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 The issue in this case is whether the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Town of Pomona Park (Town) through enactment of Ordinance No. 01-7 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact The Town's current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Exhibit H) depicts the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel as fronting on the western shore of Lake Broward and being within a primarily residential land use area that encompasses most of the Town's land area lying west of Lake Broward and northeast of Highway 17. The parcels immediately to the north and south of the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel are in Low Density Residential future land use, which allows densities up to two units per acre; the lake is to the east. The eastern five acres of the 13-acre subject parcel, including the lake frontage, were not included in the amendment; only the western eight acres were changed to Agricultural land use, which allows densities up to one unit per five acres (unless occupied only by the owner's family members, in which case densities up to one unit per acre are allowed). The property owner, Town Council member Barry Fouts, had previously requested to have the entire 13-acre parcel changed to Agricultural land use but withdrew that request. Fouts testified that, in requesting the same change for only eight acres of his parcel, he took into consideration that keeping the request under 10 acres would avoid review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Several parcels near the Fouts parcel, including some of the parcels across the street to the west, are designated for Agricultural future land use. However, those parcels across the street to the west of the subject parcel are actually being used for residential rather than agricultural purposes. The nearest parcel that might be considered to be in actual use for agricultural purposes is a horse farm located approximately one quarter mile to the north. However, the present Town Clerk testified in her capacity as Town zoning officer that a horse farm (or an exotic bird breeding operation) is not to be considered an agricultural use because the animals are not being raised for human consumption. Fouts has voluntarily provided some visual buffering along his property line, but there is no requirement in the Plan Amendment that it be maintained in the future, nor would visual screening be particularly effective in protecting nearby Residential properties against noises and odors produced by some common types of agricultural livestock. The Plan Amendment was not initiated by the Town; rather, it was requested by the subject parcel's owner, Barry Fouts, whose request for a change in land use stated that his purpose was to bring his "established agricultural activities, which include horse and bird breeding" into conformity with "Putnam County [sic] zoning recommendations." Fouts gave no other reasons for wanting the change. The former Town Clerk (and zoning officer) testified that there were no restrictions on keeping any type or number of animals in Residential future land use, that Fouts could engage in horse and bird breeding without changing the future land use or zoning, and that there was no need for the land use change. No survey, study, or analysis of the Plan Amendment is reflected anywhere in the Town's files relating to the Plan Amendment, and it is found that there were none. When the Plan Amendment was presented to the Town Council for consideration, all that the former Town Clerk and present Town Clerk presented to the Town Council was a one-page note prepared by the former Town Clerk relating Fouts' desire to continue with his agricultural activities, including horse and bird breeding. At final hearing (with the assistance of leading questions on cross-examination by the Town's attorney), the present Town Clerk and former Town Clerk testified that, notwithstanding the absence of any written survey, study, or analysis, they made a site visit and recalled reviewing the Plan Amendment in relation to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the FLUM, as well as analyzing and considering the need for more agricultural land use within the Town's municipal boundaries and the desirability of keeping residential development and septic tanks away from the lake, in arriving at a recommendation to approve the land use change. Regardless whether any such analyses actually occurred by the time of adoption of the Plan Amendment, they clearly were presented as part of the evidence at final hearing. The analysis presented at final hearing that the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for more land area to be designated for Agricultural future land use was based on an erroneous reading of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town in 1991. The analysis presumed that, under the plan, 1220.3 acres of agricultural land use was "desired" (compared to less that 600 acres in actual agricultural use in 2001). This presumption was based on parenthetical references to 1220.3 acres next to the word "Agricultural" in two places in the plan. But it is clear from a fair reading of the plan that, in designating Agricultural future land use, the plan transferred all 648.6 acres in the "Vacant or Undeveloped" existing land use category to the Agricultural future land use category "for lack of a better land use designation," in addition to the 571.7 acres of existing agricultural land use, for a total of 1220.3 acres. (Other future land use designations mirrored 1991 existing land use.) There was no intention to indicate a need for 1220 acres of agricultural land use in the Town. To the contrary, the plan projected a need for 170 additional housing units through 2001 and stated that "[m]ost of the Town's . . . agricultural and vacant/undeveloped land is suitable for development." Consistent with that, the evidence showed that in the vicinity of the subject parcel most if not all of the parcels designated for Agricultural land use are actually being used for residential purposes and not for agriculture. If anything, it would seem that in 1991 the Comprehensive Plan anticipated a need to designate more acreage for Residential future land use and less for Agricultural. Even if the Comprehensive Plan reflected a perceived need for 1220 acres of actual agricultural use, 1220 acres already is designated for Agricultural future land use, and no reason was given for designating additional acreage for the category. Finally, this part of the Town's analysis makes no sense in light of the undisputed testimony of the Town Clerk, as zoning officer, that "agricultural use" consists of the raising of plants or animals for human consumption. The evidence was clear that the horses, cows, and exotic birds on the Fouts property are not for human consumption. It was not clear from the evidence what the 15-20 chickens on the Fouts property are used for. The analysis that the Plan Amendment was to protect Lake Broward from septic tanks associated with residential land use also is shallow and faulty. While it is true that allowable development densities are lower in the Agricultural future land use category, the five acres of the Fouts parcel that were nearest the lake were not included in the amendment but remained in Residential future land use. Second, the present Town Clerk testified that there never have been any negative effects on the lake from septic tanks, which are regulated, whereas she had no way of knowing whether the unregulated effects of agricultural runoff might be worse than any effects from septic tanks. Objective A.1.1 provides that the Town "shall coordinate future land uses with . . . adjacent land uses, . . . through implementing the following policies . . ..". In this case, the immediately adjacent land uses are designated on the FLUM as Residential, and most if not all of the nearby parcels that are designated Agricultural are actually being used for residential purposes. But Petitioner did not allege that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with any of the policies listed under Objective A.1.1, and the evidence did not prove any such inconsistencies. Policy A.1.3.2 requires that the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code shall require buffering and separation between land uses of different densities or intensities of use sufficient to ensure compatibility between uses and also requires the elimination of non-conforming land uses. In this case, the Plan Amendment did not provide for separation or buffering between the newly designated Agricultural future land use and the directly adjoining Residential properties, but neither did it have any effect on the Policy requiring the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code to require such buffering and separation. Policy A.1.9.3.C.1 provides in pertinent part: "Residential land use is intended to be used primarily for housing and shall be protected from intrusion by land uses that are incompatible with residential density." The Plan Amendment intrudes a small area of Agricultural future land use into an area that is primarily designated for Residential land use and that is in actuality almost exclusively used for residential purposes. The sounds and smells associated with at least some types of agricultural activity, such as the pasturing and raising of livestock and poultry, are capable of adversely affecting nearby residents and are incompatible with residential land use. Policy A.1.9.3.C.4 provides in pertinent part: "Agricultural land is intended to be used primarily for pasture, grove operations or silviculture with possibly some row crops." In this case, the evidence shows that the primary purpose of the Plan Amendment was to allow the landowner to breed horses and operate an exotic bird breeding facility. The Town Clerk, as zoning officer, has taken the position that those activities do not fit within the definition of agriculture. But the Plan Amendment itself is not inconsistent with this Policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Town's small-scale amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 01-7 is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2002, 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 18th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Padgett, Esquire 3 North Summit Street Crescent City, Florida 32112-2505 Michael W. Woodward, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 323999-0001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Marion County's small- scale comprehensive plan amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). Specifically, Petitioners contend that the amendment is: (1) inconsistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan--specifically, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objectives 1 and 2, and Policies 2.7 and 2.8; and (2) inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5), which requires that proliferation of urban sprawl be discouraged. (Other contentions are inapplicable. See Conclusions of Law, infra.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners all reside in the Sherman Oaks subdivision in Marion County, Florida. Sherman Oaks is adjacent to and northwest of the parcel which is the subject of the County's small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 01- S27 (Plan Amendment). This "Amendment Parcel" consists of 2.375 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Road 40 (oriented east-west at that location) and NW 80th Avenue (oriented north-south at that location) (the Intersection) near Ocala, Florida. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for the Amendment Parcel from Urban Reserve to Commercial. Pertinent History of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County originally adopted its Comprehensive Plan in January 1992. Because of an objection by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the original Comprehensive Plan allocated too much land area to the Urban area, the County adopted remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, which added a new land use classification, Urban Reserve. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Urban Reserve land use classification as follows: This classification provides for the expansion of an urban service area or an urban expansion area in a timely manner. The underlying land uses in this classification shall be those of the rural lands until, through the Plan Amendment process, these areas are designated as Urban Expansion Area or Urban Service Area on the Future Land Map series. Commercial land use designation falls within the generalized Urban Area category in the County's Comprehensive Plan. From the date of the adoption of remedial amendments in 1994 through this date the Amendment Parcel has had a land use designation of Urban Reserve. The Amendment Parcel is part of a larger parcel of land designated Urban Reserve which extends for approximately a mile to the west of the Amendment Parcel, half a mile to the south of the Amendment Parcel, and greater than two miles to the north of the Amendment Parcel. (There also is some Medium Density Residential, which falls with the generalized Urban Area land use category, approximately two miles north of the Amendment Parcel; this is a major residential development called Golden Ocala). All of the property on the east side of the Intersection for approximately half a mile on either side of State Road 40 has had a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows urban and commercial uses, since 1992. Marion County has extensive areas in the western half of the County designated as Rural Land. Approximately a mile west of the Amendment Parcel, the property along the north and south sides of State Road 40 changes land use designation from Urban Reserve to Rural Land. Prior to adoption of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the Amendment Parcel had a general retail zoning classification of B-2 (Community Business), which has remained in place since the date of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. The Plan Amendment would allow the Intervenor to make immediate use of the Amendment Parcel under its existing zoning classification of Community Business. The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains a land use classification of Rural Activity Center (RAC) for existing commercial nodes in the Rural Land area. According to the definition in the Comprehensive Plan, this classification: provides for the utilization of mixed-use areas and the infilling of those areas under appropriate circumstances. Rural Activity Centers provide for a nodal-type development pattern. When the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1992, the County identified a number of RACs and included them on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Intersection was not made a RAC in 1992 because it was surrounded by Urban Expansion lands that were changed to Urban Reserve in 1994. Otherwise, it probably would have been designated a RAC because there already was commercial development on the east side of the Intersection in 1992. Designation as a RAC would have allowed Intervenor to make use of its B-2 (Community Business) zoning classification from 1992 forward. The evidence was not clear why Castro's Corner at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and County Road 225A was designated a RAC. It is not now surrounded by Rural Lands; however, from the evidence presented, it is possible that Castro's Corner was surrounded by Rural Lands at the time it was designated a RAC. Pertinent History of the Amendment Parcel In light of the see-saw history of decision-making on applications for comprehensive plan amendments affecting the Amendment Parcel since 1998, it is not surprising that Petitioners are perplexed by this Plan Amendment. In 1998 application was made to change the land use designation from Urban Reserve to Commercial on a parcel that included the Amendment Parcel and approximately seven additional acres lying immediately to the west of the Amendment Parcel, for a total of 9.9 acres, with the entire application parcel having frontage on State Road 40. The County's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use amendment. Staff's report stated that the proposed Commercial land use designation would "continue the formation of a commercial node at the intersection . . . consistent with FLUE Policy 2.7"; would "coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity and access management procedures, and available water and sanitary sewer facilities as required by FLUE Policy 2.8"; was "compatible with the existing commercial uses on the east side of the intersection"; and was "generally compatible with the areas's [sic] topography, soils and environmental features." Staff's report concluded that the recommendation for approval was based on findings that the request would "not adversely affect the public interest"; was "consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "compatible with the surrounding land uses." The County's Planning Commission agreed with planning staff's recommendation and voted 7-0 for approval, but the County Commission denied the application. In 2000 the Amendment Parcel was included in another application for a land use designation change from Urban Reserve to Commercial on 13.88 acres in the northwest quadrant of the Intersection. This time, the Planning Department recommended denial. As to compatibility with the goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan, staff's recommendation was based on findings that the proposed amendment was "not compact and contiguous to the Urban Area (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; did "not preserves [sic] the county's rural areas while allowing the provision of basic services by directing growth to existing urban areas and commercial nodes (FLUE Objective 3.0)"; "does not coordinate development with availability of public facilities such as centralized potable water and sanitary sewage facilities (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; "does not promote the efficient use of resources and discourage scattered development and sprawl because it is not located in an area of increasing urban residential development and commercial development (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; and "does not encourage development that is functional and compatible with the existing land uses adjacent and in the surrounding area (FLUE Policy 1.21)." As to consistency with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 urban sprawl indicators, staff found that the proposed amendment "promote[d] the development of low-intensity, low-density, or single use development"; "promote[d] urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"; did "not protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities"; allowed "for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increases the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education health care, fire and emergency response, and general government"; did "not encourage development which would, by it's [sic] location, provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"; did "not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"; and "encourage[d] development which would result in the loss of significant amounts of open space." The report concluded that it was based on findings that "[g]ranting the amendment will adversely affect the public interest"; the "proposed amendment is not compatible with land uses in the surrounding area"; and "[g]ranting the amendment is not consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial. The application was withdrawn prior to the transmittal hearing before the County Commission. In August 2001, Intervenor submitted an application to change the land use on the property it owns at the Intersection (containing 2.85 acres) from Urban Reserve Area to Commercial. The southern boundary of the original application parcel consisted of 275 feet of frontage on the north side of State Road 40. The eastern boundary of the original application parcel fronted on NW 80th Avenue, with 459 feet of frontage. The County's Planning Department recommended that Intervenor's application be denied. The stated basis for the recommendation was that the proposed plan amendment represented "an extension of urban type land use into the rural area" and that "[d]evelopment of the property as commercial was not compatible with adjacent land uses." Planning staff took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation did "not encourage compact, contiguous development (FLUE Objective 2)"; did "not preserve the County's rural character (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; did "not coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity (FLUE Policy 2.8)"; and was "not compatible with the existing adjacent uses (FLUE Objective 1)." Staff also took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation application would "promote urban sprawl as specified in the Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)" because it was "not compatible with surrounding land use designations"; "discourage[d] a functional mix of uses"; and "discourage[d] [sic?] a land use pattern that disproportionately increases local government's fiscal burden of providing necessary public services." In conclusion, staff based its recommendation on findings that the application would "adversely affect the public interest"; was "not consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "not compatible with the surrounding land uses." The