos and David S. Goldwich, Esquire, with attachments, including a copy of the SRC Report, copies of excerpts from Planning Department publications, and a copy of a recent article appearing in "New Miami Magazine," which reported that "Dade farmers, mostly by shifting production to new areas to the west actually increased total acres under tillage from 78,263 in 1981 to 84,534 in 1987" and that "Dade agricultural acreage [was] not expected to shrink substantially, despite encroachments by developers." The memorandum made many of the same arguments that were advanced by those who spoke on behalf of the Suchmans at the final adoption hearing. Robert Traurig, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 47 on behalf of Alajuela N.V. During his presentation, Traurig stated, among other things, the following: the Application 47 property was contiguous to the 1988 UDB; the failure to include the property within the UDB was an oversight that should be corrected; there was significant residential development surrounding the property in all directions; the area in which the property is located was an area in transition; it was changing from an agricultural area to one that was predominantly residential in character; as demonstrated by the recent development in the area, there was a demand for housing in this part of the County; most of the people who wanted to live in this area could not afford the five-acre estates allowed on property designated for "agricultural" use under the CDMP; the redesignation of the Application 47 property sought by Alajuela N.V. would not have an adverse impact on the agricultural industry in the County; such redesignation was not premature nor would it result in leapfrog development; there were no environmental impediments to the development of the Application 47 property; the elevation of the property was 11 feet above sea level and drainage was good; there were no wetlands on the site; the tree colony on the eastern half of the property would be protected by County ordinance; and there were roadways, parks, fire service and other urban services available to serve the property. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Aviation Director's Comments At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, Rick Elder, the County's Aviation Director, commented on four application properties in Study Area G that were in close proximity to the Tamiami Airport, including Wellenhofer's property. Elder stated that there were no flight patterns over Wellenhofer's property. With respect to noise, he noted that Wellenhofer's property was not within the 65/75 LDN contour. Elder did not indicate that he had any safety concerns regarding Application 39. The Final Adoption Hearing: Debate and Vote by the Board Following the conclusion of that portion of the final adoption hearing devoted to public discussion and debate on March 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners considered and voted on each of the pending applications. At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, the first application to be considered and voted on by the Board was the TND application, Application 71. The Board voted to approve Application 71. The remaining applications were considered and voted on in sequential order. During the Commissioners' debate on Application 39 and other applications in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, Commissioner Gersten expressed the view that, with respect to these applications, neither noise nor safety should be a concern. Commissioner Schreiber concurred. Commissioner Valdes remarked that, although he was opposed to the other applications under consideration, he was not opposed to Application 39 because the property that was the subject of the application was not, according to Aviation Director Elder, under a flight pattern. Commissioner Dusseau indicated his opposition to Application 39. He argued that there was no need for residential development on Wellenhofer's property and that it was preferable to retain its "industrial and office" land use designation to further the creation of an activity center around the airport. Application 39 was approved by a five to three vote. When Application 40 came up for consideration, Commissioner Hawkins recommended that the application be modified. While he did not object to the extension of the UDB to include the Application 40 property, he suggested that only the application property owned by the Suchmans be redesignated for residential use. He explained that, not only would this modification eliminate concerns generated by the application regarding compatibility with airport operations, it would set the stage for the development of a TND in the West Kendall area. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the County Commission had long wanted to have a TND in this area and that the Suchmans were willing to develop their property as a TND if it was redesignated for residential use. Commissioner Dusseau responded to these comments by indicating that he favored the TND concept, but that he did not believe that the Suchmans property was where such a TND should be located. Application 40, as modified pursuant to Commissioner Hawkins' recommendation, initially failed to win approval on a tie vote. On the motion of Commissioner Winn, Application 40, as so modified, was reconsidered. On reconsideration, it was approved by a six to two vote. Application 47 was also approved by a six to two vote. Application 58, which proposed to allow new commercial agricultural uses within the UDB, and Application 62, with its revised population estimates and projections, were among the other applications that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. Of the applications seeking an extension of the UDB, only Applications 40 and 47 were approved. A total of 49 applications, either in their original form or as modified, were approved by the Board. The majority of these applications, like Applications 39, 40 and 47, sought to change one or more land use designations on the FLUM. Other approved applications, in addition to Applications 39, 40 and 47, that sought to have the Board of County Commissioners change a non- residential land use to a residential land use were Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28 and 44. 26/ Approximately 410 acres of land were redesignated on the FLUM from non-residential to residential land uses as a result of the approval of Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 39, 40, 44 and 47. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications will be able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations will have increased the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1930 dwelling units. 208. The approval of Applications 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 23, 27, 29, 45 and 46 resulted in the redesignation on the FLUM of approximately 115 acres of land from residential to non-residential land uses. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 910 dwelling units. Applications 5, 6, 19, 22 and 24 sought to have land designated on the FLUM for "low density residential" use redesignated for "office/residential" use. Applications 8, 15 and 16 sought to have land designated on the FLUM "medium density residential" redesignated "office/residential." These eight applications were all approved. Approximately 105 acres of land were redesignated "office/residential" as a result of the approval of these eight applications. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at their maximum pre-approval residential densities, as indicated on the FLUM, and further assuming that, after these redesignations, they will be developed as office sites exclusively, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1960 dwelling units. If the assumption were made that these redesignated properties will experience both office and residential development 27/ and that the residential development will amount to one half the number of dwelling units that would have been constructed had the property not been redesignated, the reduction in the supply of residential land resulting from these redesignations instead would be 980 dwelling units. It is unlikely, however, that as many as 980 dwelling units will be built on these properties. There were other applications, in addition to those specifically mentioned above, that sought FLUM redesignations and were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, however, they involved a change from one non- residential land use to another non-residential land use and therefore did not have a direct impact on the supply of residential land in the County. When viewed collectively, the changes made by the Board of County Commissioners to the FLUM during the Amendment Cycle have not been shown to have resulted in any appreciable increase in the supply of residential land in the County as a whole. That is not to say, however, that the Board's actions did not serve to increase the supply of residential land in certain areas of the County. For instance, by virtue of its approval of Applications 40 and 47, the Board added to the supply of residential land on the urban fringe in Study Area G and Study Area I, respectively. Following its vote on each of the pending applications, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 90-28, which amended the CDMP in a manner consistent with Board's actions on these applications. (The CDMP, as so amended, will be referred to as the "1990 CDMP." Ordinance No. 90-28 will be referred to as the 1990 Plan Amendment.) The CDMP, as Amended by Ordinance No. 90-28: Key Provisions Statement of Legislative Intent The 1990 CDMP contains a Statement of Legislative Intent. It provides as follows: This Statement expresses the legislative in- tent of the Board of County Commissioners with regard to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). This statement is applicable to the CDMP in its entirety and is declared to be incorporated by reference into each element thereof. Nothing in the CDMP shall be construed or applied to constitute a temporary or permanent taking of private property or the abrogation of vested rights as determined to exist by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The CDMP shall not be construed to preempt considerations of fundamental fairness that may arise from a strict application of the Plan. Accordingly, the Plan shall not be deemed to require any particular action where the Plan is incomplete or internally inconsistent, or that would constitute a taking of private property without due process or fair compensa- tion, or would deny equal protection of the laws. The CDMP is intended to set general guide- lines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. The CDMP contains long-range policies for Dade County. Numerous policies contained in the CDMP must be implemented through the County's land development regulations. Neces- sary revisions will be made to the County's land development regulations by the date required by Section 163.3202, FS. Other policies of the plan propose the establishment of new administrative programs, the modifica- tion of existing programs, or other administra- tive actions. It is the intent of Dade County that these actions and programs be initiated by the date that Dade County adopts its next Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) report, unless another date is specifically established in the Plan. The CDMP is not intended to preempt the processes whereby applications may be filed for relief from land development regulations. Rather, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that such applications be filed, considered and finally determined, and that administrative remedies exhausted, where a strict application of the CDMP would contravene the legislative intent as expressed herein. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and neces- sitate a choice between, different goals, prior- ities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the land use element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board's responsibility to pro- vide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The term "shall" as used in the CDMP shall be construed as mandatory, subject, however, to this Statement of Legislative Intent. The term "should" shall be construed as directory. The FLUM The FLUM is an integral part of the 1990 CDMP's future land use element. It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of permitted land uses for the entire land area of Dade County and, in so doing, reflects the CDMP's goals, policies and objectives, to the extent possible. In addition to a year 2000 UDB, the FLUM also has a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area Boundary. There are 18 land use categories represented on the FLUM: estate density residential communities; low density residential communities; low-medium density residential communities; medium density residential communities; medium-high density residential communities; high density residential communities; industrial and office; restricted industrial and office; business and office; office/residential; institutional and public facility; parks and recreation; agriculture; open lands; environmental protection; environmentally protected parks; transportation; and terminals. The FLUM also depicts activity centers, expressways, major and minor roadways, levees, canals and other bodies of water. The following advisement is set forth on the face of the FLUM: This plan map is not a zoning map! Within each map category on this plan map, numerous land uses, zoning districts and housing types may occur. This plan map may be interpreted only as provided in the plan text entitled "Inter- pretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element." That text provides necessary definitions and standards for allow- able land uses, densities or intensities of use for each map category and for interpretation and application of the plan as a whole. That text must be interpreted in its entirety in interpreting any one plan map category, and no provision shall be used in isolation from the remainder. The land use plan map (LUP), in conjunction with all other adopted components of the Com- prehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), will govern all development-related actions taken or authorized by Metropolitan Dade County. The LUP Map reflects municipal land use policies adopted in municipal comprehen- sive plans. However, this plan does not supersede local land use authority of incor- porated municipal governments currently auth- orized in accordance with the Metro-Dade Charter. For further guidance on future land uses authorized within incorporated municipal- ities, consult the local comprehensive plan adopted by the pertinent municipality. The Interpretative Text That portion of the 1990 CDMP entitled "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" (Interpretive Text) provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the residential land use categories shown on the FLUM: Residential Communities The areas designated Residential Communities on the LUP map permit housing types ranging from detached single-family to attached multi- family structures including manufactured housing and mobile home parks. The residen- tial communities designations indicate the overall residential density for the area. Also permitted in residential communities, in keeping with the Plan's objectives and poli- cies, are secondary neighborhood and community serving uses such as schools, parks, and houses of worship. Some additional uses such as day care centers, foster care and group housing facilities and similar uses, and neighborhood serving institutional and utility uses may also be permitted in residential com- munities in keeping with the circumstances and conditions outlined in this section, and with the objectives and policies of this plan. * * * The Land Use Plan Map includes six residential density categories which are depicted on the Plan map by different symbols/colors. Each category is defined in terms of its maximum allowable gross residential density. Develop- ment at lower than maximum density is allowed and may be required where conditions warrant. For example, in instances where a large portion of the "gross residential acreage" is not a part of the "net" residential building area, the necessity to limit the height and scale of the buildings to that compatible with the sur- rounding area may limit the gross density. The categories do not have a bottom limit or min- imum required density; all categories include the full range of density from one dwelling unit per five acres up to the stated maximum for the category. . . . Estate Density. This density range is typi- cally characterized by detached estates which utilize only a small portion of the total par- cel. Clustering, and a variety of housing types may, however, be authorized. The maxi- mum density allowed in this category is 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low Density. A larger number of units is allowed in this category than in the Estate density. The maximum density allowed is 6 dwelling units per gross acre. This density category is generally characterized by single family type housing, e.g., single family detached, cluster, zero lot line, and town- houses. It could possibly include low-rise apartments with extensive surrounding open space providing that the maximum gross den- sity is not exceeded. Low-Medium Density. This category allows up to 13 dwelling units per gross acre. The types of housing typically found in areas designated low-medium density include single family homes, townhomes, and low-rise apart- ments. Medium Density. This Density Category allows up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The type of housing structures typically permitted in this category include townhouses, low-rise and medium rise apartments. Medium-High Density. This category accommo- dates apartment buildings ranging up to 60 dwelling units per gross acre. In this cate- gory, the height of buildings, and therefore, the attainment of densities approaching the maximum, depends to a great extent on the dimensions of the site, conditions such as location and availability of services, ability to provide sufficient off-street parking, and the compatibility with, and impact of the development on surrounding areas. High Density. This category permits up to 125 dwelling units per gross acre. This den- sity is only found in a few areas located within certain municipalities where land costs are very high and where services will be able to meet the demands. * * * Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Traditional neighborhood developments which incorporate a broad mixture of uses under specific design standards may also be ap- proved in Residential Communities in the manner specifically authorized in this sub- section. The purpose of the traditional neighborhood development is to enable the creation of new communities that offer social and architectural quality, characteristic of early American town planning. Many of these early models, developed prior to 1940, offer insight into the design of coherently planned communities. The concept is patterned after those inherent in these earlier developments and provides a design clarity through a hierarchy of streets, a focus towards pedes- trian activity, low scale community buildings and open squares as the focal point of the neighborhood. The County shall adopt land use regulations that incorporate the objectives of a traditional neighborhood development concept. . . 28/ Within areas designated on the LUP map as Res- idential Communities, a mixed use Traditional Neighborhood Development permitting business, office, industrial, artisanal, home occupa- tions, and other uses authorized by this subsection may be approved providing that the following criteria are met: The minimum contiguous land area is 40 acres and is not located within the Estate density category; and The site is under single-ownership at the time the master development plan or equivalent is approved; and Residential density does not exceed the density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, except that a maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre may be approved in the Low Density category; and Public open spaces such as squares or parks comprise a minimum of five acres or five percent of the developed area, whichever is greater; and Civic uses, such as meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities com- prise a minimum of two percent of the developed area; and Business, office and industrial uses, that are separate from residential mixed uses do not exceed seven percent of the gross land area; and Where the TND borders or is adjacent to land that is designated Estate, Low Density or Low-Medium Residential and land so designated is used for residences or is vacant, the sep- arate business, office, and industrial uses identified in item No. 6 above, and those business, office, and industrial uses mixed with other uses shall not be permitted within 175 feet of the TND boundary and all non-residential components of such uses shall be acoustically and visually screened from said bordering or adjacent land; and when a TND borders land designated Agriculture or Open Land said business, office or industrial uses shall not be permitted within 330 feet of said TND boundary; and Residential, and residential uses mixed with shop-front, artisanal and home occupation uses comprise the remainder of the developed area; and In calculating gross residential density uses listed in item No. 6 shall be excluded, all other uses may be used to determine the maximum permitted density. The Interpretive Text provides that, with respect to the "office/residential" land use category, "[u]ses allowed in this category include both professional and clerical offices and residential uses." The following is stated in the Interpretative Text in pertinent part with respect to the "agriculture" land use category: Agriculture The area designated as "Agriculture" contains the best agricultural land remaining in Dade County. 29/ The principal uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture such as packing houses on compatible sites, and farm residences. Uses ancillary to, and necessary to support the rural residential community of the agricultural area may also be approved, including houses of worship and local schools. In order to protect the agricultural industry it is important that uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area. Residential development that occurs in this area is allowed at a density of no more than one unit per five acres. 30/ Creation of new parcels smaller than five acres for residential use may be approved in the Agriculture area only if the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel on three or more sides is predominantly parcelized in a similar manner, and if a division of the sub- ject land would not precipitate additional land division in the area. No business or industrial use should be approved in the area designated Agriculture unless the use is directly supportive of local agricultural production, is located on an existing arterial roadway, and has adequate water supply and sewage disposal in accordance with Chapter 24 of the County Code, and the development order specifies the approved use(s). Other uses compatible with agriculture and with the rural residential character may be approved in the Agriculture area only if deemed to be a public necessity, or if deemed to be in the public interest and no suitable site for the use exists outside the Agriculture area. Existing quar- rying and ancillary uses in the Agriculture area may continue operation and be considered for approval of expansion. Also included in the Agriculture area are enclaves of estate density residential use approved and grandfathered by zoning, owner- ship patterns and platting activities which predate this Plan. The grandfather provisions of Sections 33-196, 33-280, and 33-280.1 of the Dade County Code shall continue to apply to this area except that lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in area are not grandfathered hereby. Moreover, all existing lawful uses and existing zoning are deemed to be consistent with this Plan unless such a use or zoning: (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 5D, to be inconsistent with the foregoing grandfather provisions or with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as deter- mined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . . . Also deemed to be consistent with this Plan are uses and zoning districts which have been approved by a final judicial decree which has declared this Plan to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to a specific piece of property. This paragraph does not, however, authorize the approval or expansion of any use inconsistent with this plan. To the contrary it is the intent of this Plan to contain and prevent the expansion of inconsistent development in the Agriculture area. Activity centers are described in the Interpretative Text as "high- intensity design unified areas which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically." The Interpretative Text contains the following discussion regarding the UDB: Urban Development Boundary The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is in- cluded on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from the areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2000 provided that level-of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by expanding the UDB when the need for such expansion is deter- mined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accom- modate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infra- structure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be per- mitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. The entire unincorporated area within the UDB is eligible to receive and utilize Severable Use Rights (SURs) in accordance with provi- sions of chapter 33-B, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Accordingly, certain developments as specified in Chapter 33-B may be entitled to density or floor area bonuses as authorized by Chapter 33-B. No new commercial agricultural use of property may be established within the Urban Development Boundary, except on property designated Agri- culture on the LUP map or zoned AU (agricultural) or GU (interim). 31/ All property within the Urban Development Boundary not designated Agri- culture or zoned AU or GU shall not be permit- ted to be used for the establishment of any new commercial agricultural use. An additional exception is that land in utility easements or rights-of-way may be approved for new commercial agricultural uses where the use would be compat- ible with, and would have no unfavorable effect on, the surrounding area. Commercial agricultural uses include, without limitation, all uses of property associated with commercial horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; apiculture; pisciculture, when the property is used principally for the production of tropical fish; all forms of farm production; and all other such uses, except retail nurseries and retail greenhouses. Inci- dental agricultural use of property specifi- cally authorized by zoning which is otherwise consistent with the LUP map does not constitute commercial agriculture within the meaning of this provision. The Urban Expansion Area is described as follows in the Interpretative Text: The Land Use Map also contains a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. The UEA is comprised of that area located between the 2000 UDB and the 2010 UEA Boundary. The Urban Expansion Area is the area where cur- rent projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2000 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2000 and 2010. Until these areas are brought within the year 2000 UDB through the Plan review and amendment process, they are allowed to be used in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth for lands designated as "Agriculture" or the applicable "Open Land" area. Urban infrastructure and services should be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, sometime between the years 2000 and 2010. However, if water or sewer lines or major roadway improvements are extended beyond the UEA in order to serve a necessary public facility that has been approved consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, these improvements should be sized or restric- ted to accommodate only the needs of the public facility. The significance of the UDB and UEA Boundary is explained in the Interpretative Text as follows: Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to respond in kind and provide facil- ities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoor- dinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. The subject of plan amendments is also addressed in the Interpretative Text, which states the following on the subject: It is recognized that the development capacity of the area within the UDB and UEA will vary with time. Part of the supply will be util- ized and additional supply will be added from time-to-time through the approval of Plan Amendments. Some land will be built upon at densities which are higher than permitted by existing zoning because rezonings will occur in the future, and some development will occur at densities lower than that permitted by zoning. Moreover, impediments can arise to the utilization, at maximum potential densities, of all lands within the boundaries. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density or character of a particular area. Because the development capacity of the LUP map fluc- tuates with time, it will be reevaluated on a periodic basis as part of the Plan review and amendment process. The Interpretative Text enumerates the following as the "long- standing concepts embodied in Dade County's CDMP:" Control the extent and phasing of urban development in order to coordinate development with programmed provision of public services. Preserve and conserve land with valuable environmental characteristics, recreation uses, or scenic appeal. Encourage development in areas most suit- able due to soil conditions, water table level, vegetation type, and degree of flood hazard. Restrict development in particularly sensitive and unique natural areas. Maximize public ownership of beaches and shorelands within the Coastal Area to insure their preservation, conservation or public use. Minimize consumption of energy for trans- portation purposes and the amount of air pol- lution from transportation sources by encour- aging a more compact urban form. Shape the pattern of urban development to maximize the efficiency of existing public facilities and support the introduction of new public facilities or services such as improved mass transit systems. Preserve sound and stable residential neighborhoods. Rejuvenate decayed areas by promoting redevelopment, rehabilitation, infilling, and the development of activity centers containing a mixture of land uses. Promote development of concentrated activity centers of different sizes and char- acter to provide economies of scale and effi- ciencies of transportation and other services for both the public and private sectors. Redirect higher intensity development towards activity centers of areas of high countywide accessibility. Allocate suitable and sufficient sites for industrial and business districts to accommodate future employment needs. Prohibit new residential development and other noise sensitive activities from locations near airport noise impact zones. Avoid excessive scattering of industrial or commercial employment locations. Encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands. The Goal and Selected Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element The following is the goal of the future land use element (FLUE) of the 1990 CDMP: Provide the best possible distribution of land use, by type and density, to meet the physical, social, cultural and economic needs of the present and future resident and tourist popu- lation in a manner that will maintain or improve the quality of the natural and man-made environ- ment and amenities, and ensure the timely and efficient provision of services. The following are among the objectives and policies found in the 1990 CDMP's FLUE: Objective 1 Decisions regarding the location, extent and intensity of future land use in Dade County, and urban expansion in particular, will be based upon the physical and financial feasi- bility of providing, by the year 2000, all urbanized areas with services at Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. Policies 1A. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban lands uses, shall be contingent upon the pro- vision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the LOS standards specified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Metro required by Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes (F.S.), implement the requirements of Section 163.3202(2)(g), F.S. 1B. Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial re- sources for services and facilities in Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in allocations for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). * * * Objective 3 The location and configuration of Dade County's urban growth from 1989 through the year 2010 shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Policies 3A. High intensity, well designed activity centers shall be facilitated by Metro-Dade County at locations having high countywide multimodal accessibility. * * * 3C. Metro-Dade shall approve infill devel- opment on vacant sites in currently urbanized areas, and redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped environmentally suitable urban areas contiguous to existing urban development where all necessary urban services and facili- ties are projected to have capacity to accom- modate additional demand. 3D. Metro-Dade shall seek to prevent discon- tinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its biennial CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. * * * 3H. Public facility and service providers shall give priority to eliminating any infra- structure deficiencies which would impede rehabilitation or renewal of blighted areas. 3I. In formulating or amending development regulations, Dade County shall avoid creating disincentives to redevelopment of blighted areas. Where redevelopment occurs within the urban area, requirements for contributions toward provision of public facilities may be moderated where underutilized facilities or surplus capacities exist, and credit toward required infrastructure contributions may be given for the increment of development replaced by redevelopment. * * * Objective 5 Dade County shall, by the year 2000, reduce the number of land uses which are inconsistent with the uses designated on the LUP map and interpretative text, or with the character of the surrounding community. Policies 5A. Uses designated on the LUP map and inter- pretative text, which generate or cause to generate significant noise, dust, odor, vibra- tion, or truck or rail traffic, shall be pro- tected from damaging encroachment by future approval of new incompatible uses such as residential uses. 5B. Residential neighborhoods shall be pro- tected from intrusion by uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tran- quility and overall welfare of the neighbor- hood by creating such impacts as excessive noise, light, glare, odor, vibration, dust, or traffic. 5C. Complementary, but potentially incompat- ible uses shall be permitted on sites with functional neighborhoods, communities or dis- tricts only where proper design solutions can and will be used to integrate the compatible and complementary elements and buffer any potentially incompatible elements. Objective 6 Upon the adoption of this plan, all public and private activity regarding the use, development and redevelopment of land and the provision of urban services and infrastructure shall be consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of this Element, with the adopted Population Estimates and Projections, and with the future uses provided by the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map and accompanying text entitled "Interpreta- tion of the Land Use Plan Map," as balanced with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Ele- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies 6A. The textual material entitled "Interpre- tation of the Land Use Plan Map" contained in this Element establishes standards for allowable land uses, and densities or intensities of use for each land use category identified on the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map, and is declared to be an extension of these adopted Land Use Policies. 6B. All development orders authorizing a new land use or development, or redevelopment, or significant expansion of an existing use shall be contingent upon an affirmative finding that the development or use conforms to, and is consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of the CDMP including the adopted LUP map and accompanying "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map." 6C. All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment in Dade County shall be consistent with the "Population Esti- mates and Projections" contained in this Element, and with the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the LUP map and its interpretative text. 6D. The area population projections shown on the map of "Population Estimates and Projec- tions" shall be used to guide public and private entities in planning for urban devel- opment and redevelopment and to guide the location, timing, and capacity of all urban services and facilities. Objective 7 Beginning in 1989 Dade County shall maintain a process for periodic amendment to the Land Use Plan map, consistent with the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan, which will provide that the Land Use Plan Map accommodates urban expansion at projected countywide rates. Policies 7A. Activity centers, industrial complexes, regional shopping centers, large-scale office centers and other concentrations of signifi- cant employment shall be recognized as poten- tial structuring elements of the Metropolitan area and shall be sited on the basis of metro- politan-scale considerations at locations with good countywide multi-modal accessibility. 7B. Distribution of neighborhood or community serving retail sales uses and personal and pro- fessional offices throughout the urban area shall reflect the spatial distribution of the residential population, among other salient social, economic and physical considerations. 7C. Residential development shall occur in locations that are suitable as reflected by such factors as the following: recent trends in location and design of residential units; projected availability of service and infra- structure capacity; proximity and accessi- bility to employment, commercial and cultural centers; avoidance of natural resource degra- dation; and maintenance or creation of amenities. 7D. In conducting its planning, regulatory, and capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall seek to facilitate planning of residential areas as neighborhoods which include recrea- tional, educational and other public facilities, houses of worship, and safe and convenient cir- culation of automotive, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 7E. Through its planning, regulatory, capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall continue to pro- tect agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Dade County. * * * 7G. Necessary utility facilities may be lo- cated throughout Dade County in all land use categories as provided in the "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map" text. 7H. The maintenance of internal consistency among all Elements of the CDMP shall be a prime consideration in evaluating all requests for amendment to any Element of the Plan. Among other considerations, the LUP map shall not be amended to provide for additional urban expansion unless traffic circulation, mass transit, water, sewer, solid waste, drainage and park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the area are included in the plan and the associated funding programs are demonstra- ted to be viable. 7I. Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Ob- jectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at adopted LOS standards. Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses; and Enhance or degrade environmental or histor- ical resources, features or systems of County significance. Objective 8 Dade County shall continue to maintain in the Code of Metropolitan Dade County and adminis- trative regulations, and shall enhance as nec- essary, by the date required by Section 163.3203, F.S., provisions which ensure that future land use and development in Dade County is consistent with the CDMP. * * * 8D. Dade County shall continue to investigate, maintain and enhance methods, standards and reg- ulatory approaches which facilitate sound com- patible mixing of uses in projects and communi- ties. 8E. Dade County shall enhance and formalize its standards for defining and ensuring compatibility among proximate uses, and requirements for buffer- ing. Factors that will continue to be considered in determining compatibility include, but are not limited to noise, lighting, shadows, access, traffic, parking, height, bulk, landscaping, hours of operation, buffering and safety. Objective 9 Energy efficient development shall be accom- plished through metropolitan land use patterns, site planning, landscaping, building design, and development of multimodal transportation systems. Policies 9A. Dade County shall facilitate contiguous urban development, infill, redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped urban areas, high intensity activity centers, mass transit supportive development, and mixed use projects to promote energy conservation. Selected Goals, Objectives and Policies of Other Elements The following is the goal of the 1990 CDMP's traffic circulation element: Develop, operate and maintain a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system in Metropolitan Dade County that provides ease of mobility to all people and for all goods, is consistent with desired land use patterns, conserves energy, and protects the natural environment. Policy 4C. of the traffic circulation element provides as follows: Dade County's priority in construction, main- tenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan Map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged develop- ment of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transporta- tion improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. The following are among the objectives and policies of the 1990 CDMP's aviation subelement: Objective 4 Minimize air space interactions and obstruc- tions to assure the safety of aviation users and operators and residents of Dade County. Policies * * * 4D. Support zoning that would protect exis- ting and proposed aviation flight paths con- sistent with federal agency guidelines. 4E. Seek federal agency cooperation in pro- tecting future air space from development obstructions. * * * Objective 8 Maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities. Policies * * * 8B. Dade County shall implement Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Studies completed for appro- priate airports through the Land Use Element of the Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, the Dade County Zoning Ordinance, and the South Florida Building Code to provide for land use compatibility in the vicinity of these air- ports. Objective 6 and Policy 6A. of the 1990 CDMP's housing element provide as follows: Objective 6 Increase residential accessibility to public facilities, services, and employment centers throughout the County to include parks and other recreational amenities. Policies 6A. Utilize existing planning and programming mechanisms to insure that new residential devel- opment occurs only if it is coordinated with plans for the provision of an adequate level of services and facilities. Policy 6C. of the 1990 CDMP's conservation, aquifer recharge and drainage element provides as follows: Areas in Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without addi- tional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment until the need for such urban conversion is demonstrated. Objective 1 and Policy 1A. of the 1990 CDMP's water, sewer and solid waste element provide as follows: Objective 1 In order to serve those areas where growth is encouraged and discourage urban sprawl, the County shall plan and provide for potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis in concert and in conformance with the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies 1A. The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the adopted Land Use Plan Map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services, and for commit- ting financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Space, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health or safety. Objectives 3, 4 and 5 and Policies 3B., 4A., 4B. and 5A. of the 1990 CDMP's capital improvements element provide as follows: Objective 3 Upon adoption of this Plan land use decisions will be made in the context of available fiscal resources such that scheduling and providing capital facilities for new development will not degrade adopted service levels. Policies * * * 3B. Service and facility impacts of new de- velopment must be identified and quantified so that sufficient public facilities will be planned and programmed to be available when needed. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban land uses, shall be contingent upon the provision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the adopted LOS standards. * * * Objective 4 Levels of service standards for those services listed in the CIE will be upgraded and main- tained at adopted levels. Policies 4A. By the date set in Section 163.3202 F.S., Dade County shall formalize requirements that all new development regardless of size which benefits from the provision of public facili- ties and infrastructure will bear an equitable share of the costs of such facilities, make contribution in kind or transfer land, in amounts necessary to accommodate the impact of proposed development. 4B. Appropriate funding mechanisms will be adopted and applied by Dade County in order to assure the fiscal resources to maintain acceptable levels of service. Such funding mechanisms include special tax districts, municipal taxing service units, local option taxes, user fees, local gas taxes, general obligation bonds, impact fees, and special purpose authorities among others. * * * Objective 5 Upon the adoption of this plan development approvals will strictly adhere to all adopted growth management and land development regu- lations and will include specific reference to the means by which public facilities and infrastructure will be provided. Policies 5A. As a priority, previously approved de- velopment will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban ser- vices and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service localized needs. This element also includes a five-year schedule of capital improvements. Transmittal of Plan Amendment to the Department On or about April 3, 1990, the County Manager transmitted to the Department Ordinance No. 90-28, along with other documentation, including the written material that the Suchmans had submitted in support of their application, as well as a document prepared by the Planning Department which purported to provide "a synopsis of the information received by the Board of County Commissioners as bases for approving the applications subject to DCA objections." The Planning Department's synopsis stated the following with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47: Application No. 39 The flight path for training flights around Tamiami-Kendall Airport circle around this application site but do not directly fly over this site. This application represents urban infill rather than leap frog development. Approval of residential use on this site will allow people to live in close proximity to the employment center around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport. Application No. 40 The site will be used for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). A covenant was provided to ensure this. Services are available on sites immediately to the east. The area is not flood prone, or environmen- tally sensitive in any way. Extensive testimony and documentation was received which casts doubt on the accuracy of the Planning Department's estimates and pro- jections of growth in this area. (See enclosed exhibits). This site is nearby the industrial and office employment center which is developing around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport, therefore, urbanization of this site complements and supports the policy of promoting development around activity centers. The extension of the Coral Reef Drive corridor provides an alternative to the Kendall Drive corridor as a location for additional urban development. * * * Application 47 The site is bordered on the east and south by the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB). It is in the logical path of future urban development. To the south is the urban- izing area of Homestead. Pockets of estate residential homes and zoning exist in the area designated Agricul- ture to the north and west of this site. There are not level of service problems in the area. The area is not flood prone. The specific density of estate residences to be built on this site is not established by approving the CDMP amendment; that will be decided at a future zoning hearing. The transmittal package sent by the County Manager was received by the Department on April 6, 1990. Suchmans' Request to Receive Notice of the Department's Action By letter dated March 30, 1990, David Goldwich, Esquire, counsel for the Suchmans, requested that the Department send him a copy of the "notice of intent to find the CDMP Application No. 40 in compliance or not in compliance with Chapter 163." The Department responded to Goldwich's letter by sending him a letter, dated April 17, 1990, in which it promised to provide him with a copy of the notice of intent when it was issued. The Department's Compliance Determination: Notice and Statement of Intent In reviewing the County's 1990 Plan Amendment, the Department treated each approved application as a separate amendment to the CDMP. Following its review of these approved applications, the Department issued its notice of intent "to find the amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance 90- 28, Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 16, 19, 22 to 24, 26 to 29, 44 to 46, 49, 51, 53 and 55 to 71 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S." On or about May 15, 1990, the Department sent a copy of the notice of intent to the Miami Herald, along with a letter requesting that the notice be published in the May 21, 1990, edition of the Herald. Through no fault of the Department's, the notice was published in the May 24, 1990, edition of the Herald, instead of the May 21, 1990, edition as the Department had requested. The Department mailed a copy of the notice of intent to the Suchmans' counsel, 32/ although it was never received. By letter dated May 18, 1990, to Mayor Clark, the Department advised the County of its compliance determination. On May 21, 1990, the Department issued a statement of intent in which it explained the bases for its determination that "Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 [were] NOT IN COMPLIANCE." In its statement of intent, the Department alleged that "Amendments 40 and 47 are not supported by an adequate suitability analysis of the vacant land to which they apply, or an adequate analysis documenting the need for the UDB expansion [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(2)(b) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with other provisions in the plan (including but not limited to Objectives 1, 3 and 7, Policies 1A, 1B, 3D, and 7G and implementing procedures on p. 33 and 34 of the Future Land Use Element) concerning discouraging urban sprawl and prioritizing public facilities within the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a), 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(2)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Objective 7, Policies 7E, H and I, and implementing procedures on p. 34 and 35 of the Future Land Use Element, and other provisions of the plan concerning future expansion of the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b), F.A.C.;" "Amendments" 40 and 47 result in "an internal inconsistency because [they] negate the intended effect [of the settlement agreement between the Department and the County] of allowing roadway degradation in existing urban areas, which is to encourage development and redevelopment in such areas, promote public transportation and discourage urban sprawl" and, consequently, these amendments are in violation of "Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(3)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "[A]mendments 40 and 47 are not supported by data analysis which justifies changing the agricultural land use to industrial or residential land use [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendment" 39 "inappropriately places a residential area within a proposed aviation flight path which is inconsistent with Objective 4 and Policy 4D in the Port and Aviation Element of the Dade Comprehensive Plan [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b), 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., F.A.C.; "Amendments" 40 and 47 cause the CDMP to be inconsistent with Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)(2) and 18(b)(1) of the State Comprehensive Plan, as well as Policies 57.1.2 and 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan; and "Amendment" 39 causes the CDMP to be inconsistent with Policy 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan. Referral to the Division: The Department's Petition and Amended Petition On June 8, 1990, the Department filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appended to the petition were copies of the Department's notice of intent and its statement of intent. The Department alleged in the petition that the "plan amendments" made by the County through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28 were: not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" described in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 39 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5, 6 and 7 and Policies 5B, 7C, 7D, and 7I-3 of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (6), F.A.C. Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objectives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. On June 19, 1990, the Department filed an amended petition with the Division. That portion of the original petition excerpted above was modified to read as follows in the amended petition: The plan amendments are not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" de- scribed in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6, and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)1 and 2; Downtown Revitalization Goal (17)(a) and Policy (17)(b)1; Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Poli- cies (18)(b)1 and 2; Economy Policies (22)(b) 3 and 12; Agriculture Goal (23)(a). The Objectors' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Rist's Amended Petition On June 26, 1990, the Objectors filed with the Division a joint petition for leave to intervene in this matter. The petition incorporated the allegations that the Department had made in the original petition it had filed with the Division, as well as the recommendations that the Dade County Planning Department had made with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47. In addition, the Objectors alleged the following in their petition regarding these approved applications: [S]aid amendments 39, 40, and 47 are inconsis- tent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Sec- tion 187.201, F.S., specifically subsections 16a, 16b1, 16b2, 17a, 17b1, 18a, 18b1, 18b2, 20a, 22b3, 22b12, and 23a. Briefly put, the amendments fail, inter alia, to preserve natural resources; fail to maintain and expand agriculture; fail to encourage the separation of rural and urban life; provide for incompatible neighboring uses; promote urban sprawl; waste public and private assets; and fail to aid in a state transpor- tation system. * * * The amendments are not supported by data showing a need for the uses approved [and] thus violate Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. On December 10, 1990, at the outset of the final hearing in the instant case, Objector Rist requested permission to file an amended petition which contained the following additional allegations not found in the Objectors' joint petition for leave to intervene: Amendments 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" pages I-35 through 39 and not pages 33 through 35 of the Future Land Use Element as erroneously cited in the original petition. It is alleged that amendment 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policies 3A, 3H, 5A, and 7A of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 39, 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policy 6C of the Con- servation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment 39 does not reflect and is incon- sistent with Objective 8 of the Ports and Avia- tion Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Policy 23(b)2 of the State Comprehensive Plan. Miscellaneous Findings: The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan addresses issues of statewide importance. The following are among the more than 300 individual goals and policies which comprise the State Comprehensive Plan: LAND USE.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhanc- ing the quality of life of the state, develop- ment shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives, and disin- centives which encourages a separation or urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. * * * DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of Florida's developing and redeveloping down- towns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient and environmentally accept- able manner, Florida shall encourage the cen- tralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. Policies.- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. * * * PUBLIC FACILITIES.- Goal.- Florida shall protect the sub- stantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.- Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing pub- lic facilities. Promote rehabilitation and reuse of exis- ting facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. * * * (20) TRANSPORTATION.- (a) Goal.- Florida shall direct future trans- portation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass tran- sit, and other transportation modes. * * * THE ECONOMY.- Goal.- Florida shall promote an economic climate which provides economic stability, max- imizes job opportunities, and increases per capita income for its residents. Policies.