The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Craig W. Patterson and Timothy Buffkin own the Property and are the applicants for the proposed re-zoning. Bradford County is the local government responsible for determining the land use designation and zoning classification for the Property and has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs which it amends from time to time. The Property The Property is a 12.76-acre parcel located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 301 (US 301) and County Road 18 (CR 18) in unincorporated Bradford County. US 301 is a four-lane divided principal arterial roadway, and CR 18 is a two-lane major collector roadway. The intersection has a traffic light and left turn lanes on US 301. This is the only intersection of a principal arterial road and a major collector road in unincorporated Bradford County. The Property is roughly rectangular, with approximately 1,240 linear feet fronting on US 301 (eastern boundary of the Property) and approximately 450 feet fronting on County Road 18 (northern boundary). The Property is not located within a flood-prone area and has little or no wetlands. Approximately a half mile to the east of the Property is Hampton Lake. The Property is relatively flat. The soils on the property are poorly drained soils, but not indicative of wetlands. The soils and topography of the property do not preclude its development with a system to control stormwater and drainage. Currently, the Property contains one single-family dwelling unit. The Property is bounded on the north by a commercial land use and single-family residences, on the east by vacant and commercial land use, on the south by vacant land, and on the west by vacant land and single-family residences. Current Zoning and Land Use Designations Before October 2004, the Property was designated on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Residential Low Density,” which authorizes residential development at a density of less than or equal to two dwelling units per acre. On October 21, 2004, the County amended the FLUM to re-designate the Property as “Commercial.” However, the zoning for the Property remained “Residential, (Mixed) Single Family / Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1). The current zoning does not allow the types of uses appropriate under its Commercial land use designation. The Property is also located within an Urban Development Area which is defined in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan as an “area to which higher density agricultural, residential (single family, multi-family and mobile homes) and commercial and industrial uses are to be directed.” Within Urban Development Areas, lands classified as “Commercial” are to be used for the “sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services, as well as public, charter and private elementary, middle and high schools.” Certain other uses may also be approved as special exceptions or special permits. Surrounding Land Uses A portion of the land to the north of the Property and all of the land immediately east are within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hampton. The City of Hampton has zoned property at the US 301/CR 18 intersection as “CG”, a commercial designation which includes all of the uses authorized under Bradford County’s CI zoning district. Within the past several years, a truck repair and auto parts facility was located and is still operating east of the Property, across US 301. Farther east, but bordering those commercial lands, a residential subdivision (Fox Hollow) is under development. The Requested Re-zoning The Applicants seek to re-zone the Property to Commercial Intensive (CI). Permitted principal uses and structures allowed within the CI zoning district are consistent with the types of commercial uses listed in the comprehensive plan for the Commercial land use designation, namely retail outlets for the sale of food, home furnishings, vehicles, etc.; service establishments such as barber shops, shoe repair shops, repair and service garages; medical or dental offices; and wholesaling. The CI zoning district is described as “intended for intensive, highly automotive-oriented uses that require a conspicuous and accessible location convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic and shall be located within commercial land use classifications on the [FLUM].” The Property meets the description of a conspicuous and accessible location that is convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic. Concurrency Management Assessment The requested re-zoning is a “straight” re-zoning request, meaning that the re-zoning is not associated with any particular proposed use. Future development of the site will be subject to development plan review and approval, pursuant to Article Fourteen of the County LDRs. A concurrency reservation is not available until final site plan approval. However, at the County’s request, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) performed concurrency management assessments of the re-zoning in 2006 and again in 2008. In 2006, the NCFRPC provided the County with nonbinding concurrency determination that the applicable service levels would be met or exceeded for potable water (to be supplied by potable water wells); sanitary sewer (to be served by on-site septic tanks); solid waste; drainage; recreation; affordable housing; and historic resources. As to transportation facilities, the 2006 concurrency management assessment determined that the maximum potential development of the Property would generate 389 trips on US 301 at “PM peak hour.” When added to the then-existing PM peak hour trips, based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count data, US 301 would continue to operate within the adopted level of service (LOS). Between 2006 and 2008, the adopted LOS standard for US 301 was raised from “C” to “B,” meaning that the governmental objective was changed to maintain a freer flow of traffic during evening peak traffic. Therefore, despite the reduction of “background” trips on US 301, the 2008 concurrency management assessment determined that maximum development of the Property would cause the new LOS “B” standard to be exceeded. Petitioners presented a traffic analysis based upon more recent FDOT traffic count data than was used by the NCFRPC for its 2008 concurrency management assessment. The newer data showed a further decline in background trips on US 301, so that adding the maximum potential trips from the Property would no longer result in total PM peak hour trips that would exceed the adopted LOS standard. Petitioners’ more recent data and analysis is professionally acceptable and should be used. At the time of site plan review for any future development of the Property, an updated concurrency assessment will be required and will be based on the number of trips generated by the actual proposed use, rather than the trips that would be generated by the maximum development potential of the Property. The assessment will also use the most current FDOT traffic count data. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The County’s Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application for re-zoning at its July 10, 2006, meeting. It recommended denial of the re-zoning based upon the impact of the proposed change upon living conditions in the neighborhood. As factual support for the recommended denial, the Planning and Zoning Board’s report cites “all comments received during the said public hearing and the Concurrency Management Assessment concerning said application.” At the August 19, 2008, public hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge, members of the public expressed concern that the CI zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the west, in the Hampton Lake area. Some members of the public also expressed concern about possible future uses of the Property, such as a truck stop or bar. Package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, truck stops and automotive service stations can only be approved as special exception uses in the CI zoning district. Special exception uses require approval of the County’s Board of Adjustment after a public hearing, upon a finding that granting the special exception use would promote the “public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, propriety or the general welfare.” The Board of Adjustment must also determine that the special exception use would be compatible with adjacent properties. A favorable decision here on the requested re-zoning to CI is not a determination that a bar or truck stop on the Property would be compatible with the adjacent residential area. The LDRs impose site use and design criteria for commercial uses that adjoin residential districts. Site plan approval for commercial developments in CI zoning districts requires the consideration of landscape buffers, height restrictions, off-street parking requirements, lot coverage and yard standards. These development conditions are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas. Stormwater Some of the speakers at the public hearing expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the Property. One speaker, Michael Davis, testified that stormwater from the Property currently flows across his property. Another expressed concern that runoff from the Property would flow directly to Hampton Lake. On-site stormwater retention facilities would be required for the Property in conjunction with its development. The LDRs require that post-development runoff rates not exceed pre-development conditions. The objective of the required stormwater runoff controls is to approximate the rate, volume, quality, and timing of stormwater runoff that occurred under the site’s unimproved or existing state. There is no basis, at this stage of analysis, to determine that the County’s stormwater regulations are not adequate to prevent adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent residences or to Hampton Lake. Traffic on CR 18 Several speakers expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on CR 18. Petitioners conducted a site-specific traffic count for CR 18 east of US 301 and determined that the peak hour trips are now 131. The capacity for CR 18 is approximately 600. Based upon the total of 389 additional trips generated by the maximum potential development of the Property (on either US 301 or CR 18), the adopted LOS standard for CR 18 would not be exceeded. Petitioners demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners approve the requested re-zoning. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Norman, Clerk of the Board Bradford County Board of County Commissioners 945 North Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Charles L. Gibbs, Esquire Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sexton, Esquire Brown & Broling 486 N. Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091
Findings Of Fact In 1984, the Petitioners, a married couple, purchased a parcel of real property zoned agricultural located in Clay County. The Petitioners' parcel, which is the subject of the application for vested rights, is a fraction over twenty-two acres and is bounded on the east side by the St. John's River, on the west side by County Road 209, and by other private property on the north and south which is not subject to the application under consideration. An abandoned rail road right of way runs northwest to southeast across the parcel approximately half way between the paved road on the western boundary of the property and the river which forms the eastern boundary. A sand road has been constructed between the paved road and the abandoned railroad right of way. The land uses for agricultural property included single family residential development with one single family residence per acre until the enactment of the comprehensive plan discussed in detail below. The Petitioners purchased the parcel for the purpose of constructing a single family, and subdividing and selling the remaining portions of the parcel as home sites. The Petitioners obtained two mobile home permits (move-on permits) in 1986 and a building permit for the construction of a barn in 1989 from Respondent. In addition, the Petitioners obtained a permit for the construction of a dock from the Corps of Engineers. The Petitioners had a road constructed to access the interior of the property prior to 1990. The Petitioners later purchased equipment including a back hoe, grader, and dump trucks in 1990 for improving the road and improving drainage. The Petitioner, Robert I. Moore, completed improvements to the sand road with his own labor incurring costs for fill, fuel, and equipment repairs. The Petitioners ordered a survey which was completed in 1991. They then conveyed property between themselves via quit claim deeds to subdivide the property into nine lots, A through I. Three lots were created along the river, Lot I (3.59 acres), Lost H (3.16 acres), and Lot G (2.97 acres). Three lots were created along the paved road: Lot C running from the paved road to the rail road right of way containing 2.87 acres; Lot B running east from the paved road approximately 140 feet containing 1.11 acres; and Lot A running east from the paved road approximately 150 feet containing 1.09 acres. Lot F is located east of Lot A, and runs east approximately 800 feet containing 4.60 acres. Lot D is located east of Lot B and runs east approximately 300 feet containing 1.42 acres. Lot E is located east of Lot D, runs east approximately 200 feet to the rail road right of way, and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The surveyed subdivision of the parcel was recorded on December 31, 1991, together with private road maintenance agreement and quit claim deeds. The mobile homes were located on lots B and D, and barn had been built on Lot F. The amended application combined Lots A and F, and Lots D and E. The Petitioners spent money and expended energy to make improvements to the property in pursuit of their objective of developing the parcel. Their efforts included developing a graded, sand road through the property, improving the drainage, having a survey of the property conducted, and engaging an attorney to advise them. In June 1991, the Respondent adopted a comprehensive land use plan which was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) of the State of Florida. The DCA is charged by statute to determine if county comprehensive planning ordinances conform to state requirements. Those counties whose plans did not conform could amend them to conform; however, if the county failed to bring its plan into compliance, sanctions could be invoked by the state against the county. The Respondent's initial plan as adopted retained agricultural zoning for the parcel owned by Petitioners, and the Petitioners were aware of this having obtained several planning maps reflecting the proposed land uses for various areas of the county including their parcel. The Petitioners' subdivision complied with all existing requirements of the county to include those contained in the county's original comprehensive land use plan. The county's comprehensive land use plan provided that a lot of record included "a non-platted piece, parcel, lot, or tract of land described by metes and bounds or other similar means in a legally recorded deed as of July 1, 1991." The Petitioners' subdivision was not recorded until December 31, 1991. The county's comprehensive land use plan was not accepted by the DCA which received written objections, recommendations and comments (ORC Report) of the DCA. These objections included the density allowed in rural residential land use classification. On December 5, 1991, the Respondent and its Planning Commission held a joint workshop, advertised and open to the public, at which a modification to the density provisions of the comprehensive land use plan was considered for the purpose of addressing the objections by the DCA. The DCA's recommendation to reduce density in rural areas from one single family residence per acre to one to every five acres based upon a point system was specifically considered. On January 23, 1992, following a public hearing as required by statute, the Respondent adopted the amended plan containing the reduced density for rural areas based upon the point system. This changed the density of the Petitioners' parcel to one single family residence per five acres. This amended plan retained the definition of "lot of record" first discussed in March 1991; later considered at the public hearing on the plan in May 1991; and adopted in the original comprehensive plan. The assessed value of the parcel in 1994 was $274,200; in 1993 it was $158,462; and in 1992 it was $96,921. The expenditures for fill, labor, and repairs to construct and improve the road cost $23,425. The purchase price of the heavy equipment used by Mr. Moore to improve the road was $26,200 including $4,595 for repair of the loader/backhoe which is considered part of "purchase price." Although some of the heavy equipment was purchased used, and would have a lower rate of depreciation, the equipment lost value being used. This depreciation was part of the costs of doing the work. A declining depreciation rate of 15 percent in 1989, 12 percent in 1990, and 10 percent in 1991 was used to arrive at the depreciation costs, which were approximately $8,500. The capital costs of building the dock were excluded; however, the taxes paid to Clay County for the past two years, $5,023, were included. The total developmental costs would be approximately $37,000 as of the end of 1991. Expenditures after adoption of the plan are not considered.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the findings of facts and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the amended application for equitable vested rights be approved in part, and denied in part as follows: That Petitioner be granted equitable relief to subdivide their 22-acre parcel into 4 lots each containing approximately 5 acres using the existing road which they constructed as a boundary between the lots, but that they not be permitted to exceed the plan's density requirements. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 10th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,7 Paragraph 5,6 Paragraphs 6,5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 8 It is the hearing officer's under-standing that the ordinances were adopted prior to submission to DCA, which could state objections to the county's ordinance. Mr. Moore was aware of the plan and its impact upon his property. Paragraph 9 Paragraphs 11,12,14 Paragraph 10 Paragraphs 15,16 Paragraph 11 Paragraphs 17,18 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 13 Paragraphs 11,12 Respondent's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraph 1-4 Paragraphs 4-8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 5-10 Paragraphs 9-12 Subsumed in Paragraphs 11-14 Paragraph 13 Irrelevant. Paragraph 14 Paragraphs 14,18 Paragraph 15 Discussed in Conclusions Paragraphs 16-19 Paragraphs 15-18 Paragraph 20 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 21 Subsumed in Paragraph 7 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 9