Planning Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners, and voted 4-3 to deny the application. At a public hearing conducted on December 11, 2001, the County Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners. During the hearing, at the suggestion of the Commission, Intervenor agreed to amend the application to reduce the total amount of property for which the land use change was requested from the original entire parcel of 2.85 acres to a smaller 2.375 acre parcel (now the Amendment Parcel). The purpose of the reduction in the size of the Amendment Parcel was to exclude a heavily treed area on the north boundary of the original application parcel to create a buffer for residential property owners residing to the north and northwest of the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor also agreed to allow parallel access across the back (north) of the Amendment Parcel to the property fronting State Road 40 to the west, in the event of future development of those properties. After amendment of the application, the County Commission voted 5-0 to approve. Amendment Parcel Characteristics and Surroundings. Both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue in the area of the Intersection are heavily traveled and frequently congested. The Intersection is signalized, and traffic backs up for long distances during busy times when the light is red. The Amendment Parcel and the land to the west between State Road 40 and Sherman Oaks to the north is vacant. The property in the northeast quadrant of the Intersection has a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows commercial usage. The property in this quadrant of the Intersection is already commercially developed. There is a combination convenience store/restaurant building at the immediate Intersection. To the north of that parcel along 80th Avenue is Golden Hills Mobile Home Park and the sewage treatment facility serving the mobile home park. The southeast quadrant of the Intersection also has an Urban Expansion land use designation and is also already commercially developed. A prior convenience/general store at the immediate southeast corner of the Intersection has been torn down, and a temporary fruit stand currently occupies the immediate corner. This quadrant of the Intersection also includes a two-story building with retail businesses on the first floor. The property in the southwest quadrant of the Intersection, lying immediately to the south of the Amendment Parcel, has an Urban Reserve land use designation but is currently used as part of an operating horse farm. While it may not completely explain the swings in the decision-making of the County's planning staff, the County Planning Commission, and the County Commission with respect to northwest quadrant of the Intersection, the evidence was that traffic on both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue increased substantially in the five years preceding the County Commission's decision to approve Intervenor's amended application. During this time period, 80th Avenue to the south of the Intersection was extended farther southward to State Road 200, which was widened to six lanes during the same time period. In addition, the Marion County school system constructed a combination high school/middle school on SW 80th Avenue approximately two to three miles south of the Intersection, generating additional traffic. As a result of these changes (together with general growth in the County), 80th Avenue has become a major north/south corridor road in western Marion County, both to the north and to the south of State Road 40. In addition, there was discussion at the County Commission hearing on the Plan Amendment about the initiation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) of a four- laning road improvement project on State Road 40, including at the Intersection and to the east and west of this Intersection. It was represented that, while the project was not within FDOT's three-year work program, FDOT was in the process of acquiring large parcels for needed drainage retention areas for the project, including a parcel to the west of the Amendment Parcel and a parcel encompassing most of the southeast corner of the Intersection. At final hearing in this case, written communications from FDOT regarding the project confirmed that FDOT had initiated the process of design and right-of-way acquisition for the project but did not have a finalized project time line. A preliminary project time line prepared by FDOT showed construction more than two years away, but the time line also established that the FDOT four-laning project on State Road 40 is underway. The prospect of four-laning State Road 40 played a part in the County Commission's thinking that the timing was right to change the land use designation of the Amendment Parcel to Commercial. Intervenor's Alleged Inaccurate Representations The County's application form cautions applicants that false statements on the application could result in denial. However, it was not proven that denial is mandatory in the case of any inaccuracy. Rather, the evidence was that information in the application can be corrected and supplemented during the review process. Intervenor's application contained inaccurate representations as to the proximity of some public facilities in relation to the Amendment Parcel. Petitioners made no attempt to prove the significance of those inaccuracies, except as to centralized water and sewer water facilities. Intervenor's application stated that the nearest centralized water and sewer facilities were those at the Golden Hills Mobile Home Park on the east side of NW 80th Avenue. The application also stated, as part of its justification, that private central water and sewer was available. The evidence proved that the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities are presently inadequate for use by the mobile home park itself and are being upgraded to meet current needs of the park. The facilities probably would not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. While the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities likely will not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel, the evidence was that the County is working with a large development called Golden Ocala, located approximately five miles north of the Amendment Parcel, for construction of a regional wastewater treatment plant to serve that development. If built, the regional facility might have capacity available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor's application and presentation to the County Commission on December 11, 2001, stated that the Amendment Parcel is undeveloped and that there is no existing agricultural use on the parcel. While these statements were not proven to be untrue, Petitioners presented evidence that hay was grown on the Amendment Parcel from the late 1980's through spring 2001. Three crops of hay were harvested each year. Each harvest consisted of approximately 18-20 bales; each bale brought approximately $45. Petitioners questioned the accuracy of representations as to the natural buffer strip between the Amendment Parcel and Sherman Oaks. Petitioners did not dispute the existence of relatively dense trees in the buffer strip. However, they are concerned that the line of trees does not extend to the west all the way to the entrance to Sherman Oaks off State Road 40; if additional commercial development occurs to the west on State Road 40, there will not be a similar natural buffer. Petitioners also point out that the trees in the natural buffer strip are not thick enough to form an impregnable barrier to access, light, and sound. They concede, however, that the natural buffer is helpful and that there is no similar natural buffer between them and commercial development to the east across NW 80th Avenue. Petitioners concede that the 75-foot buffer strip is wide enough to contain the entire natural buffer. However, they thought the buffer strip would have to be 90 feet wide to contain the drip lines of all the trees so as to protect their root systems. They conceded that the building setback line probably would prohibit construction of buildings within the drip line of the trees but were uncertain as to whether the setback line would apply to parking lots and driveways. Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove that the 75- foot buffer was not enough to protect the natural buffer. Petitioners' evidence was sufficient to prove that, during the presentation before the County Commission, Intervenor's representative may have misspoken or exaggerated on some points (e.g., the timing of FDOT's widening of State Road 40, the distance between the Amendment Parcel and the entrance to Sherman Oaks, and the extent of past and existing commercial development at the Intersection). But the evidence was that the County Commission questioned the information presented by Intervenor, and information also was presented by Petitioners and the County's planning staff; considering all the information presented, it was not proven that the County Commission based its decision on misinformation. At the final hearing, Petitioners raised the issue of stormwater runoff. Petitioners questioned whether stormwater can be managed on the Amendment Parcel without adversely impacting Sherman Oaks. Evidence presented by Petitioners proved that topography would make onsite stormwater management difficult. Natural runoff appears to flow in a northeasterly direction towards an already-stressed stormwater facility within Sherman Oaks. Intervenor suggested that the site could be "tilted" by grading to reverse natural runoff flow so as to contain runoff in the southwestern or western part of the site. Petitioners suggested that "tilting" may not be permissible due to the relatively shallow depth to limerock under the Amendment Parcel site, but Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to prove that drainage could not be addressed onsite through "tilting." Petitioners also questioned the accuracy of traffic counts presented in the Planning Department's staff report on Intervenor's application. Staff used 2000 traffic counts that did not take into account all of the increased traffic as a result of the opening of the new school south of the Amendment Parcel. But the County's Planning Director explained that the traffic analysis required for a land use designation change does not have to be as rigorous and accurate as the analysis required at the time of concurrency determination. At that time, Intervenor probably will be required to conduct a detailed and up-to-date traffic analysis that would take into account actual traffic counts related to the new school. Other Pertinent Comprehensive Plan Provisions. Objective 1 of the County's FLUE states: Upon Plan adoption, growth and development will be coordinated by ensuring the appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses, topography, soil conditions, and the availability of services and facilities through the preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of innovative land development regulations, including mixed use techniques. Objective 2 of the County's FLUE states: In order to promote the efficient use of resources and to discourage scattered development and sprawl, Marion County shall establish and encourage development within Urban Areas. This will discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, encourage infill and facilitate the provision of urban services through: Land Development Regulations that specify standards which allow higher intensities of land use in areas where adequate services are available and where specific design criteria are met, and future land uses are coordinated with appropriate topography conditions and soil types. A generalized Future Land Use Map which designates an appropriate amount of acreage in each land use category that reflects projected needs, existing development patterns, environmental suitability, availability of infrastructure, and community values. Policy 2.7 of the County's FLUE states: The County shall discourage scattered and highway strip commercial development by requiring the development of such uses at existing commercial intersections, other commercial nodes and town centers of mixed uses. Policy 2.8 of the County's FLUE states: The following performance criteria shall be followed when providing for the location of commercial and industrial land uses within the designated Urban Area: Protection of the development from natural hazards by locating development away from areas that have natural hazards or that may contain sensitive natural resources; Require concurrency be met to ensure adequate services from available public utilities and other urban services; Minimize environmental impacts by ensuring all appropriate permits are obtained and adhered to; Prevent over allocation of commercial land by requiring the adherence to needed acreage based on population projections; and Provide buffering from other land uses to minimize conflicts. Objective 4 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element states: Marion County's land development regulations shall implement procedures to ensure that, at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facility capacity is available or the developer will be required to construct storm water facilities within his development according to County standards. Policy 4.1 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides some detail as to required content of the procedures, including a requirement: In addition, developers will comply where applicable with the Water Management districts flood control criteria for stormwater quantity and quality. (Citations omitted.) Policy 4.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides in pertinent part: The County's land development regulations shall provide for issuance of development permits within the identified wastewater service areas consistent with the following guidelines: * * * c. Where public wastewater treatment facilities are required, they shall be available concurrent with the impacts of development. Facilities which meet county specifications and the level of service standards for the service areas will be provided by the developer in the interim and will be connected to central facilities when they become available . . .. Internal Consistency. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment did not adhere to "needed acreage based on population projections." Consistent with the pertinent provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan itself, the County's Planning Department Director testified that the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages the planning concept of nodal commercial development (allowing commercial development on all four corners of an intersection). This planning technique allows clustered commercial development in commercial nodes, locating in outlying areas, to provide localized commercial services for residents. Notwithstanding testimony that Petitioners probably would not patronize retail stores at the Intersection, the expert testimony was that commercial node development is intended to assist in reducing trips and average trip lengths by providing limited commercial services to area residents without necessitating their travel to a centralized commercial area. In the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the concept of commercial node development in non-urban areas is the basis for the RAC land use designation. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Both of the County's witnesses testified that commercial development of all four quadrants of the Intersection is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan policy of encouraging commercial node development because it has long-existing partial commercial development, is signalized, and provides access in all directions. The evidence did not prove that the County's Comprehensive Plan requires traffic, sanitary sewer, or drainage (or any other) concurrency at the time of the adoption of a plan amendment. The County has adopted in its Land Development Code a concurrency management system requiring that concurrency be established prior to the issuance of a development order (such as a building permit). The evidence was that determining capacity and concurrency at the development order stage in the development process is standard and customary, and is used in a number of jurisdictions in the state. Regardless of the land use classification and zoning classification of the Amendment Parcel, when the Intervenor initiates application for approval of an actual development order, the Intervenor will be required under the County's Land Development Code to establish concurrency, including traffic, sanitary sewer, and drainage concurrency. There was some evidence to support the contentions of some Petitioners that commercial development of the Amendment Parcel would not be compatible with residential and rural land uses in the area and that that NW 80th Avenue is a "line of demarcation" between urban uses and rural uses. But Petitioners failed to prove those contentions by the greater weight of the evidence, including the 1998 recommendations of the County Planning Department staff and Planning Commission to approve a land use change to Commercial west of NW 80th Avenue. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's designation of land west of NW and SW 80th initially as Urban Expansion in 1992 and as Urban Reserve in 1994 anticipated ultimate urban development of this Intersection, as well as properties approximately a mile to the west of the Intersection. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designated two RACs to the west of the Amendment Parcel on State Road 40 (between the Amendment Parcel and the City of Dunnellon). The first RAC is three miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel, and the second RAC is seven miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel. The evidence was that the Intersection would have been a RAC had it not been designated Urban Expansion and then Urban Reserve. Finally, at least one Petitioner conceded the point and contested only the timing of commercial development of the Amendment Parcel. Alleged Urban Sprawl. Petitioners presented no analysis of urban sprawl indicators. They also presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment allocated commercial land in excess of demonstrated need in the County. As found, the Amendment Parcel is across NW 80th Avenue from existing commercial and other urban development; in addition, provision of nodal commercial development is intended to counter at least some symptoms of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding that Marion County's small-scale amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2002, 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 7th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Bartlett 8080 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Robert S. Inglis 8078 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Helen Thomas 8130 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Paul and Joan Lussier 8071 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Wanda Negron 8076 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire Marion County's Attorney's Office 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471 Steven Gray, Esquire Hart & Gray 125 Northeast First Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, Florida 34470 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
