The Issue The issue in this case is whether Town of Yankeetown (Town) plan amendment 08-01 (adopted by Ordinance 2007-10) and plan amendment 08-CIE1 (adopted by Ordinance 2008-03), as modified by remedial amendment 09-R1 (adopted by Ordinance 2009-02) (together, referred to as the Plan Amendments or the Revised Comprehensive Plan), are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact The Town is located in the southwest corner of Levy County. The Town is bounded on the east by the Town of Inglis, on the north by unincorporated Levy County, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the south by the Withlacoochee River. The Town has significant planning challenges due to its geographic location. The maximum elevation in the Town is 10 feet, and the entire Town is located in the 100-year floodplain and Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The Town is located in a rural area north of the banks of the Withlacoochee River and is surrounded by wetlands and environmentally-sensitive land. The Town is located at the end of County Road 40, and is separated from the nearest intersection of major roads (State/County Road 40 and U.S. 19) by the Town of Inglis. The Plan Amendments are a community-generated plan that incorporates the results of an extensive community visioning survey conducted by the Town and numerous public meetings that exceeded the public participation requirements for plan amendments contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-53 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan Amendments resulted in a Revised Comprehensive Plan for the Town. IWI is a legal entity that owns land within the Town and submitted oral or written comments on the Plan Amendments during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for several reasons. Population Projections and Need In its pleadings, IWI contended that "[t]here is inadequate data regarding projected population growth and the infrastructure needed to support the projected population growth for both the short term (five years) and the long term (horizon of the plan)"; "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(6)(a) Florida Statutes, by failing to provide future land use categories that are based on need"; and "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with the requirements of 9J- 5.006, Florida Administrative Code, demonstrating that future land use is based on need." Prehearing Stipulation § 2.H., U., and GG. However, its expert planning witness, Gail Easely, conceded that the data and analysis submitted by the Town was adequate to demonstrate that the residential land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan are based on need. IWI limited its contention on this point to the alleged inadequacy of the data and analysis to support the Revised Comprehensive Plan's new Light Industrial land use and revised commercial land use designations. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the same areas for commercial as the currently effective Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one parcel that was changed from commercial to Light Industrial. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the commercial parcels near the Withlacoochee River as Commercial Water Dependent and the other commercial parcels as Commercial Neighborhood, totaling approximately 51 acres. Of the 51 acres of commercially-designated land, approximately 26 acres are currently developed and 25 acres are vacant and undeveloped. Of the 26 developed commercial acres, 19 parcels are currently developed and utilized as residential. There is no shortage of land available for commercial development in the Town. Inglis, a town located adjacent and to the east of Yankeetown, and Levy County near Yankeetown provide "more than adequate" existing commercial buildings on the market to serve the residents of Yankeetown and surplus vacant commercially- designated land to serve the future needs of Yankeetown. There is no shortage of commercial potential near the Town. The evidence was that it is acceptable for a local government to plan for the future need for the availability of commercial and industrial lands by maintaining the existing proportionate of availability of land use categories. Alternatively, it is acceptable to plan to mimic the proportions found to exist in other communities. This is essentially how the Town planned its allocation of commercial and industrial lands in its Revised Comprehensive Plan. IWI also contended that the intensity standards for commercial and industrial land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan unduly restrict commercial development. The existing Comprehensive Plan did not have explicit intensity standards and criteria for commercial land uses. After extensive debate at numerous public hearings, the Revised Comprehensive Plan established a floor/area ration (FAR) of 0.07, which limits the size for each single structure to a maximum of 3,000 square feet. It also allows for multiple 3,000 square foot structures on larger parcels in a "campus style" development. These standards and criteria reflect the existing, built environment of the Town and the Town's vision of itself. Existing commercial buildings run from 960 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Although the existing Comprehensive Plan did not have an FAR ratio, other standards--such as setbacks, square footage required for on-site septic tanks, drainfields, and parking, a 50 percent open space ratio, and a building height restriction