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Town of Jupiter and Its Neighbors The Town of Jupiter (Town, Jupiter) is an incorporated municipality located in northeastern Palm Beach County between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean. The Village of Tequesta, the Town of Juno Beach and Jupiter Inlet Colony are adjoining municipalities. Jupiter is also bordered by unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The focal point of urban activity in Palm Beach County (County) is the City of West Palm Beach. The dominant community in the County north of West Palm Beach is the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which is south of Jupiter. There is a regional mall, as well as a satellite County Courthouse, in Palm Beach Gardens, both of which are situated on PGA Boulevard. Jupiter is the major center of urban activity north of Palm Beach Gardens. Its market area is sub-regional in scope. Growth in Jupiter: A Brief History The Jupiter of today is much different than the Jupiter of only a few decades ago. In 1960, the Town's population was just 1,058. By 1970, it had increased to 3,136. During the 1970's, the Town more than tripled its population to slightly less than 10,000, but it still was a bedroom community without any significant employment opportunities. This began to change during the next decade. Small businesses, in increasing numbers, started to locate in the Town. They were followed by larger employers. The 1980's saw not only a substantial increase in employment opportunities, but a substantial increase in population as well. The Town now has a population of approximately 28,000 and is becoming a fairly self- sufficient community offering a wide variety services to its residents. There is one existing new car dealership (Dodge) in Jupiter. Two additional new car dealerships (Ford and Cadillac) have been approved and permitted. 2/ Additionally, there are a number of new car dealerships clustered together on Northlake Boulevard in the City of Palm Beach Gardens 3/ less than ten miles from Jupiter to which the Town's residents have access. 4/ There remain only a few tracts of vacant, uncommitted land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town. The unincorporated areas surrounding the Town, however, are largely undeveloped. A considerable amount of the growth in Jupiter since the late 1980's can be attributed to the completion of the "missing link" of I-95, a north-south roadway that is the main intra-urban route in South Florida. Until late 1987, I-95 went as far north in Palm Beach County as PGA Boulevard. In late 1987, a new stretch of I-95, from PGA Boulevard to Fort Pierce, including an interchange at Indiantown Road in Jupiter, was opened to the travelling public. The opening of the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road has enhanced the Town's market potential and contributed significantly to the Town's integration into the broader metropolitan area of greater Palm Beach County. Jupiter does not have a traditional downtown area. Growth has generally occurred along the Town's major roadways, including Indiantown Road, a state roadway which offers the only direct access from I-95 to the Town and therefore serves as the primary gateway to the Town. In recent years, nearly 60 percent of office and other commercial projects in the Town have been located on that segment of Indiantown Road from I-95 to the roadway's eastern terminus at A1A near the coast, a distance of approximately five and a half miles. The initial impact of the fast-paced development on Indiantown Road was to increase traffic congestion and generate complaints that the roadway was becoming a visual eyesore with its "strip commercial" development. At the time, although it was the Town's primary commercial corridor, Indiantown Road had only two lanes, one going east and the other going west. It is now in the process of being widened and transformed into a six-lane, median divided, controlled access roadway. The Planning Process and the Indiantown Road Corridor Study In the fall of 1986, the Town began the laborious process that culminated in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan more than three years later. During the planning process, the members of the Town Council, Jupiter's governing body, having heard the complaints of residents regarding the negative impact of development on Indiantown Road and the inadequacy of the Town's existing land development regulations to deal with the situation, determined that a study should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. Of particular concern to the Council members were issues relating to traffic and aesthetics. In November, 1988, the Council retained Henry Skokowski, a planning consultant, to conduct such a study. Skokowski was specifically directed by the Council to, among other things, examine the various types of commercial land uses and determine those that should be permitted and those that should be prohibited in the Indiantown Road corridor. Skokowski's initial draft of the results of his study was submitted to the Council in February, 1989. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comments in April, 1989. The Council accepted Skokowski's final draft of the results of his study in the latter part of 1989. The final draft was virtually identical in substance to Skokowski's initial offering. In both, he recommended, among other things, that certain commercial land uses, including "auto . . . sales," that he reasonably felt did not mesh with the desired overall character of the corridor, be absolutely prohibited, without exception, throughout the length of the corridor. 5/ This recommendation, from the outset, was the subject of considerable public debate and discussion before the Town Council. Skokowski endorsed a nodular pattern of development for the corridor. Under his plan, the corridor would contain six urban subdistricts, each having as their focal point a major intersection, with the remaining portions of the corridor consisting of parkway subdistricts with suburban characteristics reflecting a less intensive commercial development pattern than found in the urban subdistricts. From west to east, the six urban subdistricts, which constituted nodes of development, were the Central Boulevard District, the Center Street Landmark District, the Maplewood Drive District, the Civic District, 6/ the Alternate A1A District and the US 1 District. Through the creation of a special overlay zone for the corridor and the adoption of regulations restricting the permitted uses of land 7/ and establishing design, landscaping, and signage requirements on a subdistrict by subdistrict basis, Skokowski envisioned that each subdistrict would develop an identity that was not only distinctive and unique, but compatible with, and reflective of, community values unlike the strip commercial development that then existed in the corridor. Throughout the course of his study, Skokowski met regularly with those who were responsible for drafting the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also met with the Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning in an effort to obtain input from the County regarding anticipated development on or around Indiantown Road. In response to Skokowski's request, the Department's Executive Director promised to provide the Town with notification of any proposed zoning actions in the unincorporated areas of the County. Skokowski did not meet with any representative of either the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the completion of his study. On January 16, 1990, the Town Council adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the Plan is "in compliance." Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: A General Overview The Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan contains nine different elements: future land use; traffic circulation; housing; infrastructure; conservation; coastal management; recreation; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Each element has at least one goal 8/ and objective 9/ and has policies as well. 10/ Some elements also contain maps. One such element is the future land use element, which contains a future land use map. The map employs six land use classifications: residential; commercial; industrial; recreation; conservation; and public/institutional. Most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is designated for commercial use on the future land use map. Approximately two-thirds of the total land area in the Town that is designated for commercial use on the future land use map is located in the Indiantown Road corridor. Each of the elements of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan was based upon "data inventory and analysis." The Town Council adopted this "data inventory and analysis" as part of the Plan. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Objectives and Policies The following is the lone goal set forth in the Plan's future land use element: Ensure that the future land use pattern maintains the existing low intensity, residential character, recognizes and protects the environmental quality of the Town, and allows the Town to become a full- service community 11/ serving Northern Palm Beach County. Objective 1.1 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "managed growth." It provides as follows: Direct future growth into areas served by urban services that have adequate capacity, as defined by the adopted level of service standards, which shall be incorporated into the Town's development regulations by May 1990. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "managed growth:" Policy 1.1.1- All development shall be approved only if the level of service standards as set forth in Policy 1.2.1 of the Capital Improvement Element are met concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. These standards shall be integrated into the land development regulations. Policy 1.1.4- Commercial shopping centers in excess of 80,000 square feet should be located only at intersections of major arterials. Policy 1.1.5- Strip or highway commercial development shall be discouraged. Policy 1.1.6- A commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertake[n] in 1989. This will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway 12/ containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards 13/ that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations. 14/ Policy 1.1.7- Concentrations of commercial offices, and tourist related activities shall be near locations having high accessibility. Policy 1.1.8- Non-residential outdoor storage areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.13- The town through its Coastal Construction Code and its future land use map shall minimize the intensity and density of future development within coastal areas vulnerable to hurricane damage. Policy 1.1.14- The impact of land use on water quality and quantity shall be considered in land use planning and regulation. This shall be assured by inclusion of provisions in the Land [D]evelopment Regulations for consideration of the impacts of proposed development on water quality and quantity. These considerations shall include the provisions of Conservation Element Policies 1.4.1-13 for surface water quality, 1.3.1-13 for groundwater quality, Infrastructure Element Policies 1.1.2 for wellfield protection, 1.5.1 for protection of potable water supply and 1.6.1-5 for protection of groundwater quality and quantity. Objective 1.2 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land use compatibility." It provides as follows: By May 1990 the land development regulations shall contain provisions and standards which ensure that future growth patterns take into consideration topography, soil and other natural and historic resources, the intensities, densities and type of land use activities and relationship to surrounding properties, as well as providing for streetscaping, proper transition of land uses, buffering, and coordination of coastal population densities with the Palm Beach County Hurricane Evacuation Plan. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land use compatibility:" Policy 1.2.1- Where there are differences between residential uses in terms of intensity and type of units, adequate transitioning shall be accomplished through provisions such as setbacks, buffers and height limitations. The land development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall contain such provisions to assure adequate transitioning. Policy 1.2.3- Where existing land use conflicts exist, the Town shall incorporate into its land development regulations provisions that address noise, dust, lighting and aesthetics. The Town shall support increasing the depth of property(s) in areas where existing lots are shallow (less than 150 feet in depth), are situated adjacent to an arterial roadway, have a commercial or industrial land use designation, and abut residentially designated land; however, the land development regulations shall contain adequate buffering and performance criteria for concerns noted above. Policy 1.2.4- Existing land uses which are not compatible with adjacent land uses, the character, natural resources or the future land use plan shall be eliminated upon redevelopment, and until that time may not be expanded. This requirement shall be included in the revision to the local development regulations to be adopted by May 1990. Objective 1.3 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land development regulations." It provides as follows: The Town shall prepare land development regulations that effectively implement all provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, contain innovative techniques for the production of affordable housing, provide a means to protect environmentally sensitive areas and maintain flexibility in site design. In addition the Town shall encourage the use of innovating land development regulations such as the Town's existing provisions for PUD and other land development techniques. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land development regulations:" Policy 1.3.3- Adopt land development regulations that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which at a minimum address: subdivision of land signage wellfield and aquifer protection drainage and stormwater management periodic flooding open space needs off-street parking environmentally sensitive areas/habitats In addition, these regulations shall ensure that development orders and permits not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels of service for the affected public facility below the adopted level of service of standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.4- The concept of an environmental[ly] sensitive area overlay zone will be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance. This concept will be folded into the new development code at the time the current Zoning Ordinance and other local development regulations are consolidated into one regulatory document. Policy 1.3.5- The [L]and [D]evelopment Regulation shall include the following non- residential land use categories, and shall incorporate the following location and intensity criteria: Commercial Neighborhood Commercial- Stores offering frequently needed goods and services to nearby residential areas. Typical activities include pharmacy, dry-cleaning, florist, hardware and garden supplies, professional offices, and personal services. Location Criteria: In areas accessible to immediate surrounding neighborhoods; Can be located in conjunction with groups of retail or highway commercial uses to achieve greater consumer volume and multi- purpose trips; When a part of a planned unit development must be situated in the interior of the project and not along an external roadway; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity measures: Site area- minimum 20,000 sq. ft. maximum 2 acres Site coverage maximum- 35% Height limitation- 35 feet/2 stories General Commercial- Consists of a wide range of commercial goods and services serving a community-wide market. A representative sample of activities includes personal services, banking and finance offices, retail stores, nurseries, printing and publishing, auto repair, marine facilities, and medical and dental clinics. Location Criteria: At major intersections, or existing commercial core areas; Central to and/or readily accessible from all residential areas of the community; Preferably grouped with other stores in this category to achieve a combined market draw on multi-purpose trips; Not adjacent to low density, single family neighborhoods; Adjacent to Medium Density Residential areas when proper buffering is provided; Situated preferably on an arterial roadway, but never on a local street; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Office Commercial- Activities that generally do not entail sale or display of goods and do not require high visibility from major roadways. Typical uses include legal, financial, realty, technical and some medical service establishments. May also contain retail uses that directly serve the needs of the office businesses. Location Criteria: Location needs are often determined by type of service (attorney near courthouse, physician near hospital, etc.); Attractive or prestigious setting often desired; suitable for location near multi- family housing to serve as a transitional use between more intensive commercial and industrial uses; In some instances may locate adjacent to low density residential neighborhood only when height is limited to one story, less than 35% of project site utilized for structure(s) and adequate buffering provided; May locate in industrial park however should be located in designated tract of land in park; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Heavy Products Commercial- Activities that sell large or bulk products or maintains large inventories of products. These usually serve a sizeable market area and are often similar to or part of industrial activities. Building materials, heavy machinery and wholesale establishments are typical heavy commercial uses. Location Criteria: Parcels should be accessible from outlying service areas and near primary routes for shipping and receiving goods (highways, rail); Should be spatially separated from residential areas; Should not be located in proximity to other commercial activities, e.g., retail stores, offices; Suitable siting is near or in industrial areas due to similar location and transportation needs; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Site coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 35 feet Industrial * * * Conservation * * * Public/Institutional * * * Objective 1.4 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: To expand and diversify the economic base through the provision of adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth. Policy 1.4.1 is among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: Higher densities and intensities of development shall be located in areas having high accessibility and a full complement of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer), that have adequate capacity to maintain the adopted levels of service. Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the Plan's intergovernmental coordination element each reference the Indiantown Road corridor study. They provide as follows: Policy 1.1.7- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in this study to provide input about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT shall formally review the resulting development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. Policy 1.1.8- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the study to provide input about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impact on traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County and MPO shall have formal review of the resulting development strategy to ensure compatibility with County and MPO plans. Policy 1.1.9- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Treasure Coast regional Planning Council in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, MPO and FDOT, if necessary. Immediately preceding these three policies is the statement that "[a] commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway." 15/ Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Data Inventory and Analysis The goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan can be better understood if they are read in conjunction with the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. For instance, an examination of the following excerpts from the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan provides considerable assistance in understanding what the Town Council meant when it announced in the goal of the future land use element that it desired that the Town "become a full-service community serving Northern Palm Beach County:" Growth Management Philosophy Until the advent of the '80s, Jupiter was one those hidden treasures [i]n the Treasure Coast region. . . . In 1980, Jupiter was basically a "bedroom" community; however, with recent annexations, the Town now contains over 400 acres planned for industrial park usage. Therefore, Jupiter is now evolving into a "total service" community. To maintain a community that maximizes quality of life, the following growth principles and strategies will be the basis for future growth decisions: Land use decisions . . . will be made within the context of the Greater Jupiter Area 16/ since certain uses within the existing Town limits serve a "market area" that extends considerably beyond the present jurisdictional limits. It is anticipated that the Town's employment base will expand significantly in the coming years as the planned industrial parks, and office/ business centers come on line. The residential character of the Town will remain one of low intensity, a more human scale of residential living. Future residential areas will be developed only in areas with adequate human service. 17/ * * * Being the major urban hub of north county, retail and office businesses located in Jupiter depend on a population base that is considerabl[y] larger than just the existing population residing within the present Town limits. Residential areas to the north, especially along Loxahatchee River Road and to the west, primarily from the Jupiter Farms area shop and do business in Jupiter. 18/ * * * Community shopping centers require a wider market area [than neighborhood shopping centers]. 19/ The Jupiter Mall would be an example of such a retail center. Based on the Town's projected 1995 population (46,900), only one such shopping center is justified. However, because Jupiter is a commercial hub serving much of the County, north of Donald Ross Road, another such center might be justified. Prior to any approval, a market study should be required in order to avoid the problem of overcommercialization. The analysis should include all commercial development in north county, not just limited to Jupiter's corporate Town limits. Leading tenants include variety store and small department store. 20/ * * * Historically the Town has had only a minor amount of land utilized for industrial purposes. Until recent years, it has considered itself a residential, bedroom community; however, that philosophy has changed. It now sees itself as a "total" community. This means the creation of a major employment base. 21/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES 1. Town image, e.g., bedroom community, full service town. 22/ The following references to the Indiantown Road corridor are made in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: Development in the Indiantown Road corridor can generally be described as uncontrolled strip commercial, often experiencing traffic congestion and presenting a poor visual image to visitors. As Jupiter has grown no definitive urban center has emerged. Growth has occurred generally along the Town's major roadways. Consider as a long-range strategy the creation of a traditional downtown. 23/ * * * Nearly 60% of the commercial/office projects have been located within the Indiantown Road corridor. . . . Over the past decade Indiantown Road (SR 706) has experienced increased periods of traffic congestion. This has occurred as commercial development along this main artery has mushroomed. Lack of lot depth as well as overall size have created a "hodgepodge" commercial development pattern along SR 706 which has lead to a traffic headache, as well as a visual eyesore. The problems of Indiantown Road are compounded since it will serve as Jupiter's major entryway once Interstate 95 is completed and the entrance on SR 706 is opened. 24/ Consideration should be given to a special overlay zone for Indiantown Road. In developing the overlay zone determining what constitutes the Indiantown Road corridor (depth of property along the roadway), establishing the desired character of the corridor, 25/ and preparing a special set of standards e.g., signage, off-street parking, buffering, to control development would be necessary. Although Indiantown Road is the most obvious example of strip commercial development other local roads are afflicted with the same problem, however maybe not to the same degree. Yet, there are several areas in and around Jupiter that are developing more in a node fashion than in a linear commercial strip. Not only is the Town beset by this commercial problem, but has been faced with possible intrusion of commercial into residential neighborhoods. Precautions need to be taken to make sure that neighborhood integrity remains intact. 