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 determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 5th day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, and revised in part by the remedial amendments in Ordinance Number 2010-O-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether amendments are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality in Volusia County and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Hammock Creek is a Delaware limited liability company registered with the State of Florida. It owns the property that is the subject of the Plan Amendments. Through its representatives, Hammock Creek submitted comments to the Edgewater City Council at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. Petitioner Richard Burgess resides in the City, owns real property in the City, and operates a business in the City. At the public hearings on the original amendment package adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, Petitioner made comments on behalf of Edgewater Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development, Inc. (ECARD), as its vice-president. ECARD was an intervenor in this proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its petition before the final hearing. Petitioner submitted written comments on his own behalf at the adoption hearing for the remedial amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-O-01. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments create a new land use category, the Restoration Sustainable Community Development District (“Restoration SCD”), which is described in a new Restoration SCD Sub-Element of the FLUE: The Restoration SCD is the result of a conscious planning approach based on the most current New Urbanist research and advanced practices. The compact development pattern is designed to and shall provide for a diverse community with distinct place types and multiple experiences that are appealing to residents, employees, and visitors. It shall provide for walkability, a broad range of inclusive household demographics, the ability to connect the community directly to a natural experience, transit ready design, and a high level of environmental stewardship and planning. * * * In order to facilitate this vision, the City shall recognize that density is important to the restoration SCD outcome, but no more important than the mixing of uses, the development of a diverse population through the provision of housing choice and employment centers, the connection of streets and the design of structures and spaces on a human scale. The Restoration SCD land use category applies to 5,187 acres of land on the west side of Interstate 95 that are owned by Hammock Creek. The Restoration SCD site is not currently being used, but in the past was used for silviculture. The Restoration SCD site was annexed into the City in 2005, but is being assigned a future land use designation for the first time. The Volusia County land use categories for the property are Environmental Systems Corridor, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres, and Forestry Resource, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 20 acres, or up to one unit per five acres with clustering. The Restoration SCD Sub-Element includes the Restoration SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map, which divides the site into three areas: Conservation, SCD Conservation/Restoration, and SCD Community Development. The SCD Community Development area is also referred to as the “Build Envelope” because it is the only area where development can occur. The Build Envelope is approximately 25 percent of the total land area. At least 50 percent of the Restoration SCD site is required to be permanently protected open space. The SCD District is integrally related to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) proposed for the lands that are the subject of the Plan Amendments. The Resolution SCD includes several of the development controls listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(j) which discourage urban sprawl, including: open space requirements; clustering; the establishment of minimum development density and intensity; phasing of urban land use types, densities, and intensities; traditional neighborhood development form; buffering; planned unit development requirements; restriction of the expansion of the urban area; and jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Edgewater is a relatively old Florida City that was developed with strip commercial along the highway and other development forms that were typical before the enactment of Chapter 163 and the requirement for comprehensive planning. The Restoration SCD introduces modern development principles and forms. Within each element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, there are data and analysis summaries. There is also a separate section entitled “Population Projections.” The Plan Amendments revise or add information to some of these data and analysis summaries. The Plan Amendments also include some “housekeeping” changes that delete obsolete portions of the Comprehensive Plan and extend several planning horizons in the plan from 2010 to 2020. Mixed Uses Petitioner contends that the Restoration SCD lacks adequate policies to implement the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mixed uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c). Restoration SCD is the future land use designation for the entire site. Policy 3.1.1 describes seven subcategories of uses within Restoration SCD: Residential, Mixed-Use Town Center, Work Place, Transit-Ready Corridor, Utility Infrastructure Site, Schools, and Open Space. Various policies of the Restoration SCD Sub-Element establish minimum and maximum percentages for the subcategories of uses. Table I-4 in the Plan Amendments shows the various land uses, their densities and intensities, and their acreages. The Restoration SCD land use designation has an overall residential density cap of 8,500 residential units and a non-residential intensity cap of 3,300,000 square feet. Policy 7.1.1 ensures a continuing balance of residential and non-residential development by tying the number of residential building permits that can be issued to the square footage of non-residential development that has been constructed. For example, residential units cannot exceed 1,500 until 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses have been constructed. Format Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments are not consistent with the format requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(1) because the sources, dates, and other information associated with tables, figures, and other materials included in the Plan Amendments are not identified. Exhibit A to the new Restoration SCD Sub-Element does not show a source, preparation date or name of the preparer. FLUE Table I-3 shows a source and name of the preparer, but not a preparation date. FLUE Table I-4 shows a source, a preparation date, and name of the preparer. Within the Population Projections section of the Comprehensive Plan, Table P-1 shows a source, but not a preparation date or name of the preparer. Table P-2, Figures P-1 and P-2, and Tables P-3 through P-5 do not show sources, preparation dates, or names of the preparers. Tables P-6 and P-7 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. Table P-9 does not show a source, preparation date, or name of the preparer. Within the Housing Element, Tables III-13 through III- 15 and Tables III-17 through III-20 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. The tables and figures that Petitioner objects to are included in the Comprehensive Plan as supporting data and analysis. They are not parts of goals, objectives, or policies. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) requires that maps include major natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. The Resolution SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map does not show geographic features or government boundaries. There are other maps in the FLUE that show natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1 refer to Map “H”, which is part of the DRI Development Order. Petitioner objects to the omission of Map “H” from the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of the Department’s Division of Community Planning stated that it is not the practice of the Department to treat a format error or omission as requiring a determination that a plan amendment is not in compliance. Adoption by Reference Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments adopt regulations and other materials by reference, but not in accordance with Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g), which requires that the reference “identify the title and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted.” Petitioner asserts that the following provisions include inadequate adoptions by reference: Policy 1.1.1, Policy 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, Policy 4.1.3, Policy 4.1.7, Policy 4.1.11, Goal 5, Policy 6.1.1, Policy 8.1.4, Policy 9.1.1, Policy 10.1.1, Policy 11.1.1, Policy 11.1.4, and Policy 12.1.6. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, and Policies 4.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.7, and 4.1.11 refer to state, regional, and federal laws or regulatory programs, but they do not purport to adopt these laws and programs by reference. The purpose of these provisions is not for the City to apply or have any role in the regulatory process or decision-making associated with the referenced laws and programs. The wording of these provisions is consistent with the City’s assertion that its intent is merely to provide notice of related permitting programs with which the developer will have to comply. Goal 5 refers to New Urbanism and other land use design principles as described in the literature of the Congress of New Urbanism, the Urban Land Institute and similar organizations, but the goal does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. The goal states that design policies will be adopted by the City in the future. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Goal 5. Policy 6.1.1 refers to affordable housing and defines the term as a percentage of Volusia County’s Average Median Income. The policy does not purport to adopt any materials by reference. Policies 8.1.4 and 11.1.1 refer to design principles which are to be adopted in the future. The policy does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policies 8.1.4 or 11.1.1. Policy 9.1.1 addresses school concurrency and refers to a Capacity Enhancement Agreement (“CEA”) entered into by the City, the developer, and the Volusia County School Board to ensure that schools are timely planned and constructed to serve the student population. The policy does not purport to adopt the CEA by reference. Petitioner did not show that the CEA is not self-executing. Policy 10.1.1 refers to “green” development practices that meet the certification programs of the United States Green Building Coalition or the Florida Green Building Code, which will be incorporated into the DRI Development Order. The policy does not purport to adopt these certification programs by reference. No specific green design practices are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policy 10.1.1. Policy 11.1.4 refers to vehicle trips as calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This is the standard manual used by all traffic engineers. The policy does not purport to adopt the manual by reference. Planning Timeframes Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments cause the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent because there are different planning horizons in the Plan. The Plan Amendments extend several planning horizons to 2020, but the planning horizon in the Recreation and Open Space Element remains 2010, the water supply work plan has a planning horizon of 2018, and the Public School Facilities Element has a planning horizon of 2025. Petitioner did not identify an adverse effect created by the different planning horizons. The City is currently preparing its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments. The EAR process is statutorily mandated, periodic review and update of the entire Comprehensive Plan. It is the logical process for reviewing and revising planning horizons in the plan. Conservation Element and Housing Element Data Petitioner contends that the support documentation that is included as part of the Conservation Element is not the best available data. However, Petitioner did not produce better data, except for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s more recent listed species rules, or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Similarly, Petitioner contends that some of the support documentation that is included as part of the Housing Element is not the best available data. Petitioner did not produce better data or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Need Petitioner contends that the best available data do not show a need for the residential and nonresidential land uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Population Projections section in the Comprehensive shows a projected City population of 34,481 by 2020. The Department determined that the 2020 population forecast was reasonable. It is not the practice of the Department to require local governments to update their population projections every time an amendment is adopted. The 2020 population projection is derived from forecasts of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research BEBR. BEBR forecasts county populations, from which city population projections must be extrapolated. BEBR frequently under-forecasts population growth for cities. BEBR forecasts do not account for localized factors that can change the attractiveness of a particular area to prospective new residents and, therefore, stimulate population growth. Applying an “allocation factor,” the Department determined that the number of residential units allowed by the Plan Amendments was reasonably in line with the 2020 forecast. An allocation factor is a multiplier applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. In addition, population projections are not the sole consideration in determining the need for a plan amendment. In the case of the Restoration SCD, higher densities and intensities are necessary as a part of the intended development form. Higher densities and intensities are also necessary to achieve the objectives of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, including the encouragement of transit-oriented and energy-efficient communities. A need analysis for non-residential land uses in the Resolution SCD was not conducted by the City because the non- residential uses are intended to serve and be integrated with the residential uses, and are required to be developed in pace with the residential development. The Department found this approach acceptable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O- 10 and revised by Ordinance Number 2010-O-01, are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
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 determining that the LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
The Issue Whether the small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of St. Petersburg's (the City) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), adopted by Ordinance 739-L (Ordinance) on August 13, 2020, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2020).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Property Petitioner, PGSP, is a membership organization, with 118 members. It is registered with the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation located in St. Petersburg, Florida. PGSP's stated mission is to promote healthy urban development throughout St. Petersburg; it was formed to promote development and growth compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It works with the City and residents to ensure new development is cohesive with existing and planned environmental and infrastructural demands. Respondent, City of St. Petersburg, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The subject property is located at 635 64th Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida (Property). It is owned by Grace Connection of Tampa Bay, Inc., operating as Grace Connection Church (Church). The Church was the applicant for the Amendment at issue but is not a party to this action. The Property is triangular in shape with a total of 4.66 acres. To the north and west, the Property is bounded by Bear Creek, a natural water feature. To the east, the Property is bounded by 64th Street South, a "Collector, City Road." To the south, the Property is bounded by an undeveloped 40-foot right-of-way. A portion of the Property that abuts Bear Creek is located in a Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).3 Respondent has not sought changes to the portion of the Property that is within the CHHA. 3 The Property is also within the projected storm surge in Hurricane Evacuation Level "D," which is a Pinellas County emergency management designation, and not a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Property is currently categorized for Neighborhood Suburban (NS-1) zoning (which is separate from its Future Land Use Category). A substantial number of PGSP members live within the City, in close proximity to the Property and allege they will be adversely affected by the concomitant impacts of increased densities in the community as addressed in these proceedings. The Ordinance The Church's application sought to amend the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. The application divided the non-portion of the CHHA into three portions and sought to make the following changes to the Future Land Use categories: A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 4.33 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM); A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.21 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN); AND A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.04 ACRES), FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM). On August 13, 2020, the City Council had a public hearing on the Church's appeal of the denial of its application by the Planning Commission. At this hearing, PGSP members submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City. At the August 13 meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance. This had the effect of adopting the Amendment and changing the Future Land Use categories to the Property. The Ordinance instituted a small-scale amendment to the FLUM, as defined by section 163.3187(2). Maximum Density Petitioner argues the Ordinance is not "in compliance," as defined in sections 163.3184(1)(b) and 163.3187(4). Specifically, PGSP attacks the Amendment because it does not (1) direct "population concentrations" away from areas designated as a CCHA; (2) provide for compatible land use transitions; and (3) preserve the existing character of the surrounding areas. Each of these claims are either partially or wholly dependent on the increased maximum density for the Property after the Amendment. As such, the threshold issue of density must be addressed. This dispute involves the 4.37 acre that are changed from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional land use categories to Residential Medium (RM) made up of approximately 4.33 acres from Institutional to RM and approximately 0.04 acres from RU to RM. The "Institutional" designation allows a density of 12 dwelling units per acre but limits residential use as an accessory to the primary institutional use, which in this case is a church.4 The Church submitted the application for the FLUM amendment because it ultimately seeks to sell the Property for multi-family housing development, which would not be a proper use in an area designated "Institutional." The Future Land Use categories for the area to the north and east of the Property are RU, which have a density of 7.5 units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.2. This area is primarily made up of single-family homes. The southern boundary of the property is also the municipal border between St. Petersburg and an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. This area is governed by the Pinellas County FLUM and Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent property to the south is a mobile home park development which has a residential density of 20.4 units per acre. 4 Pursuant to section 16.10.020.2 of the City's Code, Institutional uses include, "government buildings and grounds, and cemeteries, hospitals, houses of worship and schools." In between the RU and RM categories is a category labeled "Residential Low Medium" (RLM). The RLM category allows low to moderately intensive residential development with a density not to exceed ten dwelling units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.3. As stated above, the Ordinance would categorize the portion of the Property at issue as RM. The RM category allows medium density residential development and has a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, with a possible maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre with the qualification of a density bonus. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.4. PGSP argues the density of the areas designated as RM by the Ordinance will have a maximum possible density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The City argues the maximum density is calculated using the actual density that can be built in the RM areas. As explained below, the practical allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a Workforce Housing Bonus of six, or 21 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner relies on a "Missing Middle Housing" density bonus allowable in Neighborhood Traditional Mixed Residential (NTM) zoning category. This bonus allows up to 30 units per acre as an incentive to develop housing that is lacking in the area. While NTM is an available zoning category for RM, the Plan specifically states that 30 dwelling units per acre is only "permitted in accordance with the Land Development Regulations [LDRs]." Per the LDRs, the NTM designation could not be placed over this parcel because the designation is used as a transitional zoning category in St. Petersburg's traditional neighborhoods. While PGSP's planning expert considered the neighborhood surrounding the Property to be traditional, he admitted his opinion was not based on standards in the Comprehensive Plan or LDR definitions regarding what is considered a traditional or suburban neighborhood. In contrast, Derek Kilborn, a manager in the City's Planning Department, testified about the different characteristics of traditional versus suburban neighborhoods and opined that the neighborhood surrounding the Property is "suburban" according to the terms in the Comprehensive Plan. This determination is bolstered by the existing zoning of the surrounding neighborhood being largely NS-1. The City established it would be impossible for the Property to qualify for the Missing Middle Housing bonus, because the parcel at issue is not in the NTM zoning category. Rather, as explained by Mr. Kilborn's testimony and based on the LDRs and the Comprehensive Code, the RM category only allows a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The Church has not applied to rezone the Property. The Planning Department's director testified, however, that if the Church had applied for a rezoning for the Property to NTM, the maximum number of dwelling units would be less than the numbers asserted by Petitioner due to the requirements for spacing, alleyways, and height restrictions required in NTM zones. The Property is eligible for a Workforce Housing density bonus. This bonus would increase the maximum density by six dwelling units for workforce housing. The City's final density calculation incorporated the Workforce Housing bonus and determined the maximum density for the RM portion of the Property to be 21 dwelling units per acre. PSGP did not prove beyond fair debate that the actual density of 21 units per acre is an erroneous calculation or contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Objective CM 10B and Policy CM 10.65 Comprehensive Plan Objective CM 10B states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element. The phrase "Population concentrations" is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The only policy referring to "directing" related to Objective CM 10B is Policy CM 10.6, which states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas by not locating water line extensions in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that which is necessary to service planned zoning densities as identified on the Future Land Use Map. The remaining policies related to this Objective involve the placement of transportation and infrastructure, expenditures for flood control, and the operation of roads in a CHHA; none of these issues were raised in these proceedings. In fact, other than the reference to placement of water line extensions in Policy CM 10.6, there is no provision establishing standards for what would constitute direction away from a CHHA. The only area on the Property designated a CHHA is near Bear Creek.6 The Ordinance does not increase density in any part of the CHHA portion of the Property. PGSP's planning expert, Charles Gauthier, equated a population concentration as an area with high density. He argued the Ordinance 5 "CM" means Coastal Management in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Mr. Kilborn testified that in reviewing the property for compliance with the Plan related to CHHA, there was no study or analysis provided to the City by Petitioner or others showing flooding or hazard impacts for the non-CHHA portion of the Property. violated Policy 10.6 because it increased the density of the area on the Property adjacent to the CHHA. At one point, Mr. Gauthier seemed to say this policy encourages higher density future land use categories only in the "central core or spine of the City." Mr. Gauthier maintained the increase in density on the non-CHHA portion of the Property frustrated this policy because only land in the central part of St. Petersburg should experience density increases. PGSP's reasoning would imply any increase in density near any CHHA and not near the "central core" would violate Policy CM 10.6. Elizabeth Abernethy, Director of the Planning Department, testified that "population concentrations" as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan are not simply increases in density. Rather, the City core had a concentration of high-density categories yielding approximate 80 to 120 dwelling units per acre; she would not characterize 15 or even 30 units per acre as a "high density" much less a "population concentration." Although she concurred that there are "population concentrations" in St. Petersburg centered in its urban core, she disagreed with Petitioner's expert that increased density on the Property created a "population concentration" near the CHHA or Bear Creek area. There was no competent evidence as to where any water line extensions would be located if the Property's Future Land Use Category were to change from RU and Industrial to RM. The City's interpretation of "population concentration" as used in CM 10.6 is reasonable, and therefore, the City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance with CM 10.6 is fairly debatable. Consistency with LU 3.47 Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.4 states: The Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators. 7 "LU" refers to Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner focuses on compatible land use transition as only a function of density. PGSP argues a parcel categorized as RM (15 unity density) cannot abut an RU (7.5 unit density) categorized parcel because it violates Policy LU 3.4. Rather, it argues the RLM (10 unit density) category should have been used instead. It claims the City "leap-frogged" categories instead of using a "one step" up or down approach. PGSP's expert admits that a direct step down between plan categories is not explicitly required under the Comprehensive Plan language but argues other language related to "limited variation" required the single step. The plain language of Policy LU 3.4, however, simply requires an "orderly land use arrangement." It does not explicitly or implicitly state that the City must use a "step up" approach when determining the appropriate Future Land Use category. Furthermore, PGSP relied on its density calculation of 30 dwelling units per acre to argue that with the surrounding adjacent land density of 7.5 units per acre, there would be a 400% increase in planned residential density. As stated above, the maximum possible density under the Amendment is 21 dwelling units per acre. Moreover, the City points out that that the mobile home park to the south of the Property has an actual density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the transition from 20 to 21 is an orderly land use arrangement as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. The FLUM also does not reflect a perfect one up or down transition pattern throughout St. Petersburg. Rather, it shows areas categorized RM abutting areas categorized RU and RLM. In fact, there is an area designated RM which abuts RU parcels within 800 feet of the Property. The City presented adequate evidence establishing the change from Institutional to a residential category fits with surrounding residential use. Moreover, it established that natural and physical barriers on the Property, including creeks and right of ways, provide transition as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. PGSP does not explain why these barriers are inadequate. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.4. Consistency with Objective Policy LU 3.6 Policy LU 3.6 states: Land use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated. PGSP argues the increase in density as a result of the change in categories from RU to RM is inconsistent with the "character" of the surrounding neighborhood, which is made up of single-family homes. Again, PGSP's argument relies heavily on the density calculation of 30 units per acre. As stated above, this density is only available with a change to the underlying zoning to NTM, which was not sought by the Church in its application. The maximum density applicable to the RM portions of the Property is 21 dwelling units per acre. As stated above, the City established there are other instances of RM abutting RU in the same neighborhood, approximately 800 feet from the Property. Ms. Abernathy testified that, based on the City's historic development pattern, RM is the appropriate transitional category next to RU on a major street (such as 64th Street South) under the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Abernethy further testified that residential single-family use adjoining either residential multi-family or commercial uses in the City is a "very common development pattern." Therefore, the RM designation is not inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Moreover, the RM designation provides for a primary residential use, which the Institutional designation does not. Although PGSP focused solely on density as the grounds for evaluating the "established character of the neighborhood," the City established that several other considerations go into its analysis related to Policy LU 3.6. Beyond looking at existing and proposed densities of the Future Land Use categories, City staff considers the occurrences and relationships between the uses of the property (i.e., residential versus institutional; or residential versus residential) and the existence of similar patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the surrounding areas included other areas designated RM and the mobile home park. Determination of the character of the neighborhood was also based on a study of the existing road network and the potential impacts on traffic due to the Amendment. The street classification of 64th Street South as a Future Major was a key consideration in determining whether the changes in the Property were consistent with the character of the surrounding area because that street is the Property's frontage and only access point. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Data and Analysis PGSP also claims the City did not rely on relevant and appropriate data and analysis in adopting the Ordinance and Amendment. PGSP, however, did not conduct or provide the City with any studies.8 Daniel Porter, PGSP's expert in real estate, did not provide a comparative market analysis of the neighborhood or any other industry- recognized report. He proffered only opinion testimony based on email responses from four nearby residents, only one of which alluded to any issues with selling a home in the area. 8 PGSP retained Mr. Gauthier for this administrative proceeding; he did not testify or prepare a report to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Petitioner's members presented no opposing reports or studies beyond lay opinion testimony during the public hearing. Mr. Gauthier testified that in calculating his density and formulating his opinions, he used the City's map set and GIS data from the City's website.9 In contrast, the City relied on several data sources in reaching its conclusions regarding compliance in the Staff Report, in the presentations at the City Council meeting, and at the final hearing. These sources include the Comprehensive Plan and maps; LDRs; GIS aerials and maps; application materials; a narrative from the property owner; plat records; the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules; and an outside Traffic Impact Statement by a traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. In addition to the Kimley-Horn report, Tom Whalen, the City's transportation planning expert, performed an analysis related to 64th Street South, which was included in the Staff Report. He also testified at the final hearing regarding his sources for that data, including a City-conducted traffic count, use of the Florida Department of Transportation's level of service tables, and the Forward Pinellas Countywide Rules. At the final hearing, the City also presented demonstrative exhibits in the form of enlarged maps illustrating the surrounding neighborhood, the Property, and similar development patterns of RM and RU designations across the City. Regarding the density calculation, the City introduced and explained the reasons and sources supporting its maximum density figure of 21 dwelling units per acre. This included the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules, the Comprehensive Plan, and LDRs.10 The City established the Ordinance and Amendment are based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the character of the land. 9 "GIS" is Geographic Information Systems. 10 Moreover, Mr. Kilborn explained that exact density calculations would be finalized during the site plan review process, which involves further surveys and engineering measurements. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and/or that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Ultimate Findings PGSP did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City has provided a preponderance of the evidence, which is both competent and substantial, which supports the findings in the Staff Report and the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining the City of St. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 739-L, is "in compliance" as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Jacqueline Kovilaritch, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Florida One 4th Street North, 10th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 Michael J. Dema, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Sarah M. Hayter, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Heather Judd, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue Whether an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by ordinance number 92-029 has rendered the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, St. Lucie County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenors, Brian Charboneau and Kathy Charboneau, are the owners of a parcel of real property located in the County, which is the subject of the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The parties stipulated that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Okeechobee County, on the north by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County. Geographically, the County consists of approximately 600 square miles, or approximately 384,000 acres. Approximately 513 square miles, or approximately 328,320 acres, of the County are unincorporated and subject to land use planning by the County. The significant man-made features of the County include Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Highway 70 and the Fort Pierce International Airport. The airport is operated by the County. There are two incorporated areas within the County: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The majority of urban development within the County is located within these municipalities and consists mainly of detached, single-family residential dwellings and multifamily units. The estimated permanent population projected in the Plan for the County in 1990 was approximately 151,700. Including seasonal population, the estimated population for the County for 1990 was approximately 182,400. The majority of the County's land area is used for citrus production. The majority of the agricultural land use in the County is located within the County's unincorporated area, to the west of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, which both run generally north and south through the County. As a result of recent cold weather in areas of Florida north of the County, citrus production in the County has increased in recent years by approximately 35,500 acres between 1978 and 1992. Major natural divisions of the County are the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (including barrier islands), the Eastern Valley and the Osceola Plain. Adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. On January 9, 1990, the County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Plan applies to, and governs growth within, the unincorporated area of the County. The Plan excludes areas within the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. (Unless otherwise specified, any further reference to the County constitutes a reference to only the unincorporated areas of the County subject to the Plan.) The Plan was based, in part, on an earlier comprehensive plan adopted by the County in 1975 pursuant to the former Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan were adopted by the County by ordinance. Data and analysis submitted by the County to the Department with the Plan was not adopted by the County by ordinance. The Department reviewed the Plan and on March 21, 1990, filed a Statement of Intent to find the Plan not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A notice of the Department's determination was published in a local newspaper. The Department determined that the Plan was not "in compliance", in part, because of a conclusion that the Plan allocated twice as much land area to residential land use categories as data concerning the expected population of the County for the year 2015 justified. The Department, therefore, concluded that the Plan was not based on data and analysis, and did not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County and the Department entered into settlement negotiations which resulted in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in October of 1990 disposing of the Department's objections to the Plan. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department agreed that it would find the Plan "in compliance" if the County adopted certain remedial amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The terms of the agreement were subsequently carried out. See DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments were adopted in part due to the Department's concern about the the proliferation of urban sprawl. This concern was addressed through the remedial amendments by adding certain development controls and requiring clustering of residential development on lands classified agricultural. The remedial amendments also included Policy 1.1.2.4 and Policy 1.1.2.5. Policy 1.1.2.4 is quoted, infra, in finding of fact 123. Policy 1.1.2.5 provides: Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-agricultural uses to protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with enforcement of nonagricultural development or creation of nuisances by agricultural operations. DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments also include Objective 1.1.5 and related policies governing development within the Urban Service Area. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflect a long-term planning period of twenty-five years, ending with the year 2015. In the Introduction of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan (DCA exhibit 1 and St. Lucie County exhibit 1), there is a general description of the Future Land Use Element: The Future Land Use Element has been divided into a series of sections which analyze the existing patterns of development within the community, portray future patterns of develop- ment and recognize unique or special areas within the community that should be considered in future land use determinations. Integral to the success of the Comprehensive Plan are the Goals, Objectives, and Policies which will be used to direct the location and intensity of development for the variety of uses necessary for a healthy and diversified community. Page 1-1, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes the following "major development philosophy": Over the years, the County has been requested to approve development proposals that would permit the encroachment of urban uses in areas previously used for agricultural purposes. Many of these areas are outside of what may be considered the communities existing urban form or pattern. As discussed later in this element, the cost of providing the necessary community services to these development sites is becoming an increasing community concern. . . . Page 1-6, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan goes on to recognize the importance of citrus production: The major use of land within the unincorporated areas of the County is agriculture. Well over 60 percent of the County is presently used for the production of citrus, cash crops or ranching activities. These agricultural activities account for St. Lucie County being ranked among the top citrus producers in the State of Florida, contributing substantially to the local and regional economy. Page 1-11, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Sixteen general categories of future land use are identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan: Agriculture: 5 and 2.5. Residential: Estate, Suburban, Urban, Medium, High. Residential/Conservation. Conservation-Public. Commercial. Industrial. Public Facilities. Transportation/Utilities. Historic. Mixed Use. Special District. The density of development for the residential categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per acre for Estate, 2 units per acre for Suburban, 5 units per acre for Urban, 9 units per acre for Medium and 15 units per acre for High. The density for residential use of the agriculture categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per 2.5 acres for Agriculture-2.5 and 1 unit per 5 acres for Agriculture-5. Population estimates contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan are based upon estimates of population of the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The Plan indicates that the County has determined that the University's "high" projections appear to reflect more accurate population projections for the County. The projections concerning population contained in the Future Land Use Element and in this Recommended Order are based upon those "high" projections. Based upon the Plan's data and analysis projections, it is estimated that the permanent population of the entire County was 135,715 in 1988 and 318,650 in 2015. With the seasonal population added, based largely on agriculture related increases in population, the population was estimated at 154,141 in 1988 and 382,380 in 2015. Thus, the estimated increase in the population for the entire County from 1988 to 2015 is 182,935 permanent residents and 219,522 permanent and seasonal residents. In the County alone, the permanent population is estimated to be 54,226 in 1988. For the year 2015, the estimated permanent population is 93,045. With the seasonal population added, the population for 1988 is estimated at 65,119 and 111,654 for the year 2015. Therefore, the estimated total increase in population for the year 2015 is 38,779 permanent residents and 46,535 permanent and seasonal residents. For the year 1988, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes an estimate that the existing acreage being used for residential purposes was 16,900 acres. The Plan's Housing Element includes an estimate