- * * * Maintain, as one of the state's primary economic assets, the environment, including clean air and water, beaches, forests, historic landmarks, and agricultural and natural resour- ces. * * * 12. Encourage the development of a business climate that provides opportunities for the growth and expansion of existing state indus- tries, particularly those industries which are compatible with Florida's environment. * * * AGRICULTURE.- Goal.- Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and re- lated industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and inter- national marketplace. Policies. Ensure that goals and policies contained in state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Encourage diversification within the agri- culture industry, especially to reduce the vulnerability of communities that are largely reliant upon agriculture for either income or employment. Miscellaneous Findings: The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Plan for South Florida to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The following are among the more than 650 individual goals and policies found in the Regional Plan: Regional Goal: 57.1 New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot economic- ally be provided. Regional Policies: * * * 57.1.2 Give priority to development in areas that are in need of redevelopment and in areas within which adequate support services are either programmed or available Regional Goal: 58.1 Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of land uses on the surrounding environment. Regional Policies: * * * 58.1.7 Encourage the compatibility of adja- cent land uses. * * * Regional Policies: 64.2.1 Land use in and around air- and sea-ports must be strictly controlled to allow future increased operations, to optimize volume, and to prevent unnecessary social or economic conflicts and costs. * * * Regional Goal: The 1990-1995 rate of loss of agricul- tural land to urban uses should be reduced by 10 percent from the 1980-1985 rate. Regional Policies: Encourage activities that maintain an economic/regulatory climate to ensure the con- tinued viability of agricultural interests when those interests are balanced against other concerns. The Regional Plan contains the following "background" information regarding the goal and policies pertaining to agriculture: Agriculture is one of Florida's most important industries. Traditional agriculture (citrus, vegetables and melons, livestock, poultry, greenhouse and nursery, field and other crops) contributed 27 billion dollars to Florida's economy in 1984. The agricultural vitality of South Florida stems from its climate which allows crops to be grown throughout the year, and the production of unique crops such as mangoes. In 1980, 126,785 acres of land, 4.7 percent of the total area in South Florida, was in cropland, pasture and range land, and forest land. This represents 0.5 percent of all such land in the State. Agricultural land is rapidly being lost. . . . When compared to Broward County, Dade County generates a significantly larger share of the economic activity due to agriculture in the Region. 33/ Current 1986 figures show 85,000 acres in agriculture, producing a large variety of crops. These include: tomatoes, snap beans, Irish potatoes, squash, tropical vegetables, sweet corn and fruits such as limes, mangoes and avocados. The markets for these fruits and vegetables are mainly in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Canada. Dade County is the largest producer of toma- toes, snap beans, and squash, of any county in the State of Florida. Over 90 percent of limes and mangoes produced in the United States are grown in Dade County. Dade County has the largest ornamental nursery industry of any county in the State of Florida. The main reason for Dade's success in agriculture is South Florida's climate. Vegetables are pro- duced in mid-winter when no other areas in the U.S. are producing. These crops provide fresh produce for the country's markets. It is significant to note that Dade County ranks last in the State for average farm size (59 acres) but is fifth in the State for market value of agricultural products. Agriculture is profitable on a per acre basis because the climate allows for double cropping. . . . In 1983, the agricultural industry produced less than 1 percent of total earnings in the South Florida region. The importance of this sector cannot be measured in dollar terms alone. The general public tends to view agriculture as a transitional land use. The benefits of maintaining the agricultural economy, however, are significant. Agricultural land can provide open space between areas with urban uses, it can serve as a watershed where water is collec- ted and later used in a farm or non-farm use, it can provide a habitat for wildlife, and it can provide unique beauty. New technology and agricultural practices are also providing new opportunities for disposing of sewage sludge on agricultural lands, benefitting both the rural and urban sectors. . . . Agricultural research activities have already yielded many benefits to South Florida agri- culture. Progress has been made in developing: more efficient irrigation systems, integrated pest management, improved strains of crops in production, as well as new crops to put into production. The findings of agricultural research can continue to improve the conser- vation, production, and marketing techniques available to South Florida farmers. South Florida farmers are experiencing many of the same problems that farmers in other high growth areas are facing. 34/ Land in South Florida that is suitable for agricul- tural use is also highly suitable for urban uses. Given the geographic configuration of the Florida Peninsula agricultural areas are never far removed from urban areas. Urban growth and the pressures of suburbanization are constantly felt by the Region's farmers. 35/ Many problems arise when agricultural and urban land uses interface. Non-farm residents complain because of farm noise, smells, and such practices as fertilizer and pesticide spraying. Nuisance suits and ordinances that prohibit certain farm practices create pressures that reduce the profitability and desirability to farm. 36/ Farm land conversion to urban uses is a serious problem in our Region. 37/ Analysis of prop- erty appraiser data shows the reduction in net agricultural acreage between 1980-1985 to be 18 percent for the Region. This figure applies mainly to agricultural land in Broward County. According to the Dade County Cooperative Exten- sion Service, net agricultural acreage has re- mained stable for the past 20 years. 38/ This is because land rezoned for urban uses has been replaced by other lands converted for agricul- tural use. This represents another problem. As agricultural land is converted to urban uses, agriculture may be pushed into wetlands, wild- life habitats, and other fragile ecosystems. Miscellaneous Findings: Urban Sprawl In November, 1989, the Department of Community Affairs published a Technical Memorandum (Volume IV, Number 4) which was designed "to help local governments and interested parties understand the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl that must be met to comply with Florida's planning requirements." The memorandum defines "urban sprawl" as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection." According to the memorandum, "urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following inefficient land use patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." These land use patterns are described in the memorandum as follows: Leapfrog development occurs when new develop- ment is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appro- priate for urban development. * * * Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant com- munities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the loca- tion of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential de- velopment in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. * * * Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that should be protected from urban development. This land-intensive devel- opment pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. The memorandum's description of "urban sprawl" is consistent with the definition most commonly employed by professional planners. Indicators of sprawl mentioned in the memorandum include the following: The amount of residential land and densities depicted on the future land use map signifi- cantly exceed the projected need for residen- tial land use by type during the planning period. In discussing this indicator, the memorandum advised that "[a]ny plan in which the amount of land designated to receive development totals more than 125 percent of the amount needed to accommodate projected need will be closely scrutinized by the DCA." In order to ascertain whether development meets the definition of "urban sprawl" used by the Department, it may be necessary to determine whether the area involved is "rural" or on the "urban fringe." The memorandum suggests that such a determination may be based upon the area's population density. According to the memorandum, areas should be classified as follows based upon their population densities Density per square mile: Classification 0-200 Rural 201-500 Exurban 501-1000 Suburban 1001-2000 Medium [Urban] Density 2001-5000 High [Urban] Density 5000+ Highest Urban Density Among the specific techniques recommended in the memorandum to curb "urban sprawl" are establishing "urban service areas and urban growth boundaries," "[p]romoting urban infill development and redevelopment," and imposing "mixed-use and clustering requirements." With respect the latter technique, the memorandum states as follows: One of the most important and critical tech- niques for discouraging sprawl is strong mixed use policies which require residential and nonresidential uses to be located in reason- ably close proximity to each other. Such policies should promote an attractive, func- tionally and physically integrated mix of commercial, office, retail, residential (including affordable housing), and recrea- tional land uses. Development designed in this manner can even occur away from existing urban areas and not represent urban sprawl if it consists of a complementary mix of residen- tial and nonresidential land uses at medium to high densities, promotes high levels of inter- nal capture, does not rely on rural arterials for local traffic movements, and encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The tradi- tional neighborhood development district code is an example of how this concept can be implemented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order in Case No. 90-3599GM finding that Metropolitan Dade County's 1990 Plan Amendment is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Brevard County's 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 (the Plan Amendments) are "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact General Besides the introduction of the Plan Amendments themselves and a few other documents, Petitioners case-in-chief consisted of examination of Susan Poplin, a Planning Manager for DCA, as an adverse witness, and the testimony of Petitioner, Charles F. Moehle. Most of Poplin's testimony was directly contrary to the positions Petitioners were seeking to prove. Moehle's testimony consisted primarily of conclusions and statements disagreeing with the Plan Amendments. Petitioners provided no data or analysis in support of Moehle's statements and conclusions. Often, Moehle's testimony did not identify specific errors allegedly made by the County. Much of Moehle's presentation was disjointed and difficult to understand. Petitioners also challenged several items which should have been challenged following prior amendments to the County's Plan. For example, Poplin testified that all of the wetland provisions in the challenged Conservation Element B.12 amendments were part of a prior plan amendment and were not changed by the Plan Amendments. See Findings of Fact 7-8, infra. Standing Petitioners' allegations of standing are in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition for Formal Review: EFFECT ON PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS Petitioner, MODERN owns property in Brevard County, the value of which will be reduced by THE AMENDMENT. Additionally, petitioners MODERN and MOEHLE own property in Brevard County and pay property taxes in Brevard County. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause property tax receipt's of Brevard County to decline because of the reduction in value caused to MODERN'S, MOEHLE'S, and other similarly situated property in the county. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause MODERN'S and MOEHLE'S property taxes to increase due to the additional government employees required to implement and enforce THE AMENDMENT and due to the fact that the property taxes imposed upon property which are not effected [sic] by THE AMENDMENT will necessarily increase in order to offset the loss of property tax revenue from private property which is devalued as a result of THE AMENDMENT. MOEHLE and MODERN have appeared before the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners at public meetings and hearings as well as communicating (verbally and in writing) with their growth Management/Planning & Zoning Departments concerning these matters for several years. In an attempt to prove Petitioners' standing, Moehle testified that he has been a resident of Brevard County since 1958. He also testified that he is President of and owns a substantial interest in Petitioner, Modern, Inc. He testified that both he himself and Modern own real property in Brevard County, and that, as such, both are taxpayers. Moehle also testified that he is "affected by these regulations." He gave no specifics as to how he is affected. He also did not testify that Modern was affected. Before concluding his brief testimony on standing, Moehle asked the ALJ if he had to "ramble on some more" about standing and was asked whether he submitted "oral or written comments, comments, recommendations or objections to the County between the time of the transmittal hearing for the Plan amendment and the adoption of the Plan amendment." Moehle answered: I submitted during the whole period of this - I attended a number of hearings that I knew about during this whole process and I would say that, yes, I did, but not all hearings. Some were questionable - some of my problems or some of the meetings that the action was taken on. So they do have my comments, they've had my comments from me on various issues complete back before and including the Settlement Agreement. The evidence was that all hearings and meetings relating to the "Settlement Agreement" to which Moehle referred in his testimony occurred prior to the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments at issue in this case on November 30, 1999. The referenced "Settlement Agreement" was the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into in May 1997 to resolve DOAH Case No. 96-2174GM. The County amended its Comprehensive Plan to implement the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on August 24, 1999, by Ordinance 99-48. By Ordinance 99-52, adopted October 7, 1999, the remedial amendments were clarified to include the correct Forested Wetlands Location Map. Ordinance 99-49 and 99-52 both state that the plan amendments adopted by them "shall become effective once the state planning agency issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(10)." The stated "Justification" for Policy 5.2 of the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case was: "The above language was part of a stipulated settlement agreement between DCA and the County. This agreement became effective after the transmittal of the 99B Plan Amendments." Apparently for that reason, the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case, specifically under Objective 5 and Policies 5.1 and 5.2, underlined the wetland provisions previously adopted by Ordinance 99-48. This underlining may give the misimpression that these wetlands provisions were being amended through adoption of Ordinance 2000-33. To the contrary, those amendments already had been adopted, and all hearings on those amendments already had occurred prior to transmittal of the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. Other than testifying that he attended hearings and made submittals "before and including the Settlement Agreement," Moehle did not specify when he attended, or what if anything he said or submitted. Nor did he offer any testimony or evidence that he appeared on behalf of Modern. No minutes or other evidence were produced for the record showing his appearance or comments, recommendations or objections. To the contrary, Petitioners' evidence indicates that Moehle was not one of the individuals who offered public comment at either the transmittal hearing on November 30, 1999; the Land Use Citizens Resource Group meeting on November 4, 1999; or the Local Planning Agency Adoption Meeting on May 15, 2000. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, also alleged: that the value of property owned by Modern will be reduced; that the Plan Amendments will cause property tax receipts to decline because of a reduction in the value caused to Petitioners' property; and 3) that the Plan Amendments will cause Petitioners' property taxes to increase due to additional government employees required to implement and enforce the Plan Amendments and due to an increase in taxes for properties not directly affected by the Plan Amendments. None of these allegations were supported by record evidence. Notice Petitioners' allegation of improper notice is contained in paragraph 7.I. of the Amended Petition: Petitioners allege that THE AMENDMENT is subject to the notice requirements of Florida Statute subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2), and or 125.66(4) and that Respondent COUNTY has failed to comply with said statutes. (Several other paragraphs of the Amended Petition also allege inadequate notice. See Findings of Fact 19, 28, 44, 50, 54, 63, 65, and 76, infra.) Petitioners filed copies of the applicable advertisements. Moehle testified that the type was "wrong" and the size was "wrong" - the exact nature of the alleged error was not stated. But review of the advertisements for the transmittal and adoption hearings reveals that both are two columns wide, and the headline appears to be in a very large, bold type. Other than Moehle's general complaint about the type being "wrong," there was no testimony or other evidence that the type is not 18-point. Other aspects of the advertisements do not appear to be challenged by Petitioners. The advertisements themselves show that the transmittal hearing was held on November 30, 1999 (a Tuesday) and that the advertisement was run on November 22, 1999, eight days prior to the day of the hearing. They also show that the adoption hearing was on May 16, 2000 (a Tuesday). The advertisement for the adoption hearing was run on May 10, 2000, six days prior to the meeting. The proof of publication shows that the advertisements were not in a portion of the newspaper where legal notices or classified ads appear and that the Florida Today is a newspaper of general circulation. The evidence also included advertisements for local planning agency hearings and meetings relating to the Plan Amendments other than the transmittal and adoption hearings. These other advertisements appear to have been published in legal ad sections, and the type is smaller than that used for the transmittal and adoption hearings. It appears that Moehle was referring to these advertisements when he said the type and size was "wrong." Species and Wetlands Preservation Versus Promoting Infill Development Paragraph 7.IV. of the Amended Petition alleges: The challenged provisions of the THE AMENDMENT, as set forth herein below, violate the legislative intent and spirit of Fl. Stat. Ch. 163, Part II because they place species and wetland preservations over the stated policy goal of promoting infill and development in areas which have concurrency and infrastructure available. The challenged provisions promote leap frog development by making the development of parcels of private property which have concurrency and appropriate infrastructure but also have any quantity of listed species habitat or wetlands unusable. Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3177(10)(h), 163.3177(11). No evidence was offered supporting the claim that species and wetland preservation were "placed over" the goal of promoting infill. Nor was there any evidence provided by Petitioners to show that leapfrog development or urban sprawl was caused by protecting wetlands. To the contrary, Poplin's testimony discussed urban sprawl and leapfrog development in terms of impacts to services and facilities. She clearly stated: "[T]here are no set priorities. We look at each individual local government on a case by case basis. . . . So . . . [it] depends on the context in which its based [sic] in the plan." Poplin also testified that the County had levels of service in place for facilities and services pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(a), and that the County's Plan and the subject Plan Amendments have level of service standards which meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2). Poplin also testified that the County had a Capital Improvements Element which was in compliance with Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(b). She also testified that there was coordination of the various comprehensive plan elements as required by Section 163.3177. Thus, she concluded, the conservation and capital improvements (infrastructure) elements interacted properly. There was no evidence to the contrary. Section 163.3177(10)(h) states that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide public services concurrently with development. Section 163.3177(11) discusses the legislative intent to have innovative planning to address urbanization, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, land use efficiencies in urban areas and conversion of rural land uses. No evidence of any kind was presented regarding these provisions. Certainly, no data and analysis showing failure to meet these statutory provisions were presented by Petitioners. Listed Species Definition Paragraph 8.I.A.2 of the Amendment Petition states: Listed Species definition - pg 11. This change should not be made because the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan was not made available timely for public review and public comments per the hearing and notice requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and or 125.66(4). Prior to the Plan Amendments, the Conservation Element had a Directive entitled "Wildlife." The "Wildlife" directive stated in part: "Development projects should avoid adverse impacts to species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern." The directive also included a definition of the term "listed species": "those species which are listed as either endangered, threatened or as species of special concern." The Plan Amendments deleted these provisions. The stated Justification for deleting the first provision was: "Objective 9 embodies the intent of this directive." The stated Justification for deleting second provision was: "'Listed species' have been defined in the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan." As in several other places in the Amended Petition, Petitioners complain about lack of notice and an opportunity for a hearing as to the updated Glossary. Actually, it appears that the Glossary was not updated along with the Plan Amendments. For that reason, there were no Glossary changes to be noticed. Although the Glossary was not updated to provide the definition of the phrase "listed species," as indicated in the Justification for deleting it from the Directives, the phrase is commonly used to refer to species are listed as threatened or endangered under various state and federal regulations. Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. requires identification and analysis of natural resources including "species listed by federal, state, or local government agencies as endangered, threatened or species of special concern." Species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened (50 C.F.R., Section 17.11) fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et. seq.). Listed and unlisted bird species, other than waterfowl and game birds, are also federally protected by the Migratory Bird Act (16 U.S.C. Section 703 et. seq.). The bald eagle has additional federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668- 668d). Marine animals (including whales, dolphins, and the West Indian Manatee) are also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1361 et. seq.) In addition, 24 species of vertebrates are listed by the State as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code. Both snook and Atlantic sturgeon receive further state protection under Chapter 46, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, 1977, also protects species listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern under Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000). Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000), provides additional protection for the American alligator as defined in the Alligators/Crocodilla Protection Act. Sea turtles and the West Indian manatee are further protected by the State through the Marine Turtles Protection Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)) and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)). Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the phrase "listed species" cannot be understood without a specific definition within the comprehensive plan. Conservation Element Policy 8.5, Protection Of Vegetative Communities Paragraph 8.I.B. of the Amended Petition states: Policy 8.5 - pg 41. This change should not be made because the justification is not correct. These referenced lists were not made available to the public at the relevant public hearing for review and comment in violation of the requirements of Fl. Stat. Section 163.3184. The modification goes beyond the stated intent to merely improve readability and clarify the existing policy in that it actually modifies existing policy. . . . (The last clause was stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. Before the Plan Amendments, Policy 8.9 of the Conservation Element provided that the County would develop a program for the protection of vegetative communities from inappropriate development by 1992. The former provision was replaced with Policy 8.5, which revises the action date to 2002 and states that the County shall protect vegetative communities from inappropriate development. G1 and G2 vegetative communities, as contained in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, were added to S1 and S2 communities (which were already in the Plan) for consideration for protection. Poplin testified that the G1 and G2 categories were defined by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and were synonymous with the S1 and S2 categories which were already defined in the Plan. The adopted "Justification" for new Policy 8.5 itself indicates that the addition of the G1 and G2 categories "did not add additional vegetative communities that may be considered for protection." In other words, nothing actually changed as to the vegetation (or types of vegetation); only the nomenclature or titles of categories changed. Conservation Element, Objective 9 and Policy 9 Species of Special Concern, Crucial/Critical Habitat Paragraph 8.I.C.,D., and E. of the Amended Petition states: Objective 9 and Policy 9, including sub- sections A, B, C, D, E, of 9.2 (species of special concern, crucial/critical habitat) - pg 43. Species of special concern should not be added. It was discussed at a properly advertised public hearing and its addition was rejected. It was added back at a subsequent and not properly noticed workshop meeting and did not allow proper public input. It is unjustifiably onerous to the regulated public as added, in violation of Fl. Stat. 120.52(8)(g). Crucial habitat should not be allowed to [be] substituted for critical habitat because the new glossary of definitions was not completed timely to allow public review and comment. The resource maps to be used are not identified or indicated that they have been created beyond "draft" status or had proper notice, public review or comment. The reduction from 5 acres to 1 acre in 9.2.C was improperly added at a workshop subsequent to the properly noticed public hearing at which this item was disposed of with public hearing and comment and leaving the size of 5 acres. The provision that the "acquisition of land by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program shall be voluntary, and shall not include the use of eminent domain" should not be removed in Policy 9.4 (pg. 45). These new provisions do not meet the requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 120.58(8) and 120.525, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3181, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3184(15), Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(2), and or Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(4). (The identified sentence and references were stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. As to "crucial habitat," amended Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element requires that an ordinance be developed by 2002 requiring a "crucial habitat" review at the pre-application stage of certain projects. Previously, the plan required development of an ordinance in 2004 requiring a "critical habitat" review in those situations. Apparently, "critical habitat" was defined in the pre-amendment Glossary. (Neither the Glossary nor the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments was put in evidence.) No regulations regarding "crucial habitat" were in effect as of final hearing. A definition of the term "crucial habitat" might well be desirable. (Apparently, an amendment to the Glossary to include such a definition is being considered by someone--it is not clear from the evidence by whom.) But it is possible to use dictionary definitions of "crucial" and "habitat" to derive a useful meaning of the term "crucial habitat" used in Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the term "crucial habitat" cannot be adequately understood without a specific definition in the comprehensive plan. "Species of special concern" is a phrase used by Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. in describing natural resources to be identified and analyzed in a local government's conservation element. The "resource maps" mentioned in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition are not new to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the Plan Amendments, Policy 10.2.A. stated that the County's Office of Natural Resources Management must "develop resource maps showing potential areas for critical wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species." Amended Policy 9.2.A. requires that Office to "use resource maps which show potential areas of crucial wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species and species of special concern." While the descriptions of these maps were changed by the amendment, the general manner in which they are identified is the same. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the amendments cannot be adequately understood without identification in a more specific manner or reference to maps already completed. Petitioners' next complaint in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition was that the threshold for required crucial habitat review in Policy 9.2.C. of the Conservation Element should not have been changed from five-acre projects to one-acre projects. Petitioners' primary argument was that the County discussed this change at a workshop. The only evidence in support of this argument was Moehle's testimony: "[T]he changes that show up in here were rejected in those previous hearings so the public has the impression well, that item is done and settled. Then all of a sudden at a workshop it shows up when nobody - they are not necessarily -- you can't obtain the advance agenda for that and you find a notice in the paper from time to time." In fact, the workshops were noticed in the newspapers. In addition, the transmittal and adoption hearings were noticed. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. As for Petitioners' request for reinstatement of the language regarding voluntary acquisition of environmentally endangered lands, former Policy 10.4 addressed development of an acquisition program; amended Policy 9.4 addresses a continuation of that program. The Justification explains that the amendments were "intended to reflect the achievement of this policy as a result of the EELs [Environmentally Endangered Lands] Program." There was no evidence to support the argument that removal of the voluntary acquisition language in any way changes the EELs Program or creates a compliance issue. Conservation Element Policy 9.13, Species of Special Concern Paragraph 8.I.G. of the Amended Petition stated: Policy 9.13 - species of special concern, habitat rarity, pg 48. This change is inconsistent with the same Florida Statutes and for the same reasons as I.C, I.D, I.E (A, B, C, E, E) and I.F above. Policy 9.13 contains a requirement to develop model management plans for species of special concern dependent on habitat rarity and loss rates. The amendment to former Policy 10.13 merely changes the target date (from 1990 to 2002) and adds "species of special concern" to the other resources sought to be addressed by the model management plans. The provision does not establish new regulations. It merely calls for future action in the development of model management plans. Again, there was no evidence to support the argument that these changes created a compliance issue. See Findings of Fact 32-33, supra. Scrub Habitat Map Paragraph 8.I.H. of the Amended Petition stated: Appendix - List of Maps, pg 52. The Scrub Habitat Map should not be included because it is part of the Scrub Habitat Study done in Brevard County which was not adopted/accepted as a final map by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. The map is a "draft" map done over 5 years ago, not finalized, and not accurate. Objections at public meetings, with Brevard County Staff, and with the outside consultants preparing the map have never been addressed on the map. Among the inaccuracies are hundreds (maybe thousands) of acres on government lands. The map is wholly deficient and incorrect to become an official map representing the scrub habitat of Brevard County. It doesn't come close to accurately depicting the scrub situation of Brevard County. The map is not supported by competent substantial evidence, has not been officially adopted by the County Commission, the requisite public notices have not been held. Any policy or regulation based upon the map would be equally erroneous and would result in unnecessary regulatory costs, and would be arbitrary or capricious and would be based upon inadequate standards. At final hearing, Moehle testified: "The scrub habitat map as included in the amendments does not include the best available information which information has been available for a number of years." But the Scrub Jay Habitat map Petitioners sought to use to prove this contention (Petitioners' Exhibit 6) was not admitted into evidence because it was not authenticated. The Scrub Habitat Map apparently added to the Appendix of Conservation Element maps through the B.12 Plan Amendments does not appear to map scrub on federal lands. (At least, no scrub is indicated in the extensive federal lands on the map.) But there was no competent evidence as to the significance of the failure to map scrub habitat on federal lands. (Nor did Petitioners cite to any authority for the proposition that excluding federal lands outside the County's jurisdiction is a violation of Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5.) While Petitioners never clearly articulated their concerns about the Scrub Habitat Map, it appeared that they might have had concerns about the impact of the map on protection of scrub jays. Specifically, Petitioners seem to contend that some scrub jays will not be protected as a result of the map's omission of scrub on federal lands. But, in that regard, amended Conservation Element Policy 9.2. in the B.12 Plan Amendments provides for the development of an ordinance by 2002 that would provide, among other things, that if any endangered or threatened species or species of special concern are found on a project site, or there is evidence that such a species is onsite, the relevant state and federal agency permits would have to be obtained and documented prior to issuance of a building or construction permit. Once adopted, these regulations would protect scrub jays wherever the birds exist. Another apparent concern was that the Scrub Habitat Map allegedly was over 5 years old. Meanwhile, other maps allegedly have been or are in the process of being developed. But Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Scrub Habitat Map was not the best available data at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments. Land Use Element, Administrative Policies Paragraph 8.II. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999B.13 The Administrative Policies 1 thru 8 (pg iv) which have been proposed for inclusion in the future Land Use Element by the County Attorney and added by a April 29, 2000 workshop were not timely provided for public review and comment by a properly noticed hearing in violation of the notice requirements of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and 125.66(4). They are over- broad, too general in nature, vague, and fail to establish adequate standards for county staff decisions, and vest unbridled discretion in the county staff in violation of Florida Statute 120.54(8). Detailed examples of this include: In Administrative Policy 1 - Brevard County zoning officials, planners and the director of planning and zoning should not be arbitrarily, capriciously, and without adequate defined standards be recognized as expert witnesses. Standards with detailed qualifications should be developed and included for each category of expert before this provision is considered for adoption. In Policy 2 (page iv) county staff recommendation should not automatically be considered expert testimony without qualifications. Page 1 under DIRECTIVES. The Future Land Use paragraph should not be deleted until sufficient emphasis has been placed in the requirement to ensure that sufficient land uses are available to support the anticipated population. It has not been at this time, in violation of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3177(6)(f). As to 8.II.A., the evidence indicated that the advertisements were published in the time frames required and according to the standards set out by statute. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Furthermore, Petitioners failed to establish that the Administrative Policies 1-8 were unavailable at the public hearing or that the Board of County Commissioners was not authorized to consider those policies. The language of the last sentence of paragraph 8.II. should have been stricken with similar provisions at the beginning of the final hearing because of its reliance on Section 120.54(8), which addresses rulemaking activities and not the compliance requirements of Chapter 163. There was no competent, substantial evidence to support any of the other allegations in paragraph 8.II.A. As to 8.II.A.(iii), there was only Moehle's statement regarding the lack of land availability while he was questioning Poplin. Poplin testified that the County should provide an adequate amount of different land uses to accommodate a variety of people and activities. She also testified that the County had provided more than enough residential land to accommodate projected populations. Poplin noted that the County's EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) included or referenced several sources indicating that the County has more than enough land to meet their residential and non-residential needs through the planning time frame. In fact, she testified that land allocated for residential use is over 170 percent of the land necessary for the County's projected population. In explaining the "right-sizing" undertaken in the Plan Amendment, Poplin testified that two major changes have occurred since the adoption of the original County Plan. First, the County sold a substantial amount of land to the water management district; this land is now designated as Conservation. Secondly, some developments have been built to less than their full potential. Poplin testified: "My understanding of the County's actions is that this right sizing is to recognize areas that have developed and maybe have developed at lower densities. So by revising the densities on the map, they're recognizing this." Finally, Poplin testified that the future land use map (FLUM) and the policies proposed in the subject Plan Amendment are consistent with previous actions, previous development patterns, and previous purchases that have occurred within the County. As for Section 163.3177(2), cited by Petitioners at the end of paragraph 8.II.A.(iii) of the Amended Petition, the statute requires coordination of the land use elements. Poplin testified that the County has adequate facilities and services to provide for the land use plan proposed in its FLUM. Section 163.3177(6)(f) requires a housing element. There was no evidence that these elements do not exist in the County's comprehensive plan. Land Use Element Policy 1.1, Residential Land Use Designations Almost all of Paragraph 8.II.B. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. Only the title and last sentence remained: Residential Land Use Designations, Policy 1.1 (reduced densities - pg 14). Property owners (including PETITIONERS) whose land use/zoning classification is no longer in compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment have not been notified as required by Florida Statutes subsection 125.66. Petitioners themselves provided evidence establishing that the statutory notice was properly given. See Findings of Fact 12- 14, supra. Land Use Element Policy 1.2, Public Facilities and Services The last sentence of Paragraph 8.II.C. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. The remaining allegation was: Public Facilities and Services Requirements, Policy 1.2 (page 15). In subsection E, the prohibition by use of the words "shall not" are too harsh, restrictive, and confiscatory and should be replaced "shall not be required at the expense of the County." But the language of Criterion F under Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.2 already states what Petitioners seek. Simply stated, Petitioners want the policy to state that private parties were not prohibited from building additional public facilities. The second sentence of the policy states: "This criterion is not intended to preclude acceptance of dedicated facilities and services by the county through . . . other means through which the recipients pay for the service or facility." Finally, the language of Criterion F under Policy 1.2 existed elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments; it is not new. The Plan Amendments simply changed the location of the language in the Plan. Land Use Policies 1.31 and 1.4 Paragraph 8.II.D. of the Amended Petition stated: Residential 30, Policy 1.31 and Residential 15, Policy 1.4 (pgs. 16, 18). In subsections 1.31.A.1.3 and 1.4.A. respectively, the limitation of this designation to east of Interstate 95 is arbitrary, capricious and is not supported by substantial evidence. It imposes excessive regulatory costs upon regulated property owners. It is confiscatory and fails to recognize the vested rights of property owners. There are areas west of Interstate 95 just as suitable and qualifying as areas east of Interstate 95. This policy fails to recognize existing or new infrastructure which services areas west of I-95 and is therefore inconsistent with other policies. New policy 1.4 is similar and related and also limits densities west of Interstate 95 under all circumstances. This change and any other related restrictions to all areas west of I-95 should be eliminated. FLUE Policies 1.3 (the proper number, not 1.31) and 1.4 deal with residential densities. Pertinent to Petitioners' complaint, Residential 30, allowing up to 30 units per acre, is located east of Interstate 95; generally, maximum residential density west of Interstate 95 is 15 units per acre in Residential 15, except where "adjacent to existing or designated residential densities of an equal or higher density allowance." Petitioners presented no evidence in opposition to these residential densities or designations or the data and analysis supporting them. To the contrary, Poplin testified that there was adequate data and analysis to support the changes. See Finding of Fact 47, supra. The other issues raised, such as excessive regulatory costs, relate to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (2000), standards and are not at issue in the proceeding. Land Use Policy 2.8, Community Commercial Designation Paragraph 8.II.E. of the Amended Petition stated: Locational and Development Criteria for Community Commercial Uses, Policy 2.8 (pg 38). Subsection B regarding community commercial complexes should not be limited to 40 acres at an intersection for properties that have existing land use or zoning designations compatible to the new Community Commercial designation. The same is true for the limitations of subsections, C, D, and E. These new limitations are confiscatory, fail to recognize existing land use and zoning and vested rights of property owners, are arbitrary, capricious, are not supported by competent substantial evidence, enlarge existing regulations without justification. They impose additional regulatory costs on regulated property owners when the goal of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 could be met by less restrictive and costly regulatory alternatives. Other provisions of Policy 2.8, Table 2.2, Policy 2.9, Policy 2.10 that exceed the present regulation of properties having existing land use or zoning designations or actual use should not be allowed for the same reasons. Additionally, many of these amendments were added at a April 29, 2000 workshop without complying with applicable public notice requirements. Public review and input as to these elements was therefore lacking. The plain language of Criterion B under FLUE Policy 2.8 demonstrates that the restrictions have been relaxed, not increased. Previously, Criterion C under Policy 2.8 stated: "Sites for community commercial complexes should not exceed 20 acres." The letter designation of the criterion was changed, and the criterion was amended to read: "Community commercial complexes should not exceed 40 acres at an intersection." The Justification for the change states: "Site size has been enlarged to 40 acres maximum at an intersection. Previously, this criterion could be interpreted to permit a maximum of 80 acres at an intersection (20 acres at each corner). Forty acres has been chosen as this is the DRI threshold for commercial development." On its face, the purpose of amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 was twofold: to enlarge the site size restriction from 20 to 40 acres; and to clarify that the restriction (now 40 acres) was meant to apply to all community commercial regardless whether they are located at intersections; locating a project on different sides of the street at an intersection was not supposed to double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum site size. Petitioners' position that amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 shrinks maximum allowable the site size is based on Moehle's assumption that 80-acre projects were permitted at intersections under prior to amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. But there was no competent, substantial evidence to support Moehle's assumption. Petitioners also seem to contend that the phrase "at an intersection" is imprecise, leading to uncertainty that undermines the required residential allocation analysis. But it is at least fairly debatable that no more precise definition is necessary. Contrary to Moehle's speculation, it is not reasonable to construe the phrase "at an intersection" to also mean "at an indeterminate distance away from an intersection." Petitioners also took the position that "folding" previous land use classifications into Community Commercial greatly expanded the practical effect of the acreage limitation in amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. Petitioners' evidence did not explain their position in any detail or specificity. It is possible that they had reference to Criterion D under Policy 4.5 prior to the Plan Amendment, which allowed "regional commercial centers to incorporate up to 100 acres." If so, under the B.13 Plan Amendments, amended Policy 2.12 addresses regional commercial centers by requiring their location in a new Development of Regional Impact (DRI) future land use designation. The Justification for this change was: "With the proposed establishment of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) land use category, regional uses will no longer be permitted in a commercial future land use designation. Review in accordance with Chapter 380, F.S. standards is intended to simplify readability and maintain consistency with state statutes." Reading amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 together with amended Policy 2.12, commercial complexes larger than 40 acres are not prohibited under the Plan Amendment; they just have to be developed in a DRI land use category under Chapter 380 DRI standards. The reasonableness of these amendments is at least fairly debatable. Meanwhile, Poplin specifically testified that the data and analysis provided by the County were adequate to support the residential and nonresidential changes, including Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial changes. No contrary evidence was provided. Policies 2.9 and 2.10 allow minimal extensions of commercial boundaries. No evidence was presented addressing these items. The clear evidence was contrary to Petitioners' claim of notice violations. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Transitional Commercial Activities Paragraph 8.II.F. of the Amended Petition states: Transitional Commercial Activities - Community Commercial - General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) - Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2). Existing properties with Mixed Use Land Use Designations and General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) and Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2) zoning classifications have not been protected with their existing regulation constraint in the transformation into the new Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Regulations as has been asserted by the COUNTY in the revised objective and policies in the provisions covering these classifications as asserted by the COUNTY. Either proposed changes should conform or the changes should not be made. The same objections and changes are made for the new confiscatory provisions of the COUNTY for existing Industrial Land Use Designations and Zoning classifications under Industrial Land Uses (Objective 3, Policy 3, pg 55). The same objections and challenges are made for new confiscatory provisions of Agricultural Land Uses (pg 67) for existing Land Use Designations and densities of lands including reductions of densities to 1 unit per 5 acres by changes from a residential classification (including existing recorded subdivision plats). Many new items of the above were made at the April 29, 2000 workshop and proper public notices, review, and comment was not available. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any impact on actual development as a result of these future land use designation changes. No defect in notice was established by the evidence. Rather, the evidence indicated that all advertising requirements were met. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Finally, Poplin testified that the majority of land uses remained the same based on existing uses, and that all changes were supported by data and analysis. Future Land Use Maps Update Paragraph 8.III.A. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999 B.14. The Future Land Use Maps Update Report - The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps are not consistent with the existing FLUM and RDG maps. There are corrections and amplifications needed before they are acceptable. The COUNTY did not either have available or make available to the public for review and comment the map(s) as transmitted to DCA at any properly noticed Public Hearing. It was asserted by the COUNTY that no Land Use Designations, Zoning, or Density Allocation changes, were being made to property owners. That is not true. Some specific examples are Sections 3 & 15, located within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, which were changed from Residential to Agriculture Use (density from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres) and Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, from density of 1 unit per acre to 1 acre per 2.5 acres. The FLUM Report explains that the FLUM series was converted from graphic format to computerized geographic information system (GIS) format; as a result, the Residential Density Guidelines (RDG) map series could be combined with the FLUM series. Petitioners failed to establish any facts demonstrating that the new GIS FLUM series was not available or discussed at properly noticed public hearings. As to notice, see Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. There was no evidence of errors on the GIS maps. Petitioners complained that the GIS maps are unusable because they are too hard to read, especially because they were black and white. But actually the FLUM series is in color. There was no competent, substantial evidence that the color maps were too hard to read or unusable. Petitioners generally complained about residential density reductions but failed to present any competent, substantial evidence as to what supposedly was wrong with those reductions. Petitioners seem to believe that they should be able to obtain all information regarding their property from the Comprehensive Plan. There is no regulation cited by Petitioners requiring that the maps be of sufficient detail to enable someone to determine all possible uses of property based solely on a review of the maps. As a practical matter, additional site-specific information is nearly always necessary. In addition, GIS maps are computerized maps which are merely referenced by the Plan. The GIS system must ultimately be consulted regarding site-specific information. Poplin testified that the GIS updating of the FLUM and RDG map series was done primarily to streamline and consolidate the two previously separate maps. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Poplin testified that the conversion from two graphic maps to the GIS maps was a very positive change. Mixed Use District Conversion Paragraph 8.III.B. of the Amended Petition stated: Under the MIXED USE DISTRICT CONVERSION (pg 1) - Mixed Use District (MUD) land use designation and zoning classification of General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) or Highway Tourist Commercial (TU-2) existing classifications were not listed as being reclassified (to be designated as Community Commercial). Petitioners base this contention solely on the FLUM Update in the B.14 Plan Amendments. Petitioners' contention ignores FLUE Policy 2.7 in the B.13 Plan Amendments, one of the operative policies relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.7 states which uses are allowed under the Community Commercial designation. Subparagraph "c" lists "Tourist Commercial uses" as being a use under Community Commercial. In their response to the motion for involuntary dismissal, Petitioners finally acknowledged Policy 2.7 but still maintain that it cannot be determined whether TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial or as Neighborhood Commercial. In making this argument, Petitioners ignore FLUE Policy 2.5, another operative policy in the B.13 section of the Plan Amendment, relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.5 lists "[d]evelopment activities which may be considered within Neighborhood Commercial" and omits any "tourist commercial" development activities. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that both TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial, and not as Neighborhood Commercial. Petitioners' allegations that they were omitted from the MUD conversion are incorrect. More About the Glossary Paragraph 8.I.V. of the Amended Petition stated: Glossary, Definitions, Thresholds, Maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14. Revised Glossary. A new Glossary and definitions was never completed and made available to the public before any properly noticed Public Hearing to properly allow public review, input, comment, etc. Incomplete or inaccurate data on thresholds and maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14 were also not available. As previously found, the Glossary was not amended, and it would be inappropriate to advertise the Glossary for changes. There is no requirement that a glossary be included in a comprehensive plan. When a glossary is included, not every word in a comprehensive plan must be included. Forested Wetlands Location Map At final hearing, Petitioners asserted that the Forested Wetlands Location Map referred to and incorporated by reference in Policy 5.2.F.3. of the Conservation Element was not the best available data. This issue was not raised in the Amended Petition, and consideration of the merits of the assertion has been waived. In addition, as previously found, the language of Policy 5.2.F.3. was adopted prior to the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. See Finding of Fact 8, supra. On the merits of the argument, three forested wetlands maps were offered into evidence (as Petitioners' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.) Only Petitioners' Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. Petitioners' Exhibit 2 reflects the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan. Without Petitioners' Exhibits 3 or 4 being in evidence, or any other evidence on the issue, Moehle's testimony was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan was not the best available data at the time of incorporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition and finding that Brevard County's Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eden Bentley, Esquire Brevard County Attorney's Office 2725 St. Johns Street Viera, Florida 32940 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Charles F. Moehle Modern, Inc. Post Office Box 321417 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