26/ * * * [S]imilar to the Town's proposed land use designation within the Indiantown Road corridor, the County too, has proposed that commercial development be allowed along this roadway. A concern the Town has is the manner in which it is developed. This is especially important, because the Indiantown Road corridor is the gateway into Jupiter. To date, the development has reflected a rather non-descript, strip commercial pattern. The Town has been sufficiently concerned that it has contracted to have an urban design corridor study completed for this key roadway. 27/ Design recommendations will become a part of the Town's land development regulations. Coordination between the two governing bodies will be needed at the time the local development regulations are prepared. 28/ * * * The majority of land use conflicts occur in those areas where commercial and industrial uses abut residential neighborhoods. This has been a problem along Indiantown Road. The proposed siting of a cement batch plant in the Pennock Industrial Park created considerable controversy over the potential adverse impacts, e.g., noise, dust, light, visual image, and aesthetics. Similar concerns have been voiced over the potential negative impacts generated by strip shopping centers and car dealerships, as well. Much of the development in this major traffic corridor occurred at a time when Jupiter was a much smaller, rural community. Some of the development predates landscape and signage requirements. Because the land along Indiantown Road was subdivided over twenty years ago, many of the lots along the road are very shallow. This causes problems in providing for adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential uses. The Town has been encouraging combining of lots to create additional depth that can allow for better site design and buffering. Also, the Town has adopted the Indiantown Road Urban Corridor Study, and will be integrating many of its recommendations into updated development regulation[s]. The study has recommended the creation of an "Indiantown Road Overlay Zone." 29 / This district will contain additional provisions related to design guidelines and streetscape standards so that development within the Town's major corridor achieves some logical, overall design. 30/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES . . . 2. Gateway into Town; . . . Depth of commercial along Indiantown Road; Strip commercial development vs. a node policy; . . . 9. Maintaining areas in residential use by eliminating pressures of commercial development; * * * Besides the commercial demands of the local population, [with] the opening of Interstate 95 Exit on Indiantown Road in conjunction with the existing Florida Turnpike exit on Indiantown Road, it can be expected that there will be significant increased demands for interchange commercial uses to serve the traveling public. 31/ Already a number of inquiries have been made to staff regarding the Town's position relative to development around these interchange areas. This will become the gateway to Jupiter. The commercial development pattern that ultimately emerges within the corridor can visually replicate what already exists, or can become a "memorable["] entryway leading into Jupiter. The concept of an overlay zone for the Indiantown Road corridor should be considered. 32/ * * * Most neighborhood and community shopping centers are located on major roadways, primarily at the intersections of designated arterials such as Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard, Indiantown Road and U.S. 1 and Indiantown Road and Alternate A1A. Future siting of shopping centers, especially those with 100,000 leasable floor area and up should be situated at locations having good access and sufficient roadway capacity to maintain the Town's adopted level of service. Further, they should be located so that the only access is from one road. 33/ * * * The existing major roadways identified in the functional classification are shown on Exhibit 1 . . . and are summarized below. . . Principal local arterials 34/ . . . f. Indiantown Road from U.S. 1 to west town limit Collector streets 35/ Indiantown Road from County Road A1A to U.S. 1 36/ * * * The level of service analysis shown on Exhibit 1 indicates severe capacity deficiencies for east/west travel on Indiantown Road. From Center Street to U.S. 1 and west of the Turnpike, this facility operates at Level of Service "E" which is characterized by very long vehicle delay and long traffic queues such that forced vehicular flow conditions exist much of the day. . . . The five-year programs of the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County will provide relief for some of the congestion presently experienced in Jupiter. As shown on Exhibit 2 . . . , construction is planned to be undertaken within five years to improve Indiantown Road. Indiantown Road is scheduled to be widened to a six-lane cross section from east of Center Street to east of Alternate A-1-A in fiscal year 1989/1990. Indiantown Road from Florida's Turnpike west to Jupiter Farms Road is planned to be widened to four lanes in the fiscal year 1991/1992. . . . The only existing deficiencies not currently "planned" to be improved is the six-laning of Alternate A-1-A south of the Loxahatchee River Bridge to Center Street and Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1 to six lanes. . . . Designing and obtaining right- of-way for the Indiantown Road Intracoastal crossing (Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1) is also programmed for FY 89/90, 90/91, respectively. The responsibility for improvement of these facilities is primarily that of the Florida Department of Transportation. 37/ * * * Improvements to Indiantown Road will greatly improve the east/west access within the Town. 38/ * * * The future major streets are shown by functional classification on Exhibit 3 . . . and are summarized as follows. . . . Principal local arterials . . . g. Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to I-95. . . Collector streets Indiantown Road from County Road A-1-A to U.S. 1 39/ * * * At buildout the proposed coastal population densities in the surge vulnerable areas in the Town of Jupiter will be 31,5000 residents. This represents a 230 percent increase. The evacuation routes to accommodate evacuation vehicles will have capacities as follows: -Indiantown Road at six lanes 40/ * * * The proper strategy to follow would be to conserve and maintain or in fact upgrade some of the older residential areas in the Indiantown Road/Center Street area. The Town has been implementing such a policy. The Town has had an ongoing series of drainage and road improvement projects. This effort is continuing with the present focus on the area immediately south of Indiantown Road bounded on the east by Old Dixie. . . . The Town has taken steps since the adoption of its present land use plan to eliminate those uses inconsistent with the community's character and proposed future land uses. Some methods that have been employed are the deepening of commercial frontage along Indiantown Road, adding increased depths to buffers between conflicting land uses and not allowing the re-establishment of non- conforming land uses. 41/ * * * Intergovernmental coordination is necessary in order to implement the following policies: POLICY: A commercial corridor study is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway. Issues for coordination/cooperation: Indiantown Road (SR 706) is owned and operated by the State. It is a major arterial for the unincorporated County area west of Jupiter, and development approved along it and in its vicinity can impact traffic conditions within Jupiter to a significant degree. Agencies involved: Florida Department of Transportation Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommended methods for coordination/ cooperation: FDOT representatives should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT should formally review the resultant development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. The Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County MPO should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impacts o[n] traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County should have formal review of the resultant development strategy to ensure compatibility with County plans. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council should be involved in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, and FDOT, if necessary. 42/ The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan indicates that the future land use plan includes "commercial uses" among its land use categories. It then goes on to give the following definition of such "commercial uses:" Commercial uses- means activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, consumption, and distribution of products or performances of professional and non-professional services. The Town Council may approve the use of such land areas for residential purposes provided a rezoning to a residential zoning district is approved and the rezoning is implemented by a planned unit development. The following discussion appears under the subheading of "Land Use Performance Standards" in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: The land use classification system described allows for flexibility. Specific protection should be developed and included at the time the local development code is revised to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the following criteria serve as the basis for permitting any land use change. These along with other provisions and policies of all Comprehensive Plan elements will have to be met in order to receive a development order. The recommended performance standards are as follows: Compatibility with surrounding land uses Intensity of use Adequacy of facilities -water services -sewer services -roadway access -fire and police service Environmental impact Following the recitation of the foregoing "recommended performance standards," the statement is made that "[i]n evaluating any proposed land use change as well as any other development approval requirement the Town shall take into consideration . . . whether or not the proposed change complies with the [same] location criteria" that are set forth in Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element. The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the plan gives the following description of the three major categories of land use problems that the Town should strive to avoid or at least minimize through the planning process: Misuse of Land Widely scattered land development results in a pattern which is more costly to provide with essential services; Construction of buildings in flood prone areas results in damage to property, danger to life and added financial burdens on the [Town] for providing flood abatement measures; Land and water resources are destroyed by scattered substandard development; and Less than adequate room for expansion of businesses and industry result in congestion and inharmonious growth. Conflicting Uses of Land Encroachment of business and industrial uses into existing or emerging residential areas results in instability of these residential neighborhoods; and Unplanned mixing of various land uses results in incompatible relationships among various activities which cause deterioration of the overall environment. Overuse of Land Inadequate provision of off-street parking causes encroachment of residential neighborhoods by traffic seeking parking; Strip development along major highways results in reduced traffic capacity and increased traffic congestion; Excessive land coverage by buildings and parking areas results in inadequate open space; and Poorly conceived site and building design standards can result in overuse of land. Ordinances Creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District In March, 1990, the Town Council adopted a series of ordinances that incorporated, in all respects material to the instant case, the above-described "comprehensive strategy" that Skokowski had devised for the Indiantown Road corridor. These ordinances amended the Town's zoning code by creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District (I.O.Z.). The I.O.Z. is codified in Section 517 of the code, which describes the I.O.Z.'s purpose and intent as follows: The purpose and intent of this specialized overlay zoning district is to encourage and provide for enhanced property development within the Indiantown Road corridor. Objectives to be attained through the establishment of this district include protection of adjacent residential land uses; enhancement of the commercial status of the corridor; reduction of visual distraction through uniform sign criteria; enhancement of physical appearance through increased landscaping of public and private property; clustering of compl[e]mentary uses throughout various locations along the corridor; provisions of architectural design guidelines within specific locations along the corridor; encourage the construction of pedestrian oriented facilities in both public and private structures; installation of special landscape and architectural features at major intersections; and establish development incentives to accomplish these objectives. Before the Town Council took final action on the matter, the Town's Director of Community Development provided the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) with a copy of what was to become Section 517 and asked DOT to favor the Town with its comments. DOT, however, declined to do so. The ordinances adopted by the Town to effectuate the creation of the I.O.Z. were Ordinances 14-90, 15-90, 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25- 90. 61. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 divided the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District into parkway subdistricts and five urban subdistricts: the Central Boulevard District; the Center Street/Maplewood Drive District; 43/ the Civic Center District; the Alternate A1A District; and the U.S. Highway One District. Ordinance 14-90 imposed design, landscaping, and signage requirements applicable to these subdistricts. Ordinance 15-90 further restricted the land use activities permitted in these subdistricts. The underlying zoning district of most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is "C-2" (Commercial, General), in which 41 commercial land use activities are permitted, 11 by right and 30, including automobile sales, by special exception. Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits, without exception, anywhere from 11 to 18 of these 41 commercial land activities, depending upon the subdistrict. Automobile sales are absolutely prohibited throughout the corridor. Attachments 1-11 appended to this Final Order show each of the land use activities that were permitted, by right or special exception, in each subdistrict prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-90 and the changes, if any, made by Ordinance 15-90 to their status as permitted activities. Relationship of the I.O.Z. to the Comprehensive Plan Section 517.3 of the Town's zoning code states that "[t]he establishment of the IOZ [as codified in Section 517] is hereby declared consistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan." It has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that, in making this declaration, the Town Council, which only a couple of months earlier had adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, was in error. A reasonable argument may be made that the I.O.Z (Section 517 of the Town's zoning code) and its component parts, including the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90, are compatible with the Plan and take action in the direction of realizing the Town's aspirations, as announced in the Plan, with respect to the Indiantown Road corridor. The I.O.Z. is a "coherent, comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor that employs "the concept of an overlay zone" and a "node policy" of development (as opposed to linear, "[s]trip commercial") and is reasonably designed to allow this roadway to "become a 'memorable' entryway leading into Jupiter." The use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are an integral part of this "coherent, comprehensive strategy." They play a role in "establishing the desired character of the corridor." Ordinance 15-90 is not at variance with any of the land use designations made on the Plan's future land use map, including those designating land in the Indiantown Road corridor for commercial use. While the ordinance absolutely prohibits certain land use activities, those that it allows are in keeping with the map's land use designations. For instance, the activities it permits on land designated on the map for commercial use, which is most of the land in the corridor, are indeed "commercial uses," as that term is defined on page I-30 of the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. Because the ordinance permits these "commercial uses" throughout much of the corridor, it furthers the Plan's vision of the Indiantown Road corridor as an area where commercial development predominates. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and the goal of the future land use element of the Plan. It has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate that the ordinance will prevent the Town from fulfilling its desire, as expressed in the goal of the future land use element, of completing its transformation from a bedroom community to one that offers, in addition to housing, job opportunities and goods and services accommodating the needs of the residents of the Greater Jupiter area that cannot be adequately met by surrounding communities. To become a "total" or "full-service" community Jupiter need not offer every conceivable good and service in the marketplace. Accordingly, it may absolutely prohibit within its jurisdictional boundaries certain commercial land use activities that involve specialized goods and services that are available elsewhere in the region and still reach its goal of becoming a "total" or "full- service" community. Moreover, Ordinance 15-90 applies only to the land area within the Indiantown Road corridor, which, as noted above, contains approximately two- thirds of the Town's commercially designated land. The remaining land area in the Town designated for commercial use is unaffected by the ordinance and unencumbered by its land use restrictions. Therefore, even if, in order to become a "total" or "full-service" community, the Town was required to offer within its jurisdictional boundaries those goods and services that are unavailable in the Indiantown Road corridor as a result of Ordinance 15-90, the Town would still be able to meet this requirement because the ordinance does not preclude the Town from offering these goods and services in commercially designated areas in the Town that are outside of the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. While the land use activities absolutely prohibited by Ordinance 15-90 tend to require larger lot sizes, have generally lower traffic generation rates and are less likely to be found in "[s]trip commercial" developments than certain land use activities permitted by the ordinance, it has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that these prohibitions will likely result in the "[s]trip or highway commercial development" that Policy 1.1.5 seeks to discourage. Ordinance 15-90 renders ineffective neither the requirements of the Plan 44/ nor those of the remaining portions of the I.O.Z. designed to combat and prevent "[s]trip or highway commercial development." The ordinance works, not at cross-purposes with these requirements, but in tandem with them, imposing additional, rather than conflicting, restrictions on development in the Indiantown Road corridor. Under the regulatory framework established by the Town through the adoption of the Plan and the I.O.Z., a proposed development that meets the requirements of Ordinance 15-90, but is inconsistent with the anti-strip commercial provisions of the Plan and the remaining portions of the I.O.Z., will not be approved. Accordingly, Ordinance 15-90 will not have the effect of enhancing the potential for the occurrence of "[s]trip or highway commercial development" in the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.6 of the future land use element of the Plan. As noted above, Policy 1.1.6 references the Indiantown Road corridor study and indicates that this study "will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations." While the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are neither "streetscape guidelines" nor "site development standards," Policy 1.1.6 does not mandate that the "coherent, comprehensive strategy" resulting from the Indiantown Road corridor study include only "streetscape guidelines" and "site development standards." Given that use restrictions are typically included in a "comprehensive strategy" for a roadway corridor and that there was considerable public debate preceding the adoption of the Plan concerning Skokowski's recommendation (which was ultimately incorporated in Ordinance 15-90) that certain use restrictions be included in a "comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor, it is reasonable to assume that, had the Town Council intended that such use restrictions not be a part of the "comprehensive strategy" envisioned in Policy 1.1.6, it would have so specified in that policy or elsewhere in the Plan. Its failure to have done so reflects that the Town Council had no such intention at the time it adopted the Plan. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. As mentioned above, Policy 1.3.5 directs, among other things, that the Town's land development regulations include, within a commercial land use category, the subcategories of "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," and "Heavy Products Commercial" and it gives a representative sample of activities that would fall into each of these subcategories. In addition, the policy prescribes location and intensity criteria for each of these subcategories. Policy 1.3.5 does not require the Town, in its land development regulations, to permit in areas that meet the location criteria of a particular subcategory all of the commercial land use activities that may fall within that subcategory. Accordingly, as it has done in Ordinance 15-90, the Town may prohibit some of these activities without running afoul of the mandate of Policy 1.3.5. Policy 1.3.5 does impose upon the Town the obligation to permit a "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," or "Heavy Products Commercial" land use activity only in those areas that, according to the policy's location criteria, are suitable for that particular activity. There has been no showing that the various commercial land use activities permitted by Ordinance 15-90 are allowed to take place in areas that do not meet the location criteria prescribed in Policy 1.3.5. If anything, the evidence establishes the contrary. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. As indicated above, Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 provide that, in the development of the Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town "shall seek the active involvement" [of] the Florida Department of Transportation" (DOT), as well as the "Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)," to provide appropriate input. In conducting his study of the Indiantown Road corridor, Skokowski sought the "active involvement" of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. He did not seek DOT's input, 45/ but the Town's Director of Community Development, prior to the Town Council's adoption of the I.O.Z., did. Accordingly, in adopting Ordinance 15-90 and the other ordinances that were based upon Skokowski's Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town Council did not act in derogation of the requirements of either Policy 1.1.7 or Policy 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. Petitioner's Challenge to the I.O.Z.'s Use Restrictions Petitioner owns approximately 680 acres of land in Jupiter, including land situated in the Indiantown Road corridor that is subject to the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90. It acquired 640 of these 680 acres in 1981 and the remaining acreage in 1987. Petitioner has been developing this property since its acquisition. A golf course and residential community have already been completed. Work has begun on a 40-acre commercial project located in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road area. Petitioner desires to build an auto campus as part of this project, but is unable to do so because Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits automobile sales from occurring on the land. On or around December 10, 1990, Petitioner sent a petition to the Mayor of Jupiter, the body of which read as follows: This petition is submitted on behalf of Restigouche, Inc. [Petitioner] pursuant to Fla. Stat. #163.3213(3) and Rule 9J-24.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of this Petition is to challenge the consistency of such portions of [the] Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District Ordinance, as adopted by the Town of Jupiter under Ordinance 15-90. These portions define permitted uses, uses permitted by special exception and prohibited uses within the IOZ. Section 517 of the Zoning Code was adopted by several ordinances[.] Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 were adopted March 6, 1990. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 were adopted March 20, 1990. Ordinance 15-90 reduces the allowable uses of the property owners within the IOZ. The underlying zoning category for Restigouche's property in the Maplewood/Center Street District is C-2. Table 1 of the IOZ contains a list of 41 uses available to property within Zoning District C-2 by right or by special exception. The table shows that the uses for property within the IOZ have been reduced to the extent that those uses designated as "X" have moved from permitted by right or special exception to prohibited uses. Ordinance 15-90, which incorporates this down zoning, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter as adopted by the Town Council January 16, 1990. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for the creation of a district along the Indiantown Road Corridor that would limit uses from those as stated in the appropriate underlying zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that a study of the development along Indiantown Road was being undertaken at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption and acknowledges that signage, streetscape and site development criteria to enhance the visual aspects of Indiantown Road would be adopted. The Comprehensive Plan does not state that a new zoning district would be created limiting uses from those already available for the underlying zoning. Policy 1.3.5 states that land development regulation[s] shall include four designated types of commercial zoning as specified in this policy. These are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Heavy Products Commercial. Specific description of policies and goals for each of these is stated. There is no policy for the recognition of a land use or zoning category specifically applicable to Indiantown Road. The Petitioner is a substantially affected person by virtue of its ownership since 1981 of property within the Maplewood/Center Street District which is part of the IOZ and is the successor developer of a previously approved Development of Regional Impact. Petitioner has expended millions of dollars in improvements to the property within the Maplewood/Center Street District in the IOZ and has contributed substantial acreage for the construction of a public school, park and fire station. The Petitioner is Restigouche, Inc., its address is 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter Florida 33458, telephone number (407)744-4778. The Petitioner's representative at that office is Eileen F. Letsch, Vice-President. Petitioner is represented in this matter by its counsel, Paul B. Erickson of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A., 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. The relief sought by Restigouche, Inc. is recognition by the Town of Jupiter that such portions of Section 517 which diminish permissible zoning uses from those allowed in the underlying C-2 Zoning District are void and unenforceable allowing the Application for Special Exception to be considered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town did not grant the relief sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, on or about March 5, 1991, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (Department). The body of the petition read as follows: Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") files this challenge to the consistency of a land development regulation of the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Restigouche is not aware of any Agency file number for this proceeding. Restigouche, Inc. is a Florida corporation. This petition is filed by Eileen F. Letsch, Executive Vice-President, 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458, (407)744-4778. Restigouche is represented in this Petition by Paul B. Erickson, Esq. of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. Restigouche is the owner of property in the Town of Jupiter, Florida which is within the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District ("IOZ") created by the Town under Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 on March 6, 1990 and applied to Restigouche's property by Ordinance 21-90 on March 20, 1990. These ordinances as enacted create Section 517 of Ordinance 10-88 which is the current zoning ordinance of the Town of Jupiter. Restigouche challenged the consistency of the IOZ with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter by letter to the chief elected official of the Town dated December 12, 1990. A copy of the petition is attached. The Town of Jupiter adopted its Comprehensive Plan January 20, 1990. The IOZ as it was enacted in part by Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 is a down zoning regulation which reduces the number of permissible uses for Restigouche's property by right or special exception from 41 to 27. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 14-90 established landscaping and site development standards for property within the IOZ. The portions of the IOZ as adopted in Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the IOZ as an area of landscaping and site development standards. It does not refer to the IOZ as an area where permissible uses will be down-zoned. The Comprehensive Plan establishes mandatory criteria for the development of commercial uses within the Town in Policy 1.3.5. This does not recognize or allow a separate, restrictive commercial zoning district along Indiantown Road. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 15-90 should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 9J-24.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and so notified the parties. By letter dated March 22, 1991, the Department requested the Mayor of the Town to furnish it with the following materials: those portions of the Town's land development regulations which discuss or implement the IOZ; the standards for all zoning districts which underlie the IOZ; any supportive studies regarding the IOZ; and those portions of the comprehensive plan which discuss the IOZ or densities and allowable uses in the area in question. The requested materials were furnished on or about March 28, 1991. An informal hearing on Petitioner's challenge to the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions was held in Jupiter on April 12, 1991. Representatives of both Petitioner and the Town participated in the hearing. They presented information and argument for the Department's consideration. Following the informal hearing, the Department gave the parties the opportunity to supplement what they had presented at hearing. Both parties took advantage of the opportunity. In its supplemental submission, Petitioner presented additional written argument, in which it identified with specificity those provisions of the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan with which it claimed the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions were inconsistent. These specifically identified Plan provisions were Goal 1, Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, and Policies 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.3.5 of the future land use element and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the intergovernmental coordination element. Petitioner also submitted 1) an engineer's report supporting its position that its proposed auto campus "would have significantly less impact upon public facilities" than would a 230,500 square foot retail center constructed on its property, 2) photographs of a model of the proposed auto campus, and 3) site plans of the proposed auto campus. By letter dated April 30, 1991, the Town objected to Petitioner's submission of the engineer's report and asked that it not be considered by the Department because it was generated after the informal hearing and therefore was "not available for discussion . . . at the hearing." On May 10, 1991, following its review and consideration of not only the information, argument and materials with which it had been presented, but of the entire Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan as well, which it had on file, the Department issued its written decision finding that "the provisions of the Town of Jupiter Land Development Regulations contained in the IOZ which have been challenged by Petitioners 46/ in this proceeding are consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan." The Department explained its determination as follows in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3 of its written decision: The Town of Jupiter's IOZ is not in conflict with the Comprehensive [P]lan because the IOZ is specifically authorized by the Plan, and there are no provisions in the Plan which prohibit the Town from adjusting allowable uses within underlying zoning districts. The uses permitted in the IOZ are certainly within the permissible range of uses for the designation in the plan. The plan does not guarantee a minimal zoning category for properties within the general commercial designation. It only provides that the zoning will effectively include general commercial uses. Further, the IOZ cannot accurately be referred to as a separate zoning category as argued by the Petitioners. The IOZ modifies underlying general commercial zoning districts (which the Petitioners agree are authorized by the Plan). In fact, land development regulations such as the IOZ are considered to be innovative and are encouraged in s. 163.3202(3), F.S. There are no provisions in Chapter 163, F.S., that require comprehensive plans to identify and authorize all implementing land development regulations. Although Policy 1.3.5 lists certain uses which are eliminated or limited within the IOZ, these uses are allowed in commercial zoning districts outside the IOZ. The Petitioners may have cited portions of certain policy statements that, when taken in isolation, seem to suggest potential conflicts with the IOZ. However, the IOZ serves as the implementing solution to a problem area identified in the Plan as being of significant concern. Therefore, the IOZ, on balance, takes action in [the] direction of implementing and furthering substantive portions of the Plan. Further, the lack of recognition in the comprehensive plan of implementing land development regulations does not, by itself, constitute an inconsistency. On May 31, 1991, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting a hearing on its consistency challenge. Petitioner did so in good faith as part of its effort to convince the Town Council that the I.O.Z. should be modified in a manner that would allow Petitioner to construct its proposed auto campus in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road. Petitioner hoped that the Hearing Officer would agree with its position that the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions are inconsistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan and that, after the Hearing Officer found these use restrictions to be inconsistent with the Plan, the Town Council would take action to eliminate them to avoid the sanctions it would face if it did not take such action.
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003.
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 The issue to be determined in this case is the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees to be paid to the Department of Economic Opportunity (“DEO”) by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Thomas and Mr. Shine were the agency attorneys who worked on the appeal. Ms. Thomas reviewed the record on appeal, reviewed the papers filed in the appellate court, filed a notice of appearance, researched legal issues associated with the agency’s Notice of Limited Joinder in Answer Brief, and discussed the case with other attorneys. Ms. Thomas spent seven hours working on the case. Mr. Shine reviewed the record on appeal, reviewed the papers filed in the appellate court, filed a notice of appearance, researched legal issues associated with the agency’s answer brief, and discussed the case with other attorneys. Mr. Shine spent six hours working on the case. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Shine did not file a brief or participate in oral argument. DEO is demanding payment of $3,900 as the total of its reasonable attorney’s fees, which was computed by multiplying 13 hours by an hourly rate of $300. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the criteria listed in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar must be used to determine the reasonable attorney’s fees in this case. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)A The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)A is “the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.” The legal work was not complex, but it required specialized skill in land use law. DEO claims the standing issue in the case on appeal was complex. To the contrary, the First District Court of Appeal awarded attorney’s fees to the appellees because the court determined that appellants and their counsel knew or should have known that no material facts provided a basis for Respondent’s standing. Likewise, the agency’s counsel knew or should have known. The evidence presented did not show that the labor of both Ms. Thomas and Mr. Shine was required. Their work was, in large part, redundant. Furthermore, Ms. Thomas had only a vague recollection of much of her work. The work of Mr. Shine, alone, would have been sufficient to accomplish the agency’s purposes and efforts in the appeal. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)B The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)B is “the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.” There was no evidence presented regarding this criterion to be considered in determining reasonable fees. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)C The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)C is “the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of similar nature.” DEO presented the testimony of Joseph Goldstein, a land use lawyer who practices in the Miami offices of the law firm of Holland and Knight. It was Mr. Goldstein’s opinion that the customary hourly rate in the Tallahassee area at the relevant time was $300.1/ Respondents did not present expert testimony to refute Mr. Goldstein’s opinion. There is no other evidence in the record regarding a reasonable hourly rate. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)D The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)D is “the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained.” The case on appeal had moderate significance and the responsibility involved was moderate. The results obtained were not unusual. The novelty in the appellate case was the award of attorney’s fees, but the agency attorneys had nothing to do with the award. In fact, they opposed the award. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)E The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)E is “the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional time demands or requests of the attorney by the client.” There was no evidence presented regarding this criterion that should be considered in determining reasonable fees. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)F The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)F is “the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.” There was no evidence presented regarding this criterion to be considered in determining reasonable fees. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)G The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)G is “the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of the effort reflected in the actual providing of such service.” The agency lawyers had specialized skill in land use law, but the case did not require unusual diligence or effort. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)H The criterion in Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)H is “whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, whether the client’s ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation.” The fee was fixed because it was based on fixed salaries, but it did not rest on the outcome of the appeal.