of only 12,369 acres of residential land use in 1988. To determine projected residential land use needs for the year 2015, the Future Land Use Element provides the following: For the purpose of determining the future land use needs in the community, a ratio has been established which is based upon current (1988) development conditions. This ratio was determined by dividing the seasonal population of the County in 1988 by the estimated amount of land consumed by broad land use category type. . . . Page 1-22, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Actually, the ratio was determined by dividing the permanent population of the County in 1988, and not the seasonal population, by the estimated amount of land being used for residential purposes. The ratio of population in 1988 to residential acreage use in 1988 results in an estimate of the historical, minimum amount of residential acreage used in the County per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is concluded in the Plan that 312 acres (16,900 acres in residential use in 1988 divided by 54,226 permanent residents in 1988), or .312 acres per person have been used historically for residential purposes. Based upon the estimate of land in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element of the Plan, the ratio is .228 (12,369 acres in 1988/54,226 1988 population). Applying the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 to the projected seasonal population in the year 2015 of 111,654, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan estimates that the total residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will be 34,836 acres: 111,654 x .312 = 34,836. The estimated total residential acreage needed in the year 2015 based upon the estimated residential acreage in 1988 contained in the Plan's Housing Element is 25,457 acres: 111,654 x .228 = 25,457. If the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 is applied to the projected increase in permanent population by the year 2015 of 38,779, the additional residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will only be 12,099 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 28,999 acres of residential land for permanent residents by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 12,099 projected need). Using the Plan's Housing Element ratio of .228 and the projected increase in permanent population results in a conclusion that there will be a need for an additional 8,841 acres of residential land. Based upon the projected population growth in permanent and seasonal residents for the year 2015 (46,535 increase in seasonal population) and applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people (.312), the projected additional acreage needed for residential use by the year 2015 is 14,518 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 31,418 acres of residential land for the seasonal population by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). Applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people to determine projected additional residential acreage need and using the projection of acreage in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element, there is a need for only 26,887 total acres of residential land (12,369 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). In the Plan, the County applied the historical residential ratio of .312, which is based upon 1988 permanent population, to the total projected 2015 permanent and seasonal population of 111,535 and concluded that there is a need for a total of 34,836 acres for residential use in 2015. This amounts to a total of 17,936 additional acres (34,836 - 16,900). Based upon the calculations contained in findings of fact 33 through 37, the Plan's projection of additional residential acreage is incorrectly high. Whether the Plan's higher estimate of need is used does not, however, appreciably affect the following determinations. Therefore, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the Plan's incorrect estimate of additional residential acreage needed will be used. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflects the County's conclusion that there are approximately 70,989 acres of land in the County available for residential use, not including potential residential development of land designated for agricultural use of one dwelling per 2.5 acres or per 5 acres, and excluding land involved in three amendments to the Plan, including the subject amendment. The 70,989 acres includes acreage already in residential use in 1988 (16,900 acres) and vacant acreage available for residential use through the year 2015. It is estimated in the Plan that there are 2.34 people per dwelling unit in the County. The remedial amendments to the Plan the County agreed to adopt did not remove any of the 70,989 acres of land allocated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use, modify densities, or modify the agricultural classifications of the Future Land Use Map. The Plan designates a portion of the County as an Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The Urban Service Area is generally described, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . This area represents the preferred regions for development at urban intensities. The area indicated is the most likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided by either a municipal utility or a privately operated regional enterprise. The intent of the urban service area designation is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability of the community to meet its service needs. The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather, it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of this plan [to 2015]. . . . . Page 1-40, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The western boundary of the Urban Service Area runs generally north and south along the western boundary of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. Future Land Use Objective 1.1.4 and Policies 1.1.4.1 through 1.1.5.9 deal with the Urban Service Area. Objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Objective provides: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development shall be directed to areas where the provision of urban and community services/facilities can be ensured. Page 1-59, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. In pertinent part, the Policies related to Objective 1.1.4 provide the following: Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, through the development of density bonus and incentive programs in the Land Development Regulations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary before encouraging/supporting the conversion of property in the agricultural and suburban areas to higher intensity urban uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the adopted levels of service within this plan. Policy 1.1.4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the ser- vices and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.4.3 Encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the incorporation of the following into the County's Land Development Regulations: The establishment of minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments; The establishment of minimum open space ratios of 30 percent or greater in all planned unit developments including within the PUD documents assurances on the part of the developer that such areas will remain as open space to protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities. The establishment of minimum open space standards; The establishment of provisions ensuring the long term preservation of remaining open spaces; The establishment of a mixed use district combining residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other income producing uses providing significant functional and physical integration among uses; The establishment of minimum standards for the provision of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip capture; and, The establishment of specific requirements to provide efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in planned unit developments. Policy 1.1.4.4 Provide for the calculation of gross residential density on lands that lie above the mean high water elevation. Provide for the ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous property. Pages, 1-59 through 1-62, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Plan indicates that the Urban Service Area is likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided. There is no firm commitment in the Plan, however, to provide central water and sewer services for development within the Urban Service Area. Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Plan provides that urban development activities are restricted to the Urban Service Area. The Policy also provides that "urban development activities" include "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre . . ." for purposes of the Policy. The densities of Policy 1.1.5.1 for residential development are more dense than what is generally considered as an "urban density". The land located outside of the Urban Service Area is classified almost exclusively as Agriculture-2.5 or Agriculture-5. There are a few areas which abut the Urban Service Area boundary line which are classified for residential use, including a few small parcels which were in existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The Plan does not indicate the current or future existence of urban development within the Urban Service Area. A wide range of development densities and intensities are provided for in the Plan for the Urban Service Area. With regard to development in the Urban Service Area, the Plan provides, in part, the following: It is the position of St. Lucie County that in order to permit the mechanics of the free market system to operate openly, there must be a choice in where to locate future development. Offering the possibility of various development areas, when located within the defined urban service area, is not supportive of a pattern of urban sprawl. Page 1-24, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Amendments to the Plan. Since the determination that the Plan was "in compliance", the Plan has been amended three times, including the subject amendment. One amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 2.1 acres of land from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlong Amendment"). Another amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 9.57 acres of land from Residential Urban to Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Hayes Amendment"). Finally, the subject amendment amends the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 164 acres of land owned by the Intervenors from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Amendment"). The Charboneau Amendment. On September 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance No. 92-029 approving the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, as adopted by the County, is effective only if it is ultimately determined that the amendment is "in compliance". After review of the Charboneau Amendment, the Department determined that it was not "in compliance". This determination was reflected in a notice which the Department caused to be published and in the Department's Statement of Intent of November 11, 1992. The Charboneau Amendment modifies the future land use classification of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate. Agriculture-2.5 allows residential use of the property of no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. Residential Estate would allow residential development of the property of one unit per acre. The Charboneau Property and the Surrounding Area. The subject parcel consists of approximately 164 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Property"). The Charboneau Property is generally rectangular shaped with several parcels of land in the southern portion of the parcel which are not included in the Charboneau Amendment. Those "out parcels" retain their future land use designation of Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. The Charboneau Property represents approximately five one-hundredths of one percent of the 328,230 acres of unincorporated land in the County. The northeastern portion of the Charboneau Property consists of cleared land used for grazing a small number of cattle. The remainder of the property is not being actively used for agriculture or other purposes and is covered by pine flatwood and palmettos. The Charboneau Property is located in approximately the geographic center of the County. It is outside, but on the fringe, of the major development areas of the County. The Charboneau Property is bounded generally on the east by Gentile Road, a two-lane dirt road running north from State Road 70. State Road 70, also known as Okeechobee Boulevard, is located to the south of the Charboneau Property. State Road 70 is a major east-west arterial road. It connects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 area, which are located within the Urban Service Area to the east of the Charboneau Property, with Fort Pierce. Access to the Charboneau Property is off Gentile Road. The Charboneau Property is located to the west and outside of the Urban Service Area designated by the Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Charboneau Amendment, the parcel of property generally contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property was also located outside the Urban Service Area. The boundary of the Urban Service Area had been located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel and the Charboneau Property are separated by Gentile Road. In conjunction with the adoption and transmittal to the Department of the Charboneau Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners of the County initiated, directed and ratified a relocation of the Urban Service Area boundary approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This placed the Urban Service Area boundary at Gentile Road. This modification in the Urban Service Area was consistent with the Plan, which allows a modification of the boundary of the Urban Service Area of up to 1,500 feet without plan amendment. As a consequence of the modification of the Urban Service Area, most of the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property is contiguous to, but still outside, the Urban Service Area. On the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a canal. The canal is approximately thirty feet wide, although the width of the water in the canal is less. The canal is approximately six feet deep. To the north and northeast of the canal are citrus groves in active agricultural production. The property (hereinafter referred to as the "Coca- Cola Property"), is owned by Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Property is classified as Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan. Except for certain small pockets of property which border on the Charboneau Property which are described, infra, the property to the north, northwest and west of the Charboneau Property are used predominantly for citrus. Most of this property consists of large tracts of corporate-owned land. To the north of the Coca-Cola Property are also large tracts of property owned by government agencies. To the northeast of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the University of Florida which is used for citrus research. To the northwest of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the United States Department of Agriculture. The County also operates a livestock farm in the area. To the northwest of the Charboneau Property and to the west of the portion of the Coca-Cola Property abutting the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property known as Fort Pierce Gardens. Fort Pierce Gardens is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The future land use classification of Fort Pierce Gardens is Agriculture- 2.5. The lots in Fort Pierce Gardens range in size from one acre to five acres. There are a few houses already constructed and a few more houses under construction in Fort Pierce Gardens. Development of Fort Pierce Gardens is less than half complete. Adjacent to the western boundary of the Charboneau Property is a tract known as Pine Hollow Subdivision. Pine Hollow Subdivision is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. It is approximately the same size as the Charboneau Property. The future land use classification of the parcel is Agriculture-2.5. Pine Hollow Subdivision consists of 110 platted lots that are being developed in phases. The first phase consists of thirty lots which are still under development. A County maintained road has been constructed in phase one. Development of the other phases has not begun. The remaining portion of the tract has three rough-cut dirt roads. The subdivision is less complete than Fort Pierce Gardens. Lots in Pine Hollow Subdivision are slightly larger than one acre. Homes in the subdivision will use wells and septic tanks. To the west of Pine Hollow Subdivision and Fort Pierce Gardens is a large area of land used for citrus. These lands are designated Agriculture-2.5 and Agriculture-5. To the south and southwest of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property with an airstrip which has been used by crop-dusting airplanes. The airstrip is oriented in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The airstrip and the parcel of land to the south of the Charboneau Property and north of State Road 70 is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the future land use map. The airstrip is not currently being used for crop-dusting aircraft. Improvements have recently been made to the airstrip, however, which evidence an intent to use the airstrip in the future for crop dusting activities. Hearsay evidence corroborates this finding. The land to the south of the Charboneau Property and south of State Road 70 is in use for citrus production. The parcel between the Charboneau Property and State Road 70 is named Walsh Farms. The property to the south and southeast of State Road 70, while currently used for citrus production, is designated Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map, allowing development of two dwelling units per acre. This property is, however, located inside the Urban Service Area. To the east of Gentile Road is a parcel of property approximately the same size, north to south, and about half the size, east to west, as the Charboneau Property. This parcel has been developed as what was characterized as rural ranchette. There are approximately eighteen large lots of four to five acres up to ten to twenty acres. The lots in the parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Ranchette Property"), have single-family homes constructed on them and the lots also have some citrus and horses. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the Ranchette Property was being used for commercial agricultural purposes. The parcel is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the Future Land Use Map. One parcel of approximately 2.5 acres located within the Ranchette Property was the subject of the Furlong Amendment. To the immediate east of the Ranchette Property, bounded on the south by State Road 70 and on the east, in part, by the Florida Turnpike, is an area designated as Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map. The area, which lies within the Urban Service Area, is largely undeveloped at this time except for a development known as Hidden Pines. Hidden Pines is a vested subdivision. Hidden Pines consists of lots of approximately one acre. The homes on these lots are served by wells and septic tanks. The subdivision is nearly completely built-out. Approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Charboneau Property is the center of an area immediately to the north of where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 cross. From this point, the Florida Turnpike travels to the northwest, and closest to the Charboneau Property, from the crossing with Interstate 95. Interstate 95 travels to the northeast, and furthermost from the Charboneau Property, from the crossing. Immediately to the north of the crossing State Road 70 intersects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 in a generally east-west direction. The western boundary of this area is approximately two-thirds of a mile from the southeast corner of the Charboneau Property. There is an interchange of the Florida Turnpike immediately to the north of the crossing and just to the south of State Road 70. There is also an interchange of Interstate 95 to the north of the crossing at State Road 70. State Road 70 becomes a six-lane arterial road to the east of the Florida Turnpike. There are no level of service deficiencies on this portion of State Road 70. The area within and immediately outside the area north of the crossing, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike, is designated as the Okeechobee Road/I-95 Mixed Use Activity Area. The area may be used for varied, compatible commercial uses and residential use up to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Activity Area is currently being developed. There are hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants and an outlet mall already in existence in the area. Another outlet mall is being constructed. Reynolds Industrial Park, consisting of approximately 200 acres, is being developed. To the northeast of the Charboneau Property and the Coca-Cola Property to the east of Gentile Road is an area designated Residential Estate. This area is within the Urban Service Area and currently is undeveloped. Part of the property is used for citrus production. In summary, the area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property, is designated for agricultural uses except for Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision. Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision are isolated islands of development within an area actively used for agriculture purposes. Insufficient Data and Analysis to Justify an Increase in Residential Acreage by the Designation of the Charboneau Property As Residential Estate. In the Department's Statement of Intent, it was concluded that the Charboneau Amendment is not "in compliance" based upon the lack of data and analysis to support the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture- 2.5 to Residential Estate with a designated density of one dwelling per acre. Currently, the Agriculture-2.5 classification of the Plan allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, or a total of approximately 65 residential units on the Charboneau Property. The Plan, however, requires that any non-agricultural development of over twenty units within an Agriculture-2.5 classification must maintain open space of at least 80 percent of the project site in order to retain some viable agricultural use of the property. Residential Estate does not require clustering of units or open space. A total of approximately 163 residential units, one per acre with no open space, or a maximum of an additional 98 residential units can be constructed on the Charboneau Property if the Charboneau Amendment is approved. When the Charboneau Amendment was submitted to the Department for review, the County failed to provide any data or analysis in support of a potential increase in residential units of 98 units or the change in classification of the appropriate use of the Charboneau Property from agricultural to residential. For example, no analysis of the number of acres in the County which are available for development at one unit per acre was performed by the County. The data and analysis of the Plan and, in particular, the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, allocate a total of 54,089 acres for new residential development in the County through the year 2015 to accommodate the need for residential property for projected increases in population (70,989 total acres available - 16,900 acres in use in 1988). If the acreage used for residential purposes in 1988 evidenced by the Housing Element is used, the Plan allocates a total of 58,620 acres for new residential development (70,989 total acres available - 12,369 acres in use in 1988). Based upon the Plan, there is a need for only 17,936 additional acres of residential property to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. See finding of fact 38. With 54,089 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 17,936 additional acres, there are 3.01 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. If the Housing Element historical ratio of use is used, there are only 13,088 acres of residential property needed to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. With 58,620 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 13,088 additional acres, there are 4.47 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. Applying the historical ratio of residential use to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 12,099 acres for residential use by the year 2015. Finding of fact 35. This projection represents 4.47 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (54,089 projected acres/12,099 projected need). Applying the historical ratio of residential use based upon the Housing Element of the Plan to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 8,841 acres for residential uses by the year 2015. Finding of Fact 35. This projection represents 6.63 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (58,620 projected acres/8,841 projected need). Although approved by the Department, the evidence in this case proved that the Plan contains a designation of sufficient land in the County through the year 2015 to more than adequately meet the reasonably anticipated need for residential property. In fact, the Plan over-allocates land well in excess of any reasonable expectation of the amount of property needed to meet such needs. Even based upon the Plan's projections, the County has allocated more than 3 times the land needed to meet the County's own projections for the need for residential land for the year 2015. While the existing provisions of the Plan are not subject to review, when asked to consider an amendment providing for an increase in residential property, the existence of excessive residential property should not be ignored. In this case, to ignore the realities of the excessive allocation of land for residential purposes in the County contained in the Plan and approve the classification of additional property as residential, would simply exacerbate an already existing excessive allocation. The conclusion that there is excessive land available for residential purposes already contained in the Plan is supported by the population per unit in the County of 2.34. If it is assumed that the 54,089 acres of land available for residential development in the County are developed at a low density of one unit per acre, there will be adequate residential land available for an additional 126,568 people: 54,089 acres, or 54,089 units, x 2.34 people per unit = 126,568 people. Based upon a projected permanent and seasonal population increase by the year 2015 of 46,535 people, there is available for residential use 2.71 times the acreage available to meet future residential needs. In light of the fact that residential property may be developed at much higher densities pursuant to the Plan, assuming development of one unit per acre is conservative, and the number of people that may be accommodated is much higher than 126,568 people. Although not reflected in the Plan, there has been a removal of some property classified as residential property from residential use since the adoption of the Plan. The County has acquired 94 single-family homes on 100 acres designated for Residential Estate use. The 100 acres are located to the east of the Ft. Pierce International Airport and were acquired for noise abatement purposes. The homes on the property have been demolished. An additional 90 homes on land classified Residential Urban will also be acquired and demolished. The State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, has also acquired property known as the Avalon tract. The property is located on Hutchinson Island, in the northeast corner of the County. This property had been designated Residential Urban and could have contained approximately 450 units. Even with the removal of the property near the airport and the Avalon tract from the residential property inventory, the Plan contains an excessive allocation of property for residential needs through the year 2015. Based upon the foregoing, data and analysis has not been submitted by the County to justify an increase in residential property or property which may be developed at an increased density. There is already an over-allocation of property for residential land use and, even with the reductions of property near the airport and the Avalon tract, the addition of the Charboneau Property will only result in a Plan with greater over-allocation of land for residential purposes or increased densities. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The ill effects of urban sprawl include inequitable distribution of the costs of development and of providing services, inefficient use of land, unnecessary destruction of natural resources, loss of agricultural lands and increased commuting costs and the resulting pollution. In November 1989, the Department published a Technical Memorandum which describes the Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl". The Department's policy has been further refined and is reflected in proposed amendments to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, proposed Rule 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with, and represent, the Department's policy concerning urban sprawl. The Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl", as set out in the proposed rules and as contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, is consistent with the definition of "urban sprawl" most commonly employed by professional planners. The Department's proposed rules concerning urban sprawl do not have the effect of law. They have not yet been finally adopted. The proposed rules have not been relied upon, however, by the Department or the undersigned as "law" in this case. The proposed rules concerning urban sprawl have only been relied on as an expression of the Department's policy. The Department's policy concerning urban sprawl, as evidenced in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, and as modified by the Department's proposed rules, is reasonable. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum is: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" as evidenced by the proposed rules is as follows: (140) "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in rural areas or areas of interspersed rural and generally low- intensity urban uses, and which are characterized by: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which are not functionally related to adjacent land uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities and the use of areas within which public services are being provided. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patters: (1) leapfrog or scattered development; (2) ribbon or strip commercial or other development; and (3) large expanses of predominantly low intensity and single-use development. Page 21, DCA exhibit 18. There are several indicators as to when a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The indicators, which are memorialized in the Department's proposed amendment to Rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), Florida Administrative Code, are whether a plan amendment: Promotes or allows substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity or single use developments in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes or allows significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are suitable for development but can be expected to remain undeveloped for the balance of the planing period. Promotes or allows urban development to occur in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments but which are bordered on either side by rural land uses, typically following highways or surface water shorelines such as rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Fails to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, endangered or threatened species habitat or habitat of species of special concern, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails to protect agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture. This includes active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant unique and prime farm- lands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Increases disproportionately the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm- water management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation bet- ween rural and urban uses. Fails to promote and support infill development and the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Pages 38-40, DCA exhibit 18 Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the County and the Department which led to the determination that the Plan was in compliance, objectives and polices were added by the County to the Plan to insure that the Plan discouraged the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan, by directing that development primarily take place within the Urban Service Area, evidences an intent on the part of the County to discourage urban sprawl. See page 1-40 of St. Lucie County exhibit 1 and finding of fact 43. Applying the indicators of urban sprawl to the Charboneau Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Charboneau Amendment does not discourage urban sprawl: The Charboneau Amendment allows the development of 164 acres of land as a low-density, single-use development of one dwelling unit per acre despite the lack of need for any additional residential development in the County. It allows urban development in rural areas at a significant distance from existing urban areas while leapfrogging over less dense and undeveloped land within the Urban Service Area more suitable for such development. It allows urban development in an area that is primarily used for agricultural purposes and, consequently, fails to protect agricultural areas. It fails to maximize the use of existing or future public facilities and services by allowing urban development outside of the Urban Service Area. At some time in the future, the residents of the Charboneau Property can reasonably be expected to expect public facilities and services. It will increase disproportionately the costs in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services because the Charboneau Property is located outside the Urban Service Area. It fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. It fails to promote and support infill development and redevelopment. The Charboneau Amendment does not, by itself, create urban sprawl. No development of the Charboneau Property will occur simply because the Charboneau Amendment is found to be "in compliance" until development orders are issued by the County. These facts do not, however, support the suggestion that the Plan will not fail to discourage urban sprawl as a result of the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, even though contrary to Objective 1.1.2 and the Policies thereunder which discourage urban sprawl, if found in compliance, will cause the Plan to contain provisions which not only fail to discourage urban sprawl. It will cause the Plan to include provisions which encourage urban sprawl. Inconsistency with Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan. Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that comprehensive plan elements be consistent with each other and that future conditions maps reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the plan elements. The Department has alleged, and proved, that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and, therefore, creates an inconsistency within the Future Land Use element. Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan provides the following: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan provides the following: The County shall include in its land development regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non- agricultural land uses in a rational and orderly manner. such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: is compatible with adjacent land uses; maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie County soil survey; is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; is consistent with comprehensive develop- ment plans; will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Policy 1.1.2.4 was added to the Plan as part of the settlement entered into between the Department and the County during the review of the Plan. Based upon data contained in the Plan, there were approximately 211,428 acres out of a total of 330,402.7 acres in the County in 1988 devoted to agricultural use. This amounts to approximately 63.9 percent agricultural use. The area outside the Urban Service Area is: . . . recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. . . . Based upon the entire area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property and the property surrounding the Charboneau Property, the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate would create an incompatible use of the Charboneau property. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of the general impact of the conversion of agriculture lands to non-agriculture lands throughout the State of Florida. Of the State's 10.9 million acres of land, approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of farm land are lost to other uses yearly. Contributing to this problem is the fact that, as one parcel is converted to non-agricultural uses, the adjacent property values increase and farmers become discouraged. This impact contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land. To reduce the impact on adjacent agricultural lands caused by the conversion of agricultural land, a clear demarcation between rural and urban land uses should be designated. The Urban Service Area of the Plan serves this purpose in the County Although the evidence failed to prove that agricultural lands adjacent to the Charboneau Property will no longer be used for agricultural purposes upon the conversion of the Charboneau Property or that such a phenomenon has occurred in the County in the past, concern over such impacts are evidenced and recognized by Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. of the Plan. The Charboneau Amendment ignores these concerns. It is, therefore, concluded that the Charboneau Amendment will detract from the continued viability of property outside the Urban Service Area for agricultural uses. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires that a development "maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands." The Charboneau Amendment, even if the domino impact of the conversion of other acreage from agricultural uses may not occur, does not maintain such viability. The Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 because it allows the conversion of agricultural property in an agricultural area (with two parcels of existing, inconsistent uses), outside the Urban Service Area and at a density that is considered an urban density: The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses does not maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. The Charboneau Property contains soils that are approximately equally suited for agricultural purposes or residential purposes. Wells and septic tanks are used on subdivisions in the area and similar soils exist in areas being used for the cultivation of citrus. The Charboneau Amendment is consistent with other portions of Policy 1.1.2.4. While Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan specifically only require that the County adopt land development regulations to govern the conversion of agricultural lands, the Objective and Policy also contain substantive provisions which must be contained in those regulations. Therefore, even though the Charboneau Amendment may not specifically impact the County's compliance with the requirement that it "adopt land development regulations," the substance of the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Objective and the Policy of the Plan and would create an inconsistency in the Plan if found to be "in compliance." Inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Goal 16 of the State Comprehensive Plan and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 16 are as follows: (16) LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. . . . . Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. Converting the Charboneau Property to a non-agricultural classification outside the Urban Service Area is inconsistent with Policy 1 of Goal 16. The existence of the inconsistent uses of Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow, which were allowed because of their existence before the effective date of the Plan, does not justify further exceptions in the area outside the Urban Service Area designated for rural land uses. The existence of a nonconforming use does not justify further nonconforming uses. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. In its Statement of Intent, the Department has alleged that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Regional Plan Policy 16.1.2.2. Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan provides, in part, the following: Land use within the Region shall be consistent with State, regional, and local Future Land Use Maps. . . . Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan goes on to provide for a Regional Future Land Use Map and defines the land use categories to be included in the regional map. Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan provides the following policy statement concerning Goal 16.1.2: Future land use maps of government comprehen- sive plans shall be based upon surveys, and data regarding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population, the character of undeveloped land, the availability of public services, the ability of government to provide adequate levels of service, and the need for redevelopment. The provisions of Policy 16.1.2.2 are also contained in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. As found in more detail, supra, the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 16.1.2.2 because of a lack of data necessary to support an increase in residential land or increased density in the County and because it fails to promote redevelopment by infill or revitalization within the Urban Service Area.