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Land Use Plan (LUP) map of Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The County is a charter government that administers the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Plan), a broad-based countywide policy-planning document to guide future growth and development. See County Exhibit 1. The LUP is a component of the Plan and contains the various land use designations. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the LUP that is being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. Blue Lake is a small, family-owned corporation that has owned the subject property since 1966. It submitted oral and written comments to the County during the adoption process. Flagler Retail Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, Park Hill Plaza, located at 9501 West Flagler Street, around one-half mile from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. Flagler, S.C., LLC, owns and operates a retail shopping center, Flagler Park Plaza, at 8221 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the subject property. It also submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. SC Mota Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, the Mall of Americas, located at 7757 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 25 blocks from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment A mobile home park with around 275 units occupied the property from 1957 until June 2007, when Blue Lake closed the park. At the time of the hearing, the mobile home park was around 80 percent demolished and cleared out. The property is currently listed for sale by its owners. The property is located within the County's Urban Development Boundary at the northeast corner of West Flagler Street, a six-lane divided arterial roadway running in an east- west direction and designated as a major roadway, and Northwest 102nd Avenue (also known as West Park Drive). The southwest corner of the property borders the City of Sweetwater and a small shopping center. Directly to the west of the property and across West Park Drive is a part of the Florida International University campus. To the east are the campuses of a public middle school and elementary school, while a large, single- family residential area lies to the south. Directly north of the property (and just south of State Road 836, also known as the Dolphin Expressway) is the western portion of a large multi- family residential complex (formerly a golf course) identified in the record as the Fountainbleau Park area, which stretches across Northwest 97th Avenue to the east. The County has two cycles per year for applicants to file amendments to the Plan, which may be text amendments having countywide application, or site-specific LUP map amendments having localized impact. In the April 2008 cycle, nineteen applications were filed with the County, including Blue Lake's Application No. 9. The application was filed by Gold River Corporation, which had a contract to purchase the property from Blue Lake contingent on a land use change. Gold River Corporation later assigned the contract to Blue Lake Partners, LLC, an entity unrelated to Blue Lake. The contract to purchase later "fell through" for unknown reasons. Blue Lake is now pursuing the land use change on its own behalf. Application No. 9 requested that the County amend the LUP map by changing the land use designation on a 41-acre parcel from Low-Medium Density Residential Communities to Business and Office. The former land use allows between six and thirteen dwelling units per gross acre and could be fully developed with as few as 244 residential units or as many as 533. The new land use allows both residential and commercial development, including a wide range of commercial uses such as retail, professional services, and offices. If developed to its maximum residential potential, the new category could accommodate more than 2,200 units. If developed to its maximum commercial potential, the new use would allow more than 679,000 square feet of commercial floor space. A Declaration of Restrictions is a tool permitted by the Plan to craft "a more refined amendment" that can take into consideration more than just a change in the land use of a parcel of property. See County Exhibit 1 at I-74.1. Restrictions are considered an adopted part of the Plan. Id. They can provide greater restrictions on a parcel, delineate the property's uses, and make the amendment more consistent with the Plan than it might otherwise be. In July 2008, Blue Lake offered a first Declaration of Restrictions that would prohibit residential development on the property on the premise that the change would satisfy a deficiency in land designated for commercial development. See County Exhibit 60. Land Use Element Policy LU-8E provides that applications requesting amendments to the LUP map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Plan 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; [and] Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; [and] Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; and Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU-7, herein. County Exhibit 1 at I-17-18. The various factors in the Policy are weighed and balanced when considering a map change. However, paragraph (i) is considered by the County to be the "primary," or at the very least an "important," factor when reviewing map changes since the County must ensure that there is enough land for different types of uses to accommodate the projected growth within the County. In fact, a County witness could recall no more than one or two instances over the last thirty years where the County had approved a LUP map change when the staff had determined that there was a lack of need under this provision. Under the County's plan amendment review process, an application for a change in the LUP map is first reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, then the applicable community council, next by the Planning Advisory Board, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners. Community councils are elected bodies from thirteen different geographic areas of the County that act as a planning board for making recommendations on amendments that affect their jurisdiction. A needs analysis determines the availability of commercial land in a given area relative to the availability of residential land. Consistent with its past practice of performing a supply and demand analysis under paragraph (i) of Policy LU-8E, the Department of Planning and Zoning staff looked at need within two minor statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is one of 32 geographical subareas into which the County has been subdivided for the purpose of collecting and inventorying data on the supply and demand for different land uses and for disaggregating the County's population into subareas. On very infrequent occasions, the staff has used a "tier," which is an aggregation or collection of several MSAs, rather than a single MSA. Another geographic area known as a census tract, which is much smaller than an MSA, is also allowed by the Plan. See Land Use Element Policy LU-8F ("the adequacy of land supplies . . . for business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, [MSAs] and combinations thereof"). As noted below, however, the County has never used a census tract and considers them to be "inappropriate" for a needs analysis in a case such as this. Because the Blue Lake property is located within MSA 3.2 and borders on MSA 5.4, the staff conducted a supply and demand analysis in those two MSAs. After completing its review, on August 25, 2008, the staff recommended that the application be denied, mainly on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i). See County Exhibit 60 and Blue Lake Exhibit 24. Specifically, based on its review of MSAs 3.2 and 5.4, the staff found that there was already an ample supply of vacant and available commercial land within the study area. In fact, out of 32 MSAs within the County, MSA 3.2 had the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population. Characterizing this supply of commercial land as "significant," the staff noted that there were more than 2,500 acres of commercial land in MSAs 3.2 and 5.4 either in use or vacant, and this category would not be depleted until after the year 2025. As to residential land, the supply of that category within the MSAs would be depleted by the year 2015, and staff noted that the property was currently designated residential and could serve to satisfy the future demand for residentially designated land within the MSAs. Despite a lack of need, the staff recommended that the amendment be transmitted for further local and state review on the belief that during the subsequent review process the application could possibly be modified into a more mixed-use project and thus be compatible with the Plan. In making this recommendation, the staff did not examine other needs or deficiencies, such as the need for elderly housing or for mixed-use properties. On September 23, 2008, the amendment was reviewed by the Westchester Community Council, which recommended that the amendment be approved but only with a change to allow residential development on the property to encourage a mixed-use project. Just before the amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory Board, Blue Lake offered a second Declaration of Restrictions, which reduced the amount of proposed commercial development from 620,000 to 400,000 square feet. See Blue Lake Exhibit 35. On October 6, 2008, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and transmittal of the amendment with a change to allow a potential mixed-use project. Although the County staff continued to recommend that the application be denied, on November 6, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and voted to transmit the amendment and second Declaration of Restrictions to the Department for its review. On March 13, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the County. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. In its ORC, the Department noted, among other things, that the County had not demonstrated a need for additional commercial uses on the property since the County's need analysis demonstrated that the commercial land in the area would not be depleted until after the year 2025. The ORC went on to recommend that the County either retain the current land use or provide data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment and its consistency with Policy LU-8E. On March 27, 2009, the County staff issued its response to the ORC in which it agreed that there was a lack of need for the amendment and that no new data and analysis had been submitted by the applicant. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Advisory Board again considered the application and recommended approval with the acceptance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictions. On April 13, 2009, Blue Lake's consultant submitted a revised commercial needs analysis to the County which concluded that there was in fact a need for more Business and Office designated land within his defined study area. See Blue Lake Exhibit 66. As a study area, the consultant used four census tracts (rather than MSAs) comprising around two square miles. The study area, in which Blue Lake's property was located, was bounded by major roadways on three sides and a man-made canal on the fourth. The consultant noted that the three roads and canal created an insular area that discouraged residents from leaving the area and thus justified in part further commercial development in the study area. Within his study area, the consultant found the ratio of commercial to population to be 3.3 acres per 1,000 people, which is significantly below the county-wide average of 6.0 acres per 1,000 people. He also found that the study area contained 1.4 vacant acres split up in five different locations, which because of the size and distribution made the study area essentially depleted. Although the County generally uses the same type of analysis as the consultant, it disagreed with the consultant's use of a smaller selected study area as well as many of his assumptions. Further, the County has never used a census tract in performing a needs analysis. It rejected Blue Lake's alternative needs analysis on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed and it appeared to be using an inappropriate primary trade area. The Department agreed with the County's assessment of the study. Given the deficiencies cited by the County, the report submitted by Blue Lake's consultant has not been credited. On May 1, 2009, Blue Lake offered a third Declaration of Restrictions which continued to include a restriction on commercial development of 400,000 square feet, but added certain requirements addressing compatibility of the proposed development of the property with existing residential development to the north and west by prohibiting construction of buildings on the northerly two acres of the property, requiring a landscape buffer, prohibiting certain types of commercial uses on the property, and including various other requirements not relevant here. See Blue Lake Exhibit 78. On May 5, 2009, the day before the Board of County Commissioners' adoption hearing, Blue Lake submitted a fourth Declaration of Restrictions which provided that commercial development would not exceed 375,000 square feet; "up to 150 dwelling units [would be] designated for elderly housing"; "ancillary and accessory uses" for the elderly could be constructed but would not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of the elderly housing facility (or just over 25,000 square feet); the northerly two acres would be reserved without buildings or used for elderly housing; a buffer would be installed; and certain commercial uses would be prohibited. See Blue Lake Exhibit 79. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the staff was still not satisfied that a need existed for further commercial development or that the owner had a commitment to build a specific minimum number of elderly housing units. On the evening of May 5, 2009, in response to a continued concern by the County staff, Blue Lake submitted a fifth (and final) Declaration of Restrictions, which provided in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding the re-designation of the Property to "Business and Office" on the County's LUP map, the maximum development of the Property shall not exceed the following: (a) 375,000 square feet of retail, commercial, personal services and offices; and (b) no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing, as such term is defined under Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701) and Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code (the "Code"), along with such ancillary and accessory uses as may be desirable, necessary or complementary to satisfy the service needs of the residents, such as, but not limited to, counseling, medical, nutritional, and physical therapy, provided that such ancillary and accessory uses shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of the elderly housing facility. County Exhibit 18. The final version of the restrictions differed from the fourth version by changing the words "up to 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing" to "no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing," a change suggested by the County staff. As finally revised, the last set of restrictions allows a mixed-use development and limits the owner to less than sixty percent of the non-residential uses that could have been available under the Business and Office land use designation. It also requires the allocation of two acres of land for the development of the elderly housing units as a precondition to any commercial development of the property. This means that the only permissible use on those two acres is the construction of no less than 150 dwelling units for "elderly housing," or more than sixty percent of the minimum residential units (233) that could have been previously constructed at full development under its current land use. If an elderly component is constructed, depending on the size of the structure, it allows the owner to provide "ancillary and accessory uses" for that component that could increase the total amount of commercial use to more than 400,000 square feet. As a prerequisite to approval of its application, Blue Lake executed and recorded the fifth Declaration of Restrictions. Although the staff still "[had] concerns regarding the demand for additional commercial land in this area," and agreed that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) had not been met, given the foregoing restrictions, the inclusion of a mixed-use component, and the need for elderly housing in the County, it recommended adoption of the amendment. Just prior to the vote by the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2009, a Blue Lake attorney sent the following email to a County staffer for the purpose of clarifying the commitment that Blue Lake was making in the Declaration of Restrictions: Yesterday's revision to the Declaration [which requires no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing] simply expands the universe of uses that would be permitted on the property. By reducing the overall square footage of commercial development, the owner would set up the conditions to allow the future development of 150 senior housing units. However, because the development of this type of project depends on so many factors, including zoning approvals, government incentives, etc., the owner's ability to build 375,000 square feet of commercial space is not in any way dependent on whether any senior housing units are actually built on the Property or the timing of such construction. (Emphasis added) Blue Lake Exhibit 86. There is no record of any response by the staff to the email or any indication that this "clarification" was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to its vote. A copy of the email was not provided to the Department. After learning of its contents at the final hearing, a Department planner stated that he considers the Declarations of Restrictions to be controlling, and not the email. On May 19, 2009, the County staff prepared a final response to the ORC stating that while it rejected the alternate needs analysis submitted by Blue Lake's consultant, and it "partially concur[red] with the Department's view that there was a lack of need, the applicant had adequately responded to its needs objection by "commit[ting] to building a mixed-use project and to reducing the commercial floor area." County Exhibit 10 at p. 2. On June 11, 2009, the County transmitted the amendment to the Department for its compliance review. On July 29, 2009, the Department found the amendment to be in compliance and noted in a staff report that "[t]he adopted amendment provides additional information for application #9 related to need (objection #1) and road capacity (objection #2)." Petitioners' Exhibit 54. It went on to say that "the County adequately responded to the Objection [regarding need] by reducing the commercial uses and introducing a mixed use component by adding residential units." Id. The Department's report added that Blue Lake had "committed to building a mixed use project which reduces commercial area from 679,535 square feet . . . to 375,000 square feet . . . [,] the mixed use development is supported by FLUE Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept #8, [and] the mixed use development reduces the potential loss of housing units on the site, which is supported by Goal 1 of the Housing Element." Id. On August 3, 2009, the Department published in the Miami Herald its Notice of Intent to find the map change in compliance. On August 26, 2009, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition with the Department generally contending that the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis for new commercial development in the area and that the change in land use would have an adverse impact on traffic. The latter objection was later withdrawn. As clarified in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and the Stipulation, they contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8E(i), LU-8F, and LU-10A, Land Use Concept No. 8, and Housing Element Goal 1, as well as the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J- 5.006(2)(c).2 Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first object to the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not consistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no demonstrated need for more commercial land in the study area. That Plan provision requires that map amendments "shall" be evaluated against all goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan, "and in particular" whether the amendment satisfies "a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County." Similarly, while Petitioners agree that the data and analysis used to support the amendment are relevant and appropriate, and were applied in a professional manner, they contend the data support a continuation of the current residential land use. Despite efforts by the County at hearing to downplay the importance of Policy LU-8E(i) in its review process, it can be inferred that a needs analysis under that provision is one of the most important, if not primary, consideration when reviewing LUP map changes. This is borne out by the fact that except for one or two occasions, the County has never approved a map change over the last thirty years without a needs analysis supporting that change. The evidence supports a finding that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no need for 375,000 square feet of new commercial development within the study area (MSAs 3.2 and 5.4). More specifically, the relevant data and analysis used by the County reveal that the MSA in which the property is located (MSA 3.2) has the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population of the 32 MSAs in the County; that the supply of existing or available commercial land use will not be depleted for at least another fifteen years; and that there is no "deficiency" of commercial land in the study area to accommodate projected population or growth, as required by the Policy. Although the amendment will authorize at least 375,000 square feet of new commercial development, both the County and Department concede that a need for more commercial land does not exist. It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-8E(i). Likewise, because the data and analysis do not support the amendment, but rather support a contrary result, the County reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2). The County and Blue Lake argue, however, that even though no need for commercial land exists, the final version of the Declaration of Restrictions incorporates a provision requiring an elderly housing component, which when combined with the commercial component, changes the character of the land to a mixed use. By Blue Lake offering this restriction, they argue that the application, as amended, furthers other Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing for the elderly (e.g., Housing Element Goal 1, Objective HO-9, and Policy HO-9A) and furthers provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed areas (in this case a 50-year-old mobile home park) with a mixture of land uses (e.g., Land Use Element Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept 8). Thus, they contend that the "need" requirement in Policy LU-8E(i) is now met because Blue Lake is satisfying a deficiency in both the supply of elderly housing as well as mixed uses. To support the contention that a need for elderly housing exists, the County posited that there is a need, "in general," for elderly housing in the County. It also pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2008 there was a small percentage increase in the number of persons over 65 years of age residing in the County. See County Exhibit 64. But the County agrees that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) does not distinguish between different types of residential use, such as whether properties are available for elderly residents. Neither does the test assess the need for mixed uses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a need for elderly housing or mixed-use projects, any such need does not address the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i). Even assuming arguendo that it does, the County made no study of the need for "elderly housing" or "mixed use projects" within MSAs 3.2 and 5.4. The County and Blue Lake also contend that the proposed mixed use furthers other laudable provisions within the Plan, which more than offset any lack of commercial need. While development of the property under the current or not yet effective new land use would certainly "rejuvenate" an area now occupied by a closed, 50-year-old mobile home park, and result in the redevelopment of what is now probably a substandard urban area, see Land Use Concept 8 and Land Use Policy LU-10A, furtherance of those provisions by creating a new commercial land use category does not trump the lack of need for more commercial land. Similarly, the Department found the amendment, as adopted, was in compliance because the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions introduced an elderly housing mixed-use component, which essentially negated the lack of need for commercial development. It is fair to infer from the evidence that, like the County, the Department made this determination in the belief that the elderly housing component was intended to address a need for affordable or subsidized housing for senior citizens. Petitioners contend, however, that the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions does not truly provide for an elderly housing/mixed use in this context. The fifth version of the Declaration of Restrictions references the term "elderly housing" as that term is defined in "Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701)" and "Chapter 11A of the County Code." Because the federal law, related regulations, and the entire Chapter 11A were not made a part of the record by any party, it is appropriate to take official recognition of those matters. The federal regulation (section 1701) referred to in the amendment relates to "supportive housing for the elderly" and the federal assistance programs administered by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Its provisions are lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated, and they have been amended numerous times since their adoption. While the terms "elderly person" and "frail elderly" are defined in sections 1701q(k)(1) and (2) of the regulations, the undersigned was unable to find a specific definition of "elderly housing," and counsel have provided no citation. Chapter 11A of the County Code is a civil and human rights ordinance that is enforced by a County Commission on Human Rights. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has cited Section 11A-13(5) as the provision that defines the term. See County Exhibit 157. That provision enumerates "[e]xceptions to unlawful practices" and defines "housing for older persons" in the context of unlawful housing practices, but not in the context of a land use change. Therefore, it has little, if any, value in deciphering the meaning of the term "elderly housing" in the Declaration of Restrictions. When asked to define the term "elderly housing" as used in the Declaration of Restrictions, no witness could give a precise answer or refer to any provision in the federal law or County Code where a definition of that term is found. Therefore, if an elderly component is ever built on the property, it is fair to infer that the developer has wide discretion in choosing the type of units built and their price, and there is no guarantee or requirement that they be targeted for anyone except "elderly" persons, whatever age and associated income status that may encompass. Because of these ambiguities and uncertainties, the inclusion of an elderly housing component does not further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan encouraging affordable housing for all citizens, including the elderly, that the County relies upon to support the amendment. Finally, the fifth Declaration of Restrictions permits a developer to either construct elderly housing or merely reserve for an indefinite period of time the northerly two acres of the 41-acre tract free from construction of buildings. If construction ever occurs on those two acres, the only permissible use is "no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing." Petitioners contend that the commitment is illusory since there is no requirement that a residential component ever be built. The County and Blue Lake point out, however, that when a map amendment is approved, there are no timetables for when development must actually occur. Similarly, the Department does not look at the timing of development when an amendment is reviewed, and the fact that there is no time limitation in the amendment does not render it out of compliance. While it is reasonable in this case to question whether an elderly housing component will ever be built, the plan amendment simply approves a map change, and Petitioners have not cited any Plan requirement, Department rule, or statute that mandates development within a certain period of time in order for a map change to be in compliance. Petitioners' argument is rejected. In summary, it is beyond fair debate that (a) the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Land Use Policy LU- 8E(i); (b) the change in land use is not supported by the most relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (c) by adopting the amendment, the County reacted to the data and analysis in an inappropriate manner; (d) the reference to "elderly housing" is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain and does not further Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing within the County; and (e) even if the plan amendment furthers other Plan provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas with mixed uses, on balance this consideration does not outweigh the foregoing deficiencies. All other contentions by Petitioners not specifically discussed herein 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 plan amendment (Application No. 9) adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, be found not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 14th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Walter L. Moyer, violated Section 472.033(1)(g) and (h) F.S. and Rule 21 HH-2.01(3) by performing a land survey in a negligent or incompetent manner, without due care and without due regard for acceptable professional standards, and violated Section 472.033(1)(e), (g) and (h) F.S., and Rule 21HH- 2.01(3) and (5) FAC, by providing a false or deliberately inaccurate survey sketch to a client on two separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Walter L. Moyer has been licensed by the State of Florida as a registered surveyor from approximately August 1977 until present, and holds license number LS 0002828. His address for license purposes is Palm Bay, Florida, in Brevard County. His practice as a surveyor has been primarily in construction-related surveys and lot surveys, with very few parcel surveys. THE CHILCOTT SURVEY (COUNT I) In June 1984, Charles and Robin Chilcott purchased property on Grant Road, in Brevard County, consisting of approximately 1.44 acres of undeveloped land. The Chilcotts acquired the parcel with the intent to construct a home and keep their horses. Shortly after purchase, the Chilcotts retained Moyer to prepare a boundary survey of the parcel. The cost of the survey was $315.00 including $7.50 extra cost for two concrete monuments, rather than iron rods, at the front corners, as requested by the Chilcotts. The survey was performed on July 27, 1984, and Moyer was paid. He furnished the Chilcotts several sketches of survey which he had signed and sealed. In 1985, the Chilcotts hired a contractor, Casey Jones, and commenced building their house. At the request of Casey Jones, Moyer prepared both the foundation and final surveys. These two surveys were added to the boundary survey on September 26, 1985, and November 23, 1985, respectively. At the time that the field work on the foundation and final survey was done, Moyer detected no problems with the monumentation he had initially set in the boundary survey. He did not see any evidence that the monuments had been disturbed. The final survey shows the house to be 17.35 feet inside the east lot line. The Chilcotts wanted at least that distance because the area is zoned agricultural and they did not want the neighbor's livestock close to the house. They also understood that the county required a minimum 10-foot set-back. In connection with the construction of their home, and in reliance upon Moyer's survey identifying their property's boundary, the Chilcotts installed a well and a fence and had approximately 800 feet of sod planted along the east boundary. The Chilcotts have since learned that those improvements are not on their property and that their house is, in fact, only 7.25 feet from the lot line. In May, 1986, David Rothery, a Florida licensed land surveyor, performed a boundary survey of the Donald Waterbury parcel adjacent to and just east of Chilcott's land on Grant Road. Rothery checked and double-checked his field measurements and still found a ten foot discrepancy in the placement of the monuments on the eastern corners of the Chilcott parcel. Those monuments were ten feet too far to the east and were, therefore, placed ten feet within the Waterbury boundaries. He did not observe any indication that the monuments had been moved, and when he placed his corners for the proper boundaries, he found no evidence that monuments had ever been there before. As required, the monuments placed by Moyer had his identification on them. Rothery put a dotted line on his survey with the notation, "Apparent survey error on adjoining property by Walter Moyer Land Surveying". Rothery also called Moyer and told him about the discrepancy. On the morning of May 10, 1986, Moyer went back out to the Chilcott property and discovered that his monuments were ten feet too far to the east. He was in the process of moving them when he was confronted by Charles Chilcott. He told Chilcott that an error was made, that he "dropped ten feet". There was some discussion about possible remedies such as paying for the well and fence to be moved or buying the ten feet from Waterbury. Chilcott did not let Moyer finish moving the monuments. That night, Chilcott, who had never met Moyer before, but had only communicated by phone or in writing, called Moyer's house and confirmed that it was the same person he had seen moving the monuments. That was the last time Chilcott spoke with Moyer. Chilcott called Moyer's house several times over the following months, but always reached Mrs. Moyer and his phone calls were not returned. Moyer did contact Waterbury about purchasing the ten foot strip. Waterbury was concerned about how this would affect his eventual ability to build on his lot and refused to sell. Waterbury is not pressing the Chilcotts about their encroachments; he simply expects to have the matter resolved sometime in the future. By a letter dated 8/18/86, the Chilcotts requested damages of $2,500.00 from Moyer, including an estimate of costs to move the well, fence and a power pole and to replace sod. On September 13, 1986, another letter from Chilcott to Moyer listed the same plus additional damages, for a total demand of $4,025.00. In a letter to Chilcott dated August 27, 1987, Moyer offered to pay the application fee to seek a variance from the setback requirement and offered to provide a final survey and half the cost of moving the well. The letter denied that the problem was Moyer's fault and said that Moyer believes that the markers were moved between the date the survey was completed and the date of the foundation. The Chilcotts rejected that offer. No evidence in this proceeding supports Moyer's contention that the Chilcotts or someone else moved the monuments he originally set in 1984. The evidence does establish a strong circumstantial basis for finding that the monuments were not moved, but were incorrectly placed by Moyer at the time that the boundary survey was completed. Setting the monuments properly is an essential component of conducting a boundary survey. Moreover, when a subsequent final survey is done, it is the duty of the surveyor to assure that the original monuments have not been disturbed during construction and site work by a contractor. Assuming that Moyer is correct in his contention that the monuments were moved after they were set by him, but before the foundation was placed, it was his duty to discover that fact. He did not, since his final survey shows that the house is 17.35 feet from the boundary, whereas the house is, in fact, approximately seven feet from the adjoining property. Except when witness monuments are used, as when a tree or other obstruction sits on a boundary corner, it is a violation of standard surveying practice to place a monument other than where it is shown on the survey drawing. In this instance, the drawing is accurate; as described in the Chilcott deed, the northeast corner of their property is 600 feet from the section corner. There was no need for witness monuments here; yet the east boundary monuments are ten feet off and are 590 feet from the section corner. There is no overlap in the legal descriptions of the Waterbury and Chilcott properties to account for the overlap in monuments discovered by David Rothery, the Waterbury surveyor. Surveying is a system of checking measurements. Both human and equipment errors in the profession are neither rare nor entirely common. Even the most up-to-date electronic equipment is subject to discrepancies. Checking and rechecking field measurements helps alleviate errors. The minimum technical standards developed by and for the profession are intended to reduce errors, although it is not clear that slavish adherence to those principles will absolutely prevent any possibility of error. When errors do occur, the standard of the profession is to work with the client to resolve the problem. In some cases, this may mean the purchase of the client's property or adjoining property if the party is willing to sell. Moyer's limited offers do not meet the established standards of the profession. THE BURGOON-BERGER SURVEYS COUNTS II AND III On August 21, 1986, Moyer signed and sealed a survey sketch of Lot 22, Block 2245, Port Malabar, Unit 44, in Brevard County Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey of Lot 22 showed the drawing of an improvement within the boundaries of the lot with a notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 25.86." Next to the date on the survey is the abbreviation, "FND". The survey was submitted to the Palm Bay Building Department on August 26, 1986, the day before the pre-slab inspection. A pre-slab inspection is done before the slab is poured; therefore, at the time the survey was signed and sealed, the concrete slab had not yet been poured. On October 20, 1986, Moyer prepared a sketch of survey of Lot 7, Block 1054, Port Malabar Unit 20, in Brevard County, Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey sketch indicated an improvement within the boundaries of the lot, with the notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 26.87". Next to the date on the survey is the notation "FND". The survey was submitted to the City of Palm Bay on October 28, 1986. The pre-slab inspection was done by the City on October 22, 1986. Again, the survey was signed and sealed before the slab was actually poured. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", is commonly understood to mean "foundation, finished floor elevation". "FND" is commonly understood to mean "foundation". Moyer, himself, has used both notations to signify those common usages. Foundation is generally accepted in the land surveying profession to mean something permanent and constructed, like a concrete slab, not bust the ground or wooden form boards used to guide the pouring of the slab. A survey which depicts an improvement with the note, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", when the floor has not been finished misrepresents the status of the construction of that project. Reviewing personnel at the Palm Bay Building Department rejected the surveys and alerted the City's Flood Plain Administrator. That individual, Maria Parkhurst, reported the incidents to the Department of Professional Regulation. Lots 22 and 7 are both in the flood plain and slab elevation is significant, as the City must assure that federal maximum elevation requirements are met. The City requires the submission of surveys containing slab elevation data. Banks also rely on foundation surveys submitted by contractors in order to determine the state of construction before the release of a foundation draw. That is, before the contractor is entitled to partial payment for his work, the bank needs to know if the work has been done. Both Moyer and his client, Bergoon-Berger, intended the notation in these cases to mean "finished form", not "finished floor". Burgoon-Berger had Moyer perform a survey after the wooden form boards were constructed, but before the concrete slab was poured, in order to assure that the house was placed properly on the lot. The survey was somehow submitted prematurely to the city, whereas because Moyer and his client intended that the poured slab be re-surveyed before the sketch was submitted. When the survey for Lot 7 was resubmitted to the City on October 31, 1986, the slab had been poured and, while the elevation remained the same, the size of the fireplace foundation was slightly smaller. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV" remained the same, with nothing on the face of the survey sketch to indicate that this later version was the finished floor, rather than the finished form. Moyer no longer uses these abbreviations. A survey is not valid until it is signed and sealed, but once it is signed and sealed, it signifies to the client and to the public at large that the information provided therein is true and accurate. The standard of professional land survey practice dictates that abbreviations which are not commonly accepted should be explained on the face of the drawing. The professional standards also dictate that even if a client asks for certain information on a survey, in anticipation that other third parties might rely on the survey the professional should either refuse to indicate improvements that do not exist yet or indicate unambiguously that the improvements are intended, but still under construction. Notwithstanding Bergoon-Berger's and Moyer's intentions with regard to the two surveys at issue, Moyer failed to meet professional standards when he signed and sealed those surveys and released them to his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing him on probation for a period of two years, under such conditions as the Board may deem appropriate, including, but not limited to the participation in continuing professional education courses and the pursuit of a reasonable resolution to the Chilcott's boundary problems arising from the Respondent's negligence in performing their survey. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner (Count I) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 3-4. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Incorporated in Part in Paragraph 1., as to the limitation of experience, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in part in Paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 4. 14-18. Adopted in Paragraph 3 and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 11. 23-28. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 8, however the accurate date is May 10, 1986, and the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Moyer spoke to either of the Chilcotts before coming back. This fact is not material. 32-33. Adopted in Paragraph 8. 34. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 42-43. Rejected as cumulative. 44. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. 45-47. Rejected as cumulative. 48-49. Adopted in Paragraph 12. 50-51. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative. 54-55. Adopted in Paragraph 14. (Counts II and III) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Adopted in Paragraph 16. 4-6. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Adopted in Paragraph 20. Adopted in Paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Respondent Adopted in Paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in Background. Adopted in Paragraph 2. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 8-11. Rejected as immaterial. 12-13. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 7. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the fact that the Chilcott house is 7 feet from the boundary. That fact is adopted in Paragraph 6. 19-20. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Rejected, except as adopted in Paragraph 10. 24-25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 13. Rejected as immaterial. While the boundary depiction is accurate, the placement of the house is in error on the final and foundation surveys and, of course, the markers are erroneously set. 30-33. Addressed in Background. 34. Adopted in Paragraphs 15 and 17. 35-36. Adopted in part in Paragraph 22, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 37-38. Rejected as immaterial. 39. Adopted in Paragraphs 19 and 22. 40-44. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: DAVID R. TERRY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JAMES P. BEADLE, ESQUIRE 5205 BABCOCK STREET N. E. PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32905 ALLEN R. SMITH, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 TOM GALLAGHER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Collier County (County) Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Collier County Ordinance Number 02-32 ("the Rural Fringe Amendments" or "the Amendments") on June 19, 2002, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background The Amendments at issue in these cases arose from a specific historical background which is relevant to help put them in context. In 1997, the County adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based plan amendments ("EAR-based amendments"). DCA found the EAR-based amendments not to be "in compliance." Following an administrative hearing in which FWF and Audubon intervened, the Administration Commission entered a final order agreeing with DCA's determination. Joint Exhibit J.3. The Administration Commission’s final order, entered on June 22, 1999, directed the County to take the following steps in order to bring its comprehensive plan amendments into compliance: (1) rescind those EAR-based amendments found not in compliance; (2) adopt certain specific "remedial" amendments; (3) initiate an assessment of the area of the County designated on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as Agricultural/Rural; (4) adopt interim amendments to remain in force during the course of the assessment; and (5) no later than June 22, 2002, adopt those plan amendments needed to implement the findings and results of the assessment. Summary of Rural Fringe Amendments In response to the Administration Commission's final order on the EAR-based amendments, the County elected to divide its Agricultural/Rural-designated area into two subdistricts-- Rural Fringe and Eastern Lands--for purposes of the assessment and implementing plan amendments. The Rural Fringe subdistrict was designated as "the Rural Fringe Mixed Used District" (or "the Rural Fringe"). The Rural Fringe is described in the amendments as follows: The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 7% of Collier County's total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. * * * The Rural Fringe Mixed Used District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public rights-of-way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District. J.4 at 50. Under the Amendments, the Rural Fringe was divided into areas designated as Sending, Receiving, or Neutral on the FLUM.18 J.5. Some Sending Areas are also designated Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). Receiving Lands "are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as most appropriate for development . . . ." J.4. at 51. These lands have been chosen because they "have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations." Id. Approximately 25,000 acres are designated Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands "are also located to allow for the provision of central water and sewer and have excellent access to the County's arterial road network." J.11. at 2. The base density within Receiving Lands is one dwelling unit per five acres. However, through the purchase of development rights from Sending Lands through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program established by the Amendments (discussed in Findings 72-91, infra), Receiving Lands may increase density up to one dwelling unit per acre. Additional density may be obtained if a development preserves more than the minimum required amount of native vegetation. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands may also be developed as "Rural Villages." The Amendments provide for the possibility of one rural village within each of the four distinct Receiving Areas in the Rural Fringe. The purpose of rural villages is described as follows: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. J.4 at 62. The rural villages permitted in the Rural Fringe must consist of compact neighborhoods with nearby neighborhood or village centers. The neighborhood or village centers are to include retail and office uses; public parks, squares, or greens; civic and government uses; and service facilities. J.4 at 63. Specific provision also is made for open space in and surrounding the rural village. J.4 at 63-64. In addition to the one-village-per-district limitation, the amendments impose the following additional locational criteria on a rural village: (1) it must be at least three miles from any other rural village; (2) it must have direct access to an arterial or collector road, or the developer must bear the cost of a new collector road directly accessing the village; and (3) it must be near already- existing or planned public infrastructure, such as water and sewer facilities. J.4 at 63. In addition, a rural village may only be approved if shown to be fiscally neutral to taxpayers outside the village. J.4 at 65. Neutral Lands "have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development" at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. J.4. at 55. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Neutral Lands. Approximately 7,000 acres have been designated as Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are those lands "that have the highest degree of environmental value" and "are the principal target for preservation and conservation." J.4. at 58. The residential use of this land is restricted to one dwelling unit per parcel which existed before June 22, 1999, or one unit per 40 acres, whichever yields the greatest density. Nonresidential uses of Sending Land, other than agriculture, are quite limited. There also are specific criteria for the protection of site-specific native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands. J.4 at 58-62; J.6 at 24, 27, and 29-30. Some of the land designated Sending is also subject to regulation as NRPA. The purpose of a NRPA designation "is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large connected intact and relatively unfragmented habitat, which may be important for these listed species." J.4 at 79. Designation as a NRPA also limits the intensity and density of development in an area (J.4 at 58-61) and imposes specific restrictions for the preservation of native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands (J.6 at 24, 27, and 29). The principal additional effect of NRPA designation is to increase the requirement for the retention of native vegetation. In addition to the changes to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the Amendments also affected the Coastal and Conservation Element (CCE), Potable Water Sub-Element, and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element. Standing of Petitioners and Intervenors The evidence was that the Husseys and Brown own property in Collier County and submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. The parties stipulated to the standing of FWF, Audubon, Vision & Faith, and Section 20 Investments. There also was evidence that FWF and Audubon submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments at both the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing and that, at least as of June 14, 2000, they owned property or operated a business in Collier County and had members who reside in Collier County. Century is a for-profit corporation that has its principal place of business in Collier County. Century owns 12.5 acres of land in Collier County. According to the testimony of Donald Lester, President of both Century and Waterford Management, Inc., Century is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Century Holdings, a limited partnership. Waterford is Century Holdings' general partner. Waterford, Century, and approximately 300 other entities are limited partners of Century Holdings. All of these entities and the land they own are managed by Waterford. According to Lester, the various Waterford-managed entities are involved in real estate development and have spent $42 million (over $30 million in "land basis" and $7-8 million on professional fees and expenses) acquiring land for development in Collier County, including approximately $36 million for approximately 3,500 acres in North Belle Meade (NBM) in the Rural Fringe and approximately $6 million for another approximately 2,000 acres farther east in Collier County. There was no evidence that these lands have obtained any master development approval or are otherwise vested for development. Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation having its principal place of business in Collier County. Lester is its Executive Director. There was no evidence that Coalition itself owns property or conducts any type of business activity in Collier County, other than commenting on the Rural Fringe Amendments and participating in these administrative proceedings. Coalition is comprised of approximately 2,000 members. Of these members, approximately 300 are the various entities making up the Century Holdings partnership and managed by Waterford. A total of approximately 320-350 Coalition members own property approximately 3,500 acres in NBM; there was no evidence that the other approximately 1,650 members own property or conduct business in Collier County. An unspecified number of members own approximately 2,000 acres to the east of NBM in Collier County. According to Lester, some members voluntarily donate money to the Coalition; others have "been supporting the proceedings" in some unspecified manner. Lester testified at final hearing that he commented on the Rural Fringe Amendments on behalf of both Century and Coalition during the adoption hearing. He indicated that he filled out and submitted a "speaker card" in order to give his comments and that the card indicated that he was speaking on behalf of both Coalition and Century; but the card was not placed in evidence. The only other evidence on the subject consisted of the transcript of that hearing, which records Lester's introductory statement as follows: "I represent a director of 15,000 coalition. I represent landowners that own property within the TDR area." The transcript also reflects that Robert Diffenderfer commented and stated: "I represent the 15,000 coalition and literally thousands of individuals. . . . On behalf of coalition and the individuals, I have the list here. There are 4,000 plus of them." While the list was not placed in evidence, it can be inferred from Lester's testimony that it would have included Century and the other Coalition members owning land in Collier County. Petitioners' Challenges Petitioners' challenges to the Rural Fringe Amendments were narrowed during the course of this proceeding and now are essentially: (1) whether the County's delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands, especially within the NBM portion of the Rural Fringe, is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data19; and (2) whether the TDR Program is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data, in particular as to the feasibility of its operation.20 Delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands A. Data and Analysis The process of delineating Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe was involved and complex. The County accumulated and considered a wide range of data in the process. Among the data sources used were: (1) the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD's) 1994/1995 Land Use/Land Cover map; (2) Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") soils survey data; (3) soils tables prepared by Florida soils scientist, Howard Yamataki; (4) the National Wetlands Inventory; (5) true-color aerial photographs provided by the County property appraiser's office; (6) the updated FWCC's "Closing the Gaps" Report; (7) FWCC's updated wildlife and wildlife habitat data, including its Florida panther and Florida black bear telemetry data and red-cockaded woodpecker colony data, as well as its updated strategic habitat data and Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA) maps; and (8) the 1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Multi- Species/Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team (MERIT) data for South Florida, in particular pertaining to the Florida panther. The County also actively solicited updated data from property owners and other members of the public. These opportunities for public input included numerous publicly- noticed meetings and hearings before the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee (52 to 53 meetings), the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. At all of these meetings, the public was invited to submit information to the County. On two occasions, notification was mailed to each property owner in the Rural Fringe, alerting them of the County's consideration of the amendments and inviting their input. The County posted signs on the two main roads entering the Rural Fringe, notifying the public of the on-going evaluation of the Rural Fringe and providing a contact name and telephone number for those wanting further information. The County also solicited information from the public via the County web page. Members of the public did submit information, some of which resulted in adjustments to the designations ultimately adopted. For example, the County received data from both Audubon and the Collier County School Board regarding red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat in the northeast corner of NBM. Similarly, Brown submitted information regarding some of his land holdings in NBM that was used in the ultimate delineation of boundaries between Receiving and Sending. The Husseys also submitted data that was considered. While all information submitted by the public was considered, not all resulted in a change in designation. For example, the County received information regarding jurisdictional wetland determinations on four separate properties and reviewed that information in order to determine whether there was a consistent correlation between jurisdictional determinations and the wetlands land cover information obtained from SFWMD. No consistent correlation was found. In two instances, the jurisdictional wetlands were larger than the area shown as wetlands land cover; in the other two, they were smaller. Despite ample opportunity, the only information submitted to the County by the Husseys was a limerock mining exploration contract on some of their property; Coalition and Century did not make any information available to the County between the transmittal and adoption hearings.21 In its analysis of the data, the County recognized that they were collected during different time periods, ranging from the 1980s through 2001. The soils data from NRCS, for example, was developed in the early 1990's from Landsat satellite imagery from 1985-1989, while the panther telemetry data reflected field data through the end of 2001. SFWMD's data was generated based upon false color infrared aerial photography and reflected changes in land cover through 1995.22 At the time of adoption of the Amendments on June 19, 2002, SFWMD's land use/land cover data was the most recent publicly-available depiction of land uses and land cover in the Rural Fringe.23 Petitioners take the position that the NRCS Soils Survey data was the most accurate data available because it was "ground-truthed." But the NRCS data did not depict land use cover; and it was not proven that the NRCS data accurately and reliably depicted vegetative cover.24 Petitioners also criticized the County for not "ground-truthing" the SFWMD data despite having knowledge of inaccuracies in its depiction of jurisdictional wetlands. But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, "ground-truthing" would have required the collection of additional data, as Petitioners' own expert conceded. See Conclusion 105, infra. The Husseys also argued in their PRO that the NRCS soils survey data should have been used instead of the SFWMD land use and cover data to delineate wetlands because it was "ground-truthed." But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, the NRCS data does not purport to identify jurisdictional wetlands and should not be used as a proxy for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands due to drainage activities, particularly in NBM. The Husseys had a Lower Tamiami (Aquifer) Recharge/ Discharge map and a map of the County's Wellfield Protection Zones admitted in evidence and argued in their PRO that the County failed to consider these data in delineating Sending Lands and Receiving Lands. To the contrary, the only evidence was that these maps were considered by the County's environmental specialists. Moreover, there was no evidence that these data were in any way inconsistent with the delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe. Having accepted the SFWMD land cover data as the most accurate indicator of land cover and land uses, the County "updated" Gaps Report maps of biodiversity hotspot areas (which were based upon 1980 satellite imaging) by removing areas shown on the more current SFWMD maps to have been cleared for agriculture by 1995 or 1996. Petitioners contended that "updating" the data in this manner made resulting data and analysis inaccurate and misleading by "masking" natural resource information. But those maps were intended to depict features on parts of the Rural Fringe not mapped as agricultural land use cover on SFWMD's land use cover maps. As such, these "updates" reflected the County’s reasonable determination that, while lands cleared for agricultural use can retain natural resource value, they generally have lower environmental and habitat value than uncleared wetland and forest. No evidence suggested that this judgment was unreasonable. The County's analysis resulted in sensible planning decisions that generally afforded undeveloped wetland or forested areas a higher level of protection than land that has been disturbed through agricultural clearing. Petitioners initially seemed to contend that the County failed to take into account changes in hydrology and wetland vegetative cover in NBM as a result of drainage canals and similar alterations. As the hearing progressed, however, it became clear that from the evidence that the County was aware of the changes in hydrology and vegetative cover in NBM and took those changes into account in its planning decisions. The best data and analysis available as of June 19, 2002, showed that NBM is utilized by both the Florida black bear and the Florida panther. The data and analysis indicate that both of these species make more use of areas to the east (the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gates Estates) and south (the (South) Belle Meade NRPA and largely undeveloped portions of Southern Golden Gates Estates). However, both panther and black bear access NBM from those areas by crossing Everglades Boulevard to the east and Interstate 75 to the south. A significant population of black bear uses NBM. FWCC lists the Florida black bear as a threatened species. Areas mapped by FWCC as strategic habitat statewide would support approximately five populations of approximately 200 individual black bears. (By comparison, FWCC ideally would like to maintain enough strategic habitat to support ten populations of 200 individuals, in part to reduce adverse impacts from natural disasters and genetic problems from inbreeding.) FWCC lists the Florida panther as an endangered species. It is one of the most endangered large mammals in the United States. Only approximately 80 to perhaps 100 panthers are thought to exist in the wild, all in south Florida. The Florida panther faces extinction unless "aggressive action" is taken for its protection. Panthers require large areas of habitat to survive in the wild. Depending on habitat quality, individual males require a home range of 100-150, 200-250, or even as much as 400 square miles; females have a smaller home range of approximately 50-70 square miles. Notwithstanding its general goal of maintaining ten populations of 200 individuals, FWCC's realistic goal for the Florida panther is to maintain current panther habitat and population. The (South) Belle Meade NRPA is considered Priority 1 Panther Habitat by FWCC. Other Priority 1 and Priority 2 Panther Habitat exists farther to the southeast and east. While NBM is not as good for panther habitat, radio telemetry data show that panthers also use NBM. Telemetry data show that panther use of NBM has increased in the last ten years. This could be due in part to the introduction of a female Texas cougar as part of FWCC's breeding program. NBM is currently within the home range of at least one male Florida panther and the introduced female Texas cougar. (Other use is possible, as only about a third of the animals in the population are collared for telemetry.) The female denned and gave birth to three kittens in NBM in 1998. It is possible that panthers frequented NBM in the late 1990's in part because a ranch lessee on Brown property in Section 21 was operating a deer-feeding station there. Panther telemetry data seem to have decreased after Brown required his lessee to cease those operations. However, while panther may have returned to those feeding stations because of the deer being attracted, they first had to have been in the area to become aware of the deer being attracted. This indicates some panther use of NBM prior to establishment of the feeding station. FWCC and United States Fish and Wildlife Service data also indicated to the County that red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) colonies existed in the old-growth forest areas that remain in the western part of NBM, nesting in cavities in these trees. There also were data that FWCC considered these lands to be RCW strategic habitat. To nest, RCWs need old-growth cavity trees in an area not overgrown with new growth. While there were data that drainage of land in NBM in the RCW strategic habitat area has resulted in invasion of melaleuca (a nuisance exotic species), RCW can continue to use the habitat and forage in and around the melaleuca unless the melaleuca blocks off the cavity tree. There were no data that RCW no longer use NBM due to melaleuca infestation. Much of the now-urbanized areas of Collier County once provided RCW habitat, but development has impaired the value of that land for RCW nesting and foraging. As with panther habitat, traditional RCW habitat has diminished under the current regulatory scheme, and additional protection is needed. The non-NRPA Sending Land in the western part of NBM is the last remaining viable RCW habitat that is not already in conservation status. In gathering and using data in the development of the Rural Fringe Amendments, the County was supported by various state agencies that informally reviewed and commented on the amendments. These agencies supported Collier's approach to the designation of Sending and Receiving Lands. It is found that the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data. Sending and Receiving Delineations in General Petitioners were most critical of the County's alleged exclusive use of the SFWMD vegetative and land use cover maps to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. But the evidence was clear that the County had no intention of designating Sending Lands solely on the basis of the presence of wetlands. See J.15 at 4 (identifying percentages of wetlands in each category, and showing that the County recognized there were wetlands in Receiving Lands and non-wetlands in Sending Lands). Petitioners' characterization of the County's effort was a gross oversimplification. It also was clear from the evidence that the County did not restrict its data and analysis to the SFWMD maps. Petitioners contended that the County ignored the actual boundary of natural features, such as wetlands, in delineating the boundaries of Sending and Receiving Lands. Instead, for planning purposes, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas as Sending and Receiving Lands, rather than creating a "Swiss cheese pattern" of intermixed Sending and Receiving Lands, designating isolated pockets of Sending within a large Receiving Area, and vice versa. This made sense from a planning perspective, for a number of reasons, including: (1) it permitted concentration of infrastructure, reducing infrastructure costs; (2) it allowed greater opportunity for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; (3) large, contiguous areas of habitat are necessary to support a viable population for some of the endangered species present in Collier County-- Florida panther, in particular; and (4) it prevented urban sprawl (in part because sufficient acreage must be available in order for higher density development feasible.) In some instances, the County chose to delineate the boundary between Sending and Receiving Lands with a straight, easily-defined line, rather than using the edge of some feature such as vegetative cover. This also made sense from a planning perspective. A straight boundary, such as a section line, is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature like vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that, as a result of the combined effect of its planning approach, Sending Lands would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive nor--apart from the land surrounding it--valuable habitat. Conversely, some relatively environmentally- sensitive lands would fall within a Receiving Land designation; however, it also recognized that these lands would remain subject to site-specific criteria imposed both by the County's Comprehensive Plan (e.g., amended CCE Policy 6.1.2 criteria for preservation of native vegetation and amended CCE Policy 6.2.3 criteria for protection of wetlands25) and by state and federal regulatory programs. It was not shown that these planning decisions lacked merit; at the very least, their merit is fairly debatable. NBM Delineations Distilled to its essence, the testimony of the natural resource experts called by Petitioners argued that the natural resource data and analysis available at the time of adoption did not justify distinguishing Sending, Receiving, and Neutral Lands in NBM. In other words, their position was that measures for protection of practically the entire NBM would be an appropriate response to the data and analysis on wetland and forest cover and habitat value for Florida panther, Florida black bear habitat, and RCW. But it also is at least fairly debatable that the County's inclusion of Receiving and Neutral Lands in NBM was an appropriate response to the totality of the data and analysis. The Rural Fringe Amendments themselves include the County's rationale for the North Belle Meade (NBM) Receiving designations. The Receiving Areas are generally located in the northern portion of NBM [North Belle Meade] Overlay and are generally contiguous to Golden Gate Estates. Two sections are directly to the south of the APAC Earth Mining Operation. The Receiving Area exhibits areas of less environmental sensitivity than other portions of the NBM Overlay, because of their proximity to Golden Gate Estates and prior clearing and disturbance to the land. Within the Receiving Area of the NBM Overlay, are located Sections 21, 28 and the west 1/4 of Sections 22 and 27, which have been largely assembled under one property ownership. These lands are located south of the existing APAC earth mining operation and have been largely impacted by agricultural operations. The location of Sections 21 and 28 is just to the south and west of Wilson Boulevard located in the southern portion of north Golden Gate Estates. Because an earth mining operation and asphalt plant uses have existed for many years in the area, and the surrounding lands in Sections 21, 28 and the western halves of Sections 22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of Transportation grade rock for road construction, these uses are encouraged to remain and expand. J.4 at 76-77. Section 20 (just west of Section 21) also was designated as Receiving. The southwestern corner of NBM, consisting of Sections 26 (Range 2626), 29, 30, 31, and 32, and the eastern half of Section 36 (Range 26) was designated as non-NRPA Sending, along with the southern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The southeastern corner (consisting of the eastern 3/4 of Sections 22 and 27, along with Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, and 36) was designated as NRPA Sending. The northwest corner (Section 24, Range 26) was designated Neutral, as was the northern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The 15,552 acres in NBM are surrounded on the south by the South Belle Meade (SBM) NRPA across Interstate 75; on the east by largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gate Estates (NGGE); on the north by a more developed portion of NGGE; and on the west by Urban Fringe future land use, which is sandwiched between NBM and more densely developed urban land use to the west. NGGE is the fastest-growing area of the County. It is part of a proposed sprawling, essentially single-use residential development. To date most actual development in NGGE has occurred in the western part of it, closer to more urban uses, and along Golden Gate Boulevard, which is the main east-west road in NGGE. Because the western part of NBM does not extend as far north as the eastern part, it is farther away from Golden Gate Boulevard and its development than the eastern part of NBM. In NBM, the SFWMD data showed practically all wetland cover with some upland forest interspersed in the six sections making up the southeast corner of NBM, as well as the next section to the southwest (Section 34). The section of land immediately to the north of Section 34 (Section 27) showed up as wetland cover over approximately the eastern half and agricultural use over approximately the western half of the section. The section north of 27 (Section 22) showed up as mostly wetland cover with some agricultural use in the northwest corner and some forested upland in the northeast corner. To the north of Section 22 was a section (number 15) with a mix of urban use, agriculture, wetland, and forested upland cover. Proceeding to the east, Section 14 showed up as mostly forested upland, and Section 13 in the northeast corner with mostly wetland cover with some agriculture. The opposite (far western) side of NBM was shown to have approximately eight sections of land with predominately forest land use cover, interspersed with some wetland and agricultural use. Down the center of NBM are four sections shown by the SFWMD data to have, from north to south: (1) predominately, earth mines and mine pit lakes (Section 16); (2) predominately agriculture (Section 21); (3) a mix of agricultural, forested upland, and wetland cover (Section 28); and (4) approximately half forested (the southwest half) and half wetland cover (the northeast half) (Section 33). Of importance for planning purpose, Wilson Boulevard intersects Golden Gate Boulevard and extends south to the edge of NBM at a point approximately 500 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 16. There are plans to extend Wilson Boulevard south into NBM 500 feet west of the eastern boundaries of Sections 16, 21, 28, and 33. Co-location of infrastructure within the right-of-way of the Wilson Boulevard extension would make sense from a planning standpoint. Allowing development to proceed elsewhere in NBM would exacerbate urban sprawl. It also would be possible to locate rural village North Belle Meade near the proposed Wilson Boulevard extension so that public infrastructure could be provided to both the rural village and the existing residents of NGGE. While Section 20 includes both cleared and uncleared areas, it abuts NGGE on the north and west and other Receiving Land on the east. For that reason, the County considered it to be appropriate for future development. Section 28 also includes a "mixed bag" of habitat features and agriculture. However, the remaining forested areas are less valuable as habitat because they are surrounded by agriculture. In addition, prior to the date of adoption, an application had been filed to allow mining in Sections 20 and 28, as well as in Sections 21 and 27. The permit authorizing this mining was issued in December 2002. Once land is disturbed by mining, it loses its value as panther habitat. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the County judged Section 28 to be more appropriately designated as Receiving. The designation of the western quarters of Sections 22 and 27 as Receiving resulted both from the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed property in those areas and from their location in relation to the planned extension of Wilson Boulevard. This proximity to a planned, future transportation corridor was an important factor in identifying areas appropriate for development. Initially, all of the western part of NBM was to be designated as non-NRPA Sending Lands because of the RCW data. But the County School Board and Audubon furnished additional data pertaining to the extreme northwest section (Section 24, Range 26), which resulted in the ultimate designation of the land as Neutral. Even apart from any environmental or habitat distinctions, there are other valid land use planning reasons for the County's Receiving designations. The proximity of the NBM Receiving Lands to the most populous portion of NGGE makes them appropriate for future, mixed-use development. (In contrast, the part of NGGE near the NBM NRPA is not as densely developed and is not growing as fast as the part immediately north of the NBM Receiving Area.) Since NGGE is a large, single-use residential development, residents are currently required to travel great distances for commercial and other services. By encouraging more compact, mixed-use development in the part of NBM immediately adjacent to the most populous part of NGGE, the County hopes to address this dearth of ancillary, commercial, and institutional uses for the present residents of NGGE, as well as the future residents of NBM. In addition, the NBM Receiving Area is located so as to facilitate an extension of sewer and water service along Golden Gate Boulevard and, from there, into NBM. Recognizing that, with updated data, some of these delineations may need adjustment, the County made specific provision in the amendments for owners of Sending and Neutral Lands to submit additional data in support of a change in designation. J.4 at 61. In summary, it is found that the County's delineations of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe, and in NBM in particular, were based on data and analysis--i.e., they reacted appropriately to the extensive data available to the County on the date of adoption--and accomplish the County's objectives, including protection of environmentally sensitive land and habitat, control of urban sprawl, and successful implementation of the TDR program, which required maintenance of an adequate ratio between Sending and Receiving Lands. See Findings 72-91, infra. At the very least, the delineations are fairly debatable; and the contentions of Coalition, Century, and the Husseys to the contrary are rejected. TDR Program The County recognized that the additional restrictions on much of the property within areas designated as Sending may have an effect on property values. As a consequence, the County included a transfer of development rights ("TDR") program in the Rural Fringe Amendments. The Amendments describe the purpose of the TDR program as follows: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetlands systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and within designated areas of the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving on the Future Land Use Map, subject to [certain expressly delineated criteria] . . . . J.4 at 50-51. The County's TDR program is an innovative land planning technique that is intended to enhance the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, provide for cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services, and prevent urban sprawl. J.4 at 50. It is designed to give property owners an incentive to protect their property from development while receiving a return in value through the sale of development rights. In so doing, it also serves as a land management technique to direct development from areas where it is not desired, while preserving the value of that area. TDR programs balance the protection of areas incompatible with development with the preservation of private property rights. They are also recognized as a development tool for overcoming urban sprawl. Through the TDR Program, the owners of Receiving- designated property may increase the allowable residential density on their property by purchasing or otherwise obtaining development credits transferred from property designated as Sending. Forty acres of property in Sending--while assigned an allowable density of only one residential unit--is worth eight development credits (one credit for each five acres). J.4 at 58. The specifics of the TDR program, including the process for the "sale" of development rights and the tracking of these transactions, are to be established by the County in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs) within one year. The specific dollar value of a TDR credit will ultimately be decided by the marketplace. Based on a study of land sales in Collier County, the County's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, concluded that a single credit would probably be worth approximately $18,500. Dr. Henry Fishkind, the expert called by Coalition and Century, agreed that this figure is supported by sales data in the area. For example, a property owner with 40 acres in a Sending area could build one residence on that property, or he could sell eight TDR credits to someone who plans to develop a more compact development in a Receiving Area. J.4 at 58-59. If the Sending Land owner elects the latter, he retains ownership of his property and may still utilize it for certain specifically identified purposes, including agriculture, passive parks, passive recreational uses, certain essential services, and oil extraction. J.4 at 60-61. A property owner with 40 acres in a Receiving area could build eight residences on that property without purchasing any development credits, or he could purchase 32 TDR credits and build 40 residences. Once he has obtained enough TDR credits to achieve this one-to-one density, he could further increase his residential density slightly by preserving more than the minimum required native vegetation on site. J.4 at 51. Dr. Nicholas warned that an excess supply of TDR credits, relative to the amount of Receiving Land available to receive those credits, would undermine the success of the TDR program. The ratio of Receiving Land to Sending Land is critical. Dr. Nicholas prefers a ratio of at least two acres of Receiving Land to each acre of Sending. This ratio is not achieved within the Rural Fringe. Rather, the ratio is approximately 1:1 (25,729 acres of Receiving to 23,720 acres of Sending). See J.15 at 4 (which lists the acreages within each category). Taking into consideration Sending Lands that are already developed, Dr. Nicholas testified that approximately 4,100 TDR credits would be generated from the Sending Lands. Approximately 6,100 credits could be absorbed in the Receiving areas, where densities of up to one unit per acre--an increase of four additional units--can be achieved through a purchase of TDR credits. J.4 at 51. In order to bolster the demand for TDR credits, the Rural Fringe Amendments include a number of other additional markets for credits. First, the amendments provide for a limited transfer of TDR credits outside of the Rural Fringe for two purposes: (1) in-fill in the Urban Area on parcels of 20 acres or less; and (2) transfer from areas within one mile of the Urban boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe. J.4 at 34-35. These two options will create a market for approximately 1,000 additional TDR credits (250 as urban in-fill and 750 in the urban fringe.) In addition, the Amendments provide a market for TDR credits for the development of rural villages. See Findings 11-13, supra, for description of rural villages. Rural villages must be at least 300 acres in size, up to a maximum of 1,500 acres, with the exception that a rural village located south of the (South) Belle Meade NRPA, which is south of Interstate 75, may be as large as 2,500 acres. The minimum and maximum gross densities for a rural village outside NBM are two units per acre and three units per acre, respectively. J.4 at 63. Thus, a rural village outside NBM must include at least 600 residential units, but could have as many as 4,500 or 7,500, depending upon its location. For each TDR credit purchased for the development of a rural village, the purchaser receives one bonus, up to the minimum required density, and the minimum density can only be achieved through the combination of base density, TDR credits, and TDR bonuses. J.4 at 64. Additional density--up to the maximum of three units per acre--can be achieved through the purchase of more TDR credits, through the preservation of more native vegetation on site than the minimum required, and/or through the inclusion of affordable housing. J.4 at 64. Consequently, for a rural village of 1,500 acres outside NBM, the developer would need to build at least 3,000 dwellings (2 units per acre). Assuming that the rural village is surrounded by a 800-acre greenbelt,27 it would start with a base density of 460 units28 and would need to purchase 1,270 TDR credits in order to achieve his minimum density of two units per acre. The provisions applicable to the one rural village permitted in NBM differ slightly. There, the minimum gross density is 1.5 units per acre, of which at least 0.5 units per acre must be obtained through the purchase of TDRs. J.4 at Assuming the same 1,500-acre development with an 800-acre greenbelt as described above, the developer would need to acquire 1,790 units more than would be available through the combined base densities of the village itself and the greenbelt in order to achieve minimum density.29 Of these additional units, 750 would have to be obtained through the purchase of TDR credits. Recognizing that there will probably be no more than two or three rural villages developed, Dr. Nicholas estimated that rural villages will absorb between 4,000 and 7,500 TDR credits, with the greater probability that the absorption rate will be closer to the lower number. Thus, in combination with the other markets for TDR credits created by the amendments, Dr. Nicholas estimated that there will be a demand for approximately 11,100 credits, resulting in a more acceptable ratio of just under three units of demand to one unit of supply. In their PRO, the Husseys attempted to raise the specter that the Amendments create too large a market for TDR credits so as to trigger Dr. Nicholas' concerns that, in that situation, potential transfers would be frustrated because TDR prices would rise to levels making their use infeasible for potential users, including developers of rural villages. But the Husseys based their concerns on maximum potential absorption of TDR credits, raising the supposed ratio of TDR buyers to sellers to 7-to-1 (or even 8-to-1 by disregarding the Urban Fringe one-mile limitation described in Finding 82, supra). The greater weight of the evidence was that the realistic market for TDR credits will be much smaller than the maximum potential absorption rates. Taking the realistic market into account, the probable actual absorption ratio is not much more than 2-to-1, which is ideal according to Dr. Nicholas. It also should be noted that the Husseys' arguments run counter to the testimony of their own expert on the subject. Dr. Fishkind agreed with Dr. Nicholas that there will be a functioning market for TDR credits generated from the Sending Areas, that the County’s TDR program is economically feasible, and that the County has the capacity to administer it. In addition, the Amendments include specific provisions requiring the County to establish a process for evaluating the TDR program. J.4 at 62. The purpose of such monitoring will be to assess whether revisions, such as the addition of either more Sending or Receiving Land or a change in the value of TDR credits, are necessary to ensure the success of the program. In concept, the success of the TDR program in achieving the objectives of directing development away from some areas and toward others, while preserving value in the former, is at least fairly debatable. The program's actual success in achieving these objectives initially hinges upon whether the County has appropriately designated Receiving and Sending Lands. If necessary, changes can be made to improve the program and increase its chances of success.
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 the Collier County's Rural Fringe Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2003, 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 29th day of April, 2003.