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether it should be determined that the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, was in compliance with Chapter 163, Fla. Stat. (1993), as of the adoption of the County Ordinance 94-1 on March 2, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Adoption History Highlands County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1991. The Department of Community Affairs (the DCA or Department) took the position that the initial comprehensive plan was not in compliance. On September 15, 1993, the County adopted an amended comprehensive plan. (County Exhibit 6) The DCA took the position that the amended comprehensive plan, in particular its natural resources element, did not adequately protect areas of important plant and animal habitat from agricultural land uses. (County Exhibit 8). Highlands County adopted remedial amendments on March 2, 1994. (County Exhibit 9) On March 16, 1994, DCA published a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan and Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendments in compliance. (County Exhibit 13) The Petition for Administrative Hearing by Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. (HEC) was filed on or about April 6, 1994. The HEC Petition was signed by Kris Delaney, as its president. The parties' Prehearing Stipulation filed on October 17, 1994, eliminated several of the issues initially raised in the HEC Petition. The Lake Wales Ridge Highlands County is special because of the presence of a feature known as the Lake Wales Ridge, which is only between five and 14 miles wide but stretches for about 100 miles in a north-south orientation through the County. Most of the Ridge is contained within Highlands County, but smaller portions extend into neighboring counties. The Lake Wales Ridge had its beginnings when the sea covered much of what is now the Florida peninsula. A paleo beach and dune system was formed at the edge between the sea and the Ridge. When the waters receded, it left behind a ridge of relatively high ground characterized by generally coarse sands. These sands, which began as beach sand, have been weathered for millions of years, rendering them very sterile and low in nutrients. Water passes very quickly through these sands, making the soil and environment resemble those occurring in much drier places. Although created through the same processes, the Ridge contains many different unique and specialized habitats. Because of these habitats, the Ridge is a national "hot spot" for endemism. This means that many different species of organisms occur in this relatively small area; many of these species occur exclusively or primarily on the Ridge. At least two dozen plant species are found exclusively or primarily on the Ridge, and it is believed that many species have yet to be discovered. In more recent times, the high and dry Ridge also has attracted a disproportionate share of the residential, commercial and agricultural development in the County. Development pressures have conflicted with the habitat needs for the survival of many of the plant and animal species that occurred on the Ridge. Urban and citrus development tend to obliterate habitat; they also compete for available water supply. In addition, as the Ridge has developed, the natural fires that served an important role in maintaining the special habitats of the Ridge were suppressed. More recently, although man has come to understand the importance of fire to these habitats and the species that thrive in them, the increasing presence of man's development has made fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. With more and more development, the habitats of the Ridge with their many endemic plant and animal species have come under increasing pressure. The most widespread kind of natural habitat on the Ridge is called scrub. Scrub consists mainly of scrub oak and shrubs adapted to dry, low nutrient conditions. Scrub contains a disproportionate share of the threatened and endangered plant and animal species on the Ridge. These include the Florida scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the sand skink, the scrub lizard and the Florida mouse. Natural scrub habitat is rapidly disappearing from the Ridge. By 1981, about 64 percent of the scrub on the southern Ridge had been severely altered. Along the central Ridge, losses were even greater--about 74 percent. By 1991, losses were estimated to be approximately 70 to 90 percent. Sandhill is the rarest natural community in the County. It is the historic high pineland community dominated by long leaf pines. (A vegetative community known as southern sandhill is not dominated by long leaf pines and is not true sandhill; it actually is a type of scrub.) Only about one percent of the original true sandhill still existed as of March, 1994. Although altered by fragmentation and fire suppression, the remaining sandhill still supports several important endemic plant and animal species, such as the gopher tortoise, Sherman's fox squirrel, and a plant called the clasping warea. A type of natural habitat unique to Highlands County portion of the Ridge is cutthroat seep. Cutthroat seeps occur where groundwater near and at surface elevation flows rapidly through areas usually adjacent to true wetlands, keeping the area wet but not ponded. These areas are dominated by cutthoat grasses, which require periodic burning to maintain their dominance. Drainage related to development lowers the water table and otherwise interrupts the needed lateral flow of water, allowing the invasion of woody species. In addition, development makes fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. The most effective protection of cutthroat seep requires preservation of relatively large parcels, approximately ten acres or more. Smaller parcels are harder to fire manage. In addition, smaller parcels could be subjected to inadvertent hydrologic interruption from nearby development. There are about 18 plant species that occur only on the Ridge. Forty plant species occur only in Florida scrub and occur on the Ridge. Twenty-two plants on the Ridge are federally listed as either endangered or threatened. The Florida scrub jay is a federally listed endangered species that occurs only in peninsular Florida. The scrub jay also serves as an indicator species--management for scrub jay habitat will meet the habitat requirements of most other species that occur in scrub habitat. Scrub jays require the presence of scrub oak, as well as bare ground and low growing scrub. Periodic fire is necessary to maintain this mix. Scrub jays are very territorial. The tend to stay on one specific site. Scrub jays are monogamous, pairing to breed for life. Juveniles help feed and protect younger birds before dispersing to find a territory of their own. Dispersal distance typically is less than a mile. Each family group occupies a relatively large area--approximately 25 acres. Large sites are necessary to maintain a viable scrub jay population. Population viability models indicate that 150-200 individuals are needed for a population to persist for 200 years. Using this standard, fewer than ten potentially secure populations of scrub jay exist. It is believed that as much as 750 acres of scrub oak may be required to give a such a population a 90 percent chance of survival for 100 years. Development destroys scrub jay habitat. In addition, nearby development not only makes fire management difficult, if not impossible, it increases scrub jay mortality from feral cats and dogs and from motor vehicles. In the Base Documents supporting the Highlands County Plan, as amended, the County recognized the unique and sensitive natural resource represented by the Lake Wales Ridge. The Base Documents acknowledged that, before the comprehensive plan was adopted, the County did not have a "formal mechanism to examine the effects of proposed development and agricultural uses on natural vegetation and wildlife." The Base Documents also acknowledged that the Ridge required "more stringent controls and greater incentives for resource protection." Conservation, Use, and Protection of Natural Resources Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 3 providing that the County shall protect and acquire native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida and shall restrict activities known to adversely affect the endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Under that Objective, Highlands County has adopted a number of Policies. Highlands County's approach to conservation, use, and protection of natural resources under Objective 3 and its policies is to identify, evaluate, and protect natural resources on a site-by-site basis. (County Exhibit 6, Pages NRE-10 through NRE-25, inclusive, and County Exhibit 9) The review procedures prepared by Petitioner's representative, Kris Delaney, for the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) also used a site-by-site approach. (Petitioner Exhibit 56) Kris Delaney is the immediate past president of HEC and was described by Petitioner's counsel as its main representative. Highlands County's approach to evaluation of natural resources also is comparable to the review processes adopted by federal statute and state law for the protection of threatened and endangered species. Site specific evaluation was necessary due to the variety of protected species needs, site conditions, and legal constraints. Under Policy 3.1, A., Highlands County has adopted a number of source documents to identify endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern. Under Policy 3.1, B., Highlands County has adopted a number of documents as guidelines for establishing mitigation, on-site protection, and remedial actions for the protection of habitats and listed species in the County's land development regulations. Under Policy 3.2, Highlands County adopted a Conservation Overlay Map series to be used as a general indicator for the presence of xeric uplands, wetlands, cutthroat seeps, historical and archeological resources, cones of influence for potable wells, and aquifer recharge areas. (See Findings 52-59, infra, for a detailed description and explanation of these maps.) Whenever a particular site is in an area where one of those resource categories is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map series or are otherwise known to occur, Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element requires the applicant to submit to the Highlands County Planning Department a preliminary field investigation report prepared by a County-approved professional, firm, government agency, or institution. If that field investigation determines that any of those resources actually exist on the site, an Environmental Impact Report is required of the applicant. Those Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) must also be prepared by a County approved-professional, firm, agency, or institution. Policy 3.3, E., specifies the content of the EIR: (1) maps and a description of natural vegetative communities occurring on the proposed development site in terms of their habitat functions and significance; (2) maps and a description of the aforementioned natural resource categories which may be impacted by the proposed development; (3) an assessment of the potential impacts which would be sustained by a natural resource as a result of the proposed development; (4) an evaluation of water quality inputs and outputs; recommendations for appropriate mitigation and on-site protection measures; recommended land maintenance and management procedures to assure the continued viability or function of the natural resource after development; and a list of agencies which may have permit requirements pertaining to the proposed development. Under Policy 3.3, F., the application package and the EIR are transmitted for review and comment to the agencies listed in the Environmental Impact Report as having permit requirements and to the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee. Responsive comments and recommendations which are received are forwarded to the County employee or board having decision-making authority concerning the applicable permit and included in the County records pertaining to the project. Under Policy 3.3, G., after receiving the application packet, the EIR, and the comments and recommendations from other permitting agencies and the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, the County evaluates and determines the permit conditions required to: (1) protect and preserve the water quality or natural functions of flood plains and drainage ways, potable water wells, and wetlands; (2) protect and preserve the function of native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida or the habitats of endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern; (3) preserve and protect historical and archeological resources; (4) establish measures to protect life and property from flood hazard; and (5) establish land maintenance and management procedures for the natural resource to assure its continued viability or function after development. Policy 3.3, G., further requires that the County's final development order must be conditioned upon adequate avoidance, preservation, mitigation, or remedial actions for the protection of the aforementioned resources and must be consistent with the wetlands, flood plain, aquifer recharge, water quality, and cultural resource protection measures set forth within the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It also requires the County to require that the necessary state and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for the project's final development order. In determining the appropriate conditions for the County's final development order, Policy 3.3, B., states that avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the first choice for protecting the resource. Acquisition, conservation easements or dedications, and site design methods (including clustering development to the portion of the site where the resource does not exist or, if that is not possible, to the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site), are among the methods allowed to accomplish that purpose. Appropriate buffers between the development and the resource are also required. Policy 3.3, C., also provides that a mitigation fee may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners for small, isolated tracts containing less significant habitat and that the mitigation fees collected would be used to fund off-site mitigation in order that preservation of equal or greater habitat type, function, and quantity can be achieved. This is consistent with the "Review Procedure for Special Habits: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC which provides that "[L]ocal government may wish to establish procedural relationship with such agencies and, based on locally determined criteria, a minimum parcel size requiring review." Similarly, Policy 3.4 provides an environmental mitigation fee alternative for construction of single-family residences on preexisting lots of records to the extent consistent with state and federal regulations. These mitigation fee provisions are consistent with existing state and federal programs for protection of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern (Petitioner Exhibit 53, Pages 58 through 60; Petitioner Exhibit 56, Page 25, Level III, G.1 (cont.); and Petitioner Exhibit 78, Page 16) Policy 3.15 identifies several mitigation options which are consistent with those found in the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC. Policy 3.5, A., requires the County to institute an ongoing program to define, identify, and conserve its native vegetative communities and the habitats of endangered or threatened species and species of special concern and states that the conservation program must include the following implementation measures: (1) acquisition of lands using public funds and grants; (2) lease of land; (3) tax abatement; (4) land swaps and transfers of title; (5) establishment of conservation or open space easements; (6) density bonuses for cluster development; (7) density bonuses for development that preserves habitat and avoids impact on endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (8) density transfers for conservation set-asides to buildable portions of sites; and (9) mitigation fees and mitigation fee credits. Under Policy 3.5, B., the County has established as the top priority of its conservation program working with public and private agencies to acquire and preserve in their natural state: (1) scrub or sand hill habitats (xeric uplands); (2) endemic populations of endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (3) wetlands, cutthroat grass seeps, and estuaries; (4) important aquifer recharge areas; and (5) unique scenic or natural resources. In Policy 3.6, the County specifically references the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC as the model for its development review process for coordination with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Policy 3.6(g) specifically provides for coordination with local, state, and federal agencies concerning native vegetative communities or habitat areas spanning more than one local jurisdiction. Policy 3.7 establishes funding sources for the County's conservation trust fund and requires that the fund be used exclusively for the acquisition of the priorities listed in Policy 3.5, B., or the enhancement of other publicly- owned conservation-valued lands, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. To discourage clearing of land prior to environmental review, the County adopted Policy 3.13, which requires property owners to obtain a County land clearing permit prior to land clearing. Issuance of the land clearing permit is conditioned upon completion of the environmental review process adopted in Policy 3.3. If property is cleared without a County land clearing permit, no development orders may be issued for that site for a period of three years after such clearing. Under Policy 3.13, C., of the Plan, as amended, no land clearing permit is required for "any agricultural activity not requiring a Highlands County land development order conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide agricultural operation" on property "designated by the Future Land Use Map as either General or Urban Agriculture . . .." Under the policy, such operations are "encouraged to implement a Soil and Water Conservation District approved conservation plan, including the use of Best Management Practices, as applicable to the specific area being cleared, and [to secure all other permits required by State and federal agencies exercising jurisdiction over the natural resources referred to in Policy 3.2 and found on said property]." [Emphasis added.] In addition, Policy 3.9 of the Natural Resources Element provides for encouraging agricultural uses which are compatible with wildlife protection and water quality outputs, implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices. Highlands County also has adopted many other policies in the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of the Natural Resources Element for the protection of natural resources, including: Policy 3.8, providing for the removal and control of exotic plant species; Policy 3.10, requiring the County to incorporate the protection and conservation measures adopted under the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] into all County surface water management plans, public works projects and infrastructure improvement plans; Policy 3.11, encouraging the expansion of wildlife/greenbelt corridors; Policy 3.12, encouraging the creation of parks for the protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources; Policy 3.14, requiring setbacks from environmentally sensitive land; Policy 3.16, providing for transfers of density and density bonuses to encourage preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and listed species through the use of planned unit developments; Policies 3.17 through 3.19, providing for the appointment, functions and responsibilities of the Highlands County Natural Resource Advisory Committee; Policy 3.20, providing for the adoption of a five-year acreage target for acquisition of natural resource lands; and Policy 3.21, providing for a buffer around Highlands Hammock State Park, publicly-owned conservation lands, and conservation lands being considered for acquisition with public funds. Wetlands Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Wetlands Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 4 providing for the protection of wetlands systems and their ecological functions to ensure their long term, economic, environmental, and recreational value and to encourage restoration of wetlands systems to a functional condition. Under Objective 4 of the Natural Resources Element, Highlands County has adopted a number of policies to protect wetlands systems. Policy 4.1 provides for the protection of ecological functions of wetlands systems by the County through actions such as supporting the restoration of wetlands systems, protecting the natural functions and hydrology of wetlands systems by buffering against incompatible land uses and mitigating development impacts, providing for clustering and open space buffering, intergovernmental cooperation, and the acquisition of wetlands systems, including cutthroat grass seeps. In Policy 4.2, Highlands County adopted definitions for wetlands and cutthroat seeps which are required to be mapped according to Policies 3.2 and 4.3. In Policies 4.4 through 4.7, the County provided for the adoption of land development regulations which: encourage the restoration of wetlands systems; provide that development orders in cutthroat seeps be conditioned upon the issuance of wetlands permits by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts, as their jurisdictions apply, as a condition of approval of the project's final development order or land clearing permit; prevent the net loss or alteration of wetlands on a County-wide basis; and require conservation easements and delineation on final plats for wetland and cutthroat grass seep areas used for mitigation purposes. State and Federal Protections State and federal permitting processes protect threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in Highlands County. See Conclusions 125-130 and 140-147, infra. The review processes required to obtain the state and federal permits pertaining to threatened and endangered species require site-specific review, comparable to obtaining environmental clearance from the County under Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element. In view of the diversity of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern and their habitat needs, variations in quantity and quality of resources existing on site, and statutory and constitutional property rights protection, the County has chosen not to establish fixed set asides for every resource under every circumstance on a County-wide basis. By including in its permitting process notification to federal and state agencies having permitting responsibilities, Highlands County will be providing valuable assistance to state and federal environmental protection by bringing those agencies in at an early stage of the review process. Moreover, the County's requirements that the necessary federal, state, and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for a project's final development order will assist those federal and state agencies in enforcing environmental permits in Highlands County. Measuring Success of Protection Measures Extensive work by federal and state agencies has been devoted to identifying and studying threatened and endangered species, both plant and animal. Threatened and endangered species and the habitats necessary for their survival exist throughout the State of Florida. Listed species found in Highlands County are also found in other areas of the State of Florida. The amount and land-cover types of conservation areas have been extensively studied for the entire State of Florida. The percentage of conservation lands in Highlands County (9.4 percent) exceeds the statewide median for the portion of conservation lands within individual counties (8.6 percent). The land cover types for the entire State of Florida have been identified and quantified by location and number of acres and the amounts of those habitats in conservation lands have also been determined. Likewise, for every county, the land cover types have been located, identified, mapped, and acreage determined for "natural" upland cover types, "natural" wetland cover types, and "disturbed" cover types. The "natural" upland cover type category includes coastal strand, dry prairie, pine lands, sand pine scrub, sand hill, xeric oak scrub, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammocks and forest, and tropical hard wood hammocks. "Natural" wetland cover types include coastal salt marshes, fresh water marsh and wet prairie, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, bay swamp, shrub swamp, mangrove swamp, and bottomland hardwood forest. "Disturbed" cover types include grass land and agriculture, shrub and bush land, exotic plant communities and barren and urban land. Open water areas were also identified, located, mapped, and the acreage areas determined. The amounts of land in each of those land cover categories has been tabulated by county and for the State as a whole. The amount of land in each of those categories located in conservation lands has also been tabulated for each county and for the State as a whole. The tabulation for land cover types for Highlands County and the amount of conservation lands for each cover type are as follows: "Natural" upland cover types - coastal strand (0/0), dry prairie (427/112), pine lands (167/41), sand pine scrub (14/3), sand hill (0/0), xeric scrub oak (112/12), mixed hardwood-pine forest (4/0), hardwood hammocks and forests (46/5), tropical hardwood hammocks (0/0); "Natural" wetland cover types - coastal salt marshes (0/0), freshwater marsh and wet prairie (129/34), cypress swamp (21/8), mixed hardwood swamp (41/5), bay swamp (17/0), shrub swamp (21/5), mangrove swamp (0/0), bottomland hardwood forest (0/0); Open water (202/1); and "Disturbed" cover types - grass land and agriculture (1086/15), shrub and brush land (271/18), exotic plant communities (0/0), barren and urban land (307/11) Within the parenthesis above, the first number represents the total area in square kilometers and the second number represents the conservation lands in that category, also in square kilometers. There are approximately 247 acres per square kilometer. For Highlands County, these identified land cover types cover 2,866 square kilometers of which, 270.8 square kilometers are conservation lands. In addition to mapping those important habitat areas in each county in the State of Florida, the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in those habitat areas have also been identified. Those habitat areas and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern which they support have been specifically identified and mapped for Highlands County. Since the land cover types in Highlands County have been identified, located, mapped, and quantified and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, both plant and animal, supported by those land cover types have been identified, Highlands County has the ability to objectively measure the success of its adopted Goals, Policies, and Objectives in protecting natural resources. Data and Analysis and Maps Eugene Engman, AICP, a planner/economist, was the principal author of the conservation element and Base Documents of supporting data and analysis for the County's 1991 Plan. The Base Documents indicate extensive analysis of the County's natural resources, including: surface waters; floodplains; mineral deposits; areas with erosion problems; and fisheries, wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. The Conservation Overlay Maps The Base Documents also contain a "methodology for conservation designation," that applies to areas identified as areas of outstanding natural resources and to areas containing special habitat (high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge). With respect to the latter, it was not Engman's intention to map all vegetative communities on and near the Ridge; oak hammock and palm hammock, for example, was not mapped. It also was not Engman's intention to map the entire County. Engman did not believe that mapping of high quality scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest was required, but he mapped them at no charge to the County to enable the County to better protect endangered species and other resources on and near the Ridge where most the special habitat and most development coincided. Following the methodology, Engman and his colleagues prepared the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40. They consisted of 27 USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) quadrangle maps, two with acetate overlays. The quad maps themselves show some resources indicated by a separate legend available from the SCS. In addition, Engman and his colleagues indicated the location of scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest through use of an additional legend they wrote on the quad maps. Some legends applied to more than one quad map. In addition to the SCS quad maps themselves, Engman and his colleagues used the Soil Survey field notes of Lew Carter of the SCS, 1985 infrared aerial photographs, and local knowledge of the Dr. James Layne of the Archbold Research Station, Lew Carter of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mike Sawyer of the Florida Division of Forestry, and County sources. The Base Documents also contains a Generalized Soils Map which references as its source "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989." The Base Documents also contained two maps at the scale of one inch equals three miles--one mapping outstanding natural resources, and the other mapping special habitat. These two maps were then combined into a third map at the scale of one inch equals five miles. This third map was designated the Conservation Overlay Map in the Base Documents. Each quarter section (160 acres) of the County that contained any of the identified resources depicted on the Resource Base Maps was depicted as "Conservation" on the Conservation Overlay Map. The Conservation Overlay Map advised that: "This map is for comprehensive planning purposes only. Specific locations are identifiable on the Resource Base Maps located in the Office of the County Planning Director." No duplicates or copies of the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40-- were made before the final hearing in this case. They were available to the public during the development of the 1991 Plan, and they were forwarded to the County Planning Department when Engman's work was finished. There, they remained available for use by the County Planning Department in implementing the Plan, and remained available for public inspection, except for a period of approximately one year when they were misplaced and could not be located. FLU-54, the Conservation Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Map series, is the same map that is contained in the Base Documents as the Conservation Overlay Map. The Future Land Use Map Series In addition to FLU-54, the Future Land Use Map Series in the adopted plan, as amended through 1993, contained a Future Land Use Map Set of three large maps--a one inch equals two miles base map, and two one inch equals one/half mile maps--together with several letter-size maps at one inch equals five miles (one is at one inch equals four miles), which are FLU-55 through FLU- 62. The adopted plan, as amended through 1994, contained the same text as the plan as amended through 1993, along with an updated Future Land Use Map Set of six large color sheets. The base map is at a scale of one inch equals two miles and is a colorized version of the base map contained in the 1993 version of the plan; the other five maps are color insets from the base map at a scale of one inch equals one quarter mile. The rest of the Future Land Use Map Series is the same as in the Plan as amended through 1993. In addition to the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, the future land use map series included: a Generalized Soils Map which identifies its source as "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989"; Highland's County Peat Deposits, whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Wetlands 600, whose legend identifies "wetlands" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Floodplains, whose legend identifies "floodplains" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Water and Canal Map 500, whose legend identifies "generalized interim well protection zones (cones of influence) for potable water supply wells" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc., Highlands County Building and Zoning Department and DER," and which is dated December, 1990; Future Traffic Circulation Map State Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands County Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Dept. (9/88) and FDOT (11/90)"; and Modified Community Parks which depicts existing and proposed parks and "existing urban land use" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. April, 1990". FLU-55, the Generalized Soils Map, was prepared using the 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey. Major field work for the USDA/SCS Soil Survey was completed in 1986. It is the same map as the Generalized Soils Map contained in the Base Documents. FLU-57 maps wetland features which are not depicted on either the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) or the Conservation Overlay Map. The 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey was used to identify wetlands on FLU-57. HEC's Contentions HEC contended that the maps in the Plan, as amended, were deficient. It became apparent during the course of the final hearing that HEC considered the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map in the Plan, as amended, to be the only map pertinent to the designation of conservation lands. HEC contended that FLU-54 is too small, not clear and legible enough, and inadequate for its purposes. It appeared that HEC learned of the existence of the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) during the final hearing. HEC contended that the Resource Base Maps were deficient because they were not based on the appropriate and best available data. As a result, HEC contended, the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map "missed" some significant resources. Kris Delaney quickly reviewed the Resource Base Maps during the course of the final hearing and testified that on the Frostproof, Lake Arbuckle, Sebring, and Fort Kissimmee quad sheets some "significant areas of native vegetation were not shown on the mylar overlays." Delaney's observations regarding the five allegedly-inaccurate mylar quad map overlays were made with reference to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey and what he believed was a wetland symbol on the underlying quad map. But it is not clear that Delaney understood the legend to the Resource Base Maps. Furthermore, he was not offered as an expert in photogrammetry, geography, or surveying, and the specifics of his personal knowledge of the areas in dispute were not made clear. Another HEC witness, Dr. Menges, testified to his opinion that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. He testified that, to map native vegetative communities on a species-specific basis, Steve Christman's 1988 report for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission would provide the best available data. (He also mentioned data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, but it was not clear that those data were not used or how available those data were.) However, it was not clear from the evidence that the Christman report was not used as a data source. In addition, Menges conceded that "the primary source for the distribution of (native vegetative) communities" (in Highlands County) would be the "Soil Conservation Service Survey map," and it is clear that the County's consultants used this data source, together with other soil survey information and aerial photography, as was appropriate. It should not be surprising that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. As previously, stated, the effort was limited to high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge. There was no intention to map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. Regardless of the alleged deficiencies with the Resource Base Maps and the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, HEC did not take into account all of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series in contending that the mapping was deficient. HEC did not recognize that Policy 3.2 provides for the use of the "adopted Conservation Overlap Map series contained in the Future Land Use Element" as the "general indicator" for the resources described in the policy. The Future Land Use Map series includes not only FLU-54 and the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) but also: FLU-55 (the Generalized Soils Map), FLU-57 (the Wetlands 600 map), FLU-58 (the Floodplains map), and FLU-59 (the Water and Canals Map 500). HEC also did not recognize that the environmental clearance procedures under Policies 3.3 and 3.13 are triggered not only if the presence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map (which includes not only FLU-54, but also the Resource Base Maps), but also if they are known to occur by reference to any of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series, or are otherwise known to occur. The references acknowledged by the County in Policy 3.1 can serve as the source of knowledge of where the resources described in Policy 3.2 occur. It is not beyond debate that these sources of information, taken together, are adequate for purposes of indicating the existence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 and triggering environmental clearance review under Policy 3.3. HEC did not establish beyond debate that the County did not use appropriate or the best available data, that the County did not apply the data in a professional manner, or that the Plan, as amended, did not react to the data in an appropriate way. Future Land Use Element Residential Land Use Density In Agricultural Land Use Categories HEC presented no credible testimony or evidence to substantiate its allegation that the land use densities for agriculture and urban agriculture encourage "urban sprawl" or are not supported by adequate data. No expert testimony in land use planning was offered, although HEC had identified such potential experts on its witness list. The Base Documents stated that agricultural density was at 1 unit/acre prior to the adoption of the Plan and recommended that the density be decreased to 1 unit/10 acres. The draft of the Base Documents recommended a density of 1 unit/ 5 acres. The Plan established the General Agriculture land use category as the predominant land use for rural areas. It has the lowest development potential of all adopted land use categories. The General Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per ten acres. The Urban Agriculture land use category was established as a transitional zone between urbanized and rural lands. The Urban Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per five acres. (County Exhibit 6, Pages FLU-6 and FLU-7 There was no evidence to prove that lesser densities are required to discourage urban sprawl, to protect natural resources, to protect agricultural lands, or for any other reason. Population Accommodation Data and Analysis HEC did not present any population accommodation analysis. There was no competent evidence presented in this case as to the population accommodated in the year 2000 under either the Plan as amended and adopted on March 2, 1994, or the Plan as amended and adopted on September 15, 1993. HEC pointed to a projection in the Housing Element in the County's Plan indicating a need for 10,075 new housing units to accommodate 16,977 new residents by the year 2000. HEC also pointed to data and analysis indicating that there are approximately 108,000 residential lots in existing subdivisions of 100 lots or more in the County that potentially could be developed to accommodate new housing units. But HEC did not establish that it is realistic to project maximum development in those subdivisions at one unit per lot; nor did HEC establish the extent of vested rights to development in those subdivisions. Protection of Water Quality and Quantity The Base Documents contain extensive data and analysis of County geology and soils, including water supply considerations, and recharge. Aquifer recharge in Highlands County occurs primarily on the Lake Wales Ridge. Contamination of groundwater has been documented from hazardous waste associated with landfills, agricultural use of the pesticides EDB (ethylene dibromide) and Bromicil, and leaking underground storage tanks. Of these, only the agricultural pesticide use is documented to have impacted potable water supplies. EDB, the primary source of contamination noted, has not been used since 1983. While the presence of Bromacil is also noted, the number of wells is not mentioned. Moreover, the evidence does not mention a single health- related case. Where EDB contamination has been found, the State of Florida has paid the cost of connecting to public water supplies or installing carbon filters. There is no evidence that stormwater management activities has caused groundwater contamination. Highlands County has adopted a number of objectives and policies in both the Infrastructure Element and the Natural Resources Element of the Plan, as amended, intended to protect potable water wells, conserve potable water resources, and reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. Objective 6 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] of the Infrastructure Element is to ensure public health by protecting the water quality of potable wells. Among the policies adopted to implement that objective is Policy 6.4, adopting stringent restrictions on activities within a 600 feet radius around public potable water wells. Highlands County also adopted Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.3 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] to establish minimum design and construction requirements for all potable water wells to protect and assure delivery of potable water. Highlands County has also adopted a number of other objectives and policies under the Natural Resources Element intended to protect groundwater quality, including: prohibiting the location of hazardous waste treatment facilities in the County; requiring cooperation with the DEP "DRASTIC" program; prohibiting discharges of untreated stormwater and waste material into underground formations; adopting stormwater quality and quantity standards; mapping wellhead protection zones; and encouraging implementation of best management practices for agricultural operations in the County. HEC did not prove beyond fair debate that, taken together, the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan, as amended, do not ensure the protection and conservation of potable water supplies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Highlands County Plan adopted through County Ordinance 91- 1, as amended by County Ordinances 93-16 and 94-1, is "in compliance." DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996.