of 35 feet--restricted commercial development in a manner similar to the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's expert economist, Dr. Fishkind, testified that the restrictions on intensity of commercial land uses are not financially feasible because not enough revenue can be generated to make a profit, given the cost of land in Yankeetown. His testimony was refuted by his University of Florida colleague, Dr. James Nicholas, who was called as an expert economist for the Town. Dr. Nicholas pointed out that there was some commercial use in the Town and that economics would lower the cost of land in the Town if it is too expensive to allow the kind of commerce desired by the Town to make a reasonable profit. Businesses requiring more space to make sufficient revenue could locate outside the Town but close enough in Inglis or Levy County to serve Yankeetown as well. The character of the Town, its limited projected population growth, and the availability of commercial development nearby in Inglis and in Levy County all support the Town's decision to limit the intensity of commercial land use, and to maintain the existing amount of land available for commercial and light industrial uses. 15. Rules 9J-5.006(1)(a)(3) and 9J-5.006 (4)(a)(3) require the designation of some industrial lands, and the Revised Comprehensive Plan changes the designation of six acres of land located to the west of the intersection of County Roads 40 and 40-A from "Commercial" to "Light Industrial." Since industrial uses are generally not compatible with residential uses, the Light Industrial parcel is separated from residential parcels by commercial. The Light Industrial parcel is allocated for more intense commercial uses (such as fishing trap and boat storage) or reserved for economic development of light industrial uses that may wish to locate in Yankeetown, such as aquaculture. The existing ratio of residential to commercial land is adequate to supply the existing need as reflected by the existing surplus, vacant, and unused commercial lands. The Plan Amendments maintain residential lands and commercial lands in their general designations with refinements to the categories. The existing ratio and availability of vacant commercial land indicate that there is no deficit in any category, and maintaining the existing residential/commercial ratio preserves the existing character of the Town. Urban Service Area versus Urban Service Boundary IWI contends that "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to ensure that the urban service boundary was appropriately adopted and based on demonstrated need." This contention has no merit. Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, encourages a local government to adopt an "urban service boundary." If one is adopted, there must be a demonstration "that the amount of land within the urban service boundary does not exceed the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population growth at densities consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan within the 10-year planning timeframe." If a local government chooses to adopt an "urban service boundary" under Section 163.3177(14) and a community vision under Section 163.3177(13), Florida Statutes, it may adopt plan amendments within the urban service boundary without state or regional agency review. See § 163.3184(17), Fla. Stat. The Revised Comprehensive Plan does not use the term "urban service boundary," and the Town did not intend to adopt one under Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, nor did it seek to avoid state and regional agency review of plan amendments under Section 163.3184(17), Florida Statutes. Instead, as explained on page 6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, it uses the term "urban area" to designate an area allowed to receive development rights from the sending area, namely the Residential Environmentally Sensitive (formerly Conservation) land use district. The Revised Comprehensive Plan uses the term urban service "area" (rather than "boundary") as the area located generally between County Roads 40 and 40-A that can receive development rights transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. This area is depicted as "Urban Service Area Overlay Zones" Map 2008-02 of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) series to more clearly designate the area on a larger scale than the FLUM map of the entire Town (Map 2008-05). The existing FLUM series also used the term "urban area" to depict the transfer of development rights receiving area. Financial Feasibility and Capital Improvements IWI’s expert, Dr. Henry Fishkind, testified that he ran his Fiscal Impact Analysis Model for the Town and concluded that the Revised Comprehensive Plan is not financially feasible because the Town cannot generate sufficient operating revenue to cover its operating costs without increasing property tax rates. Dr. Fishkind was not asked to explain how his computer model works, give any specific modeling results, or explain how he reached his conclusion. The Town's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, refuted his University of Florida colleague's testimony on this point as well. Essentially, Dr. Nicholas testified that a small and unique community like Yankeetown can choose to limit its operating costs by relying on volunteers and part-time employees. In this way, it can operate on a bare-bones budget that would starve a more typical and larger community. It also could choose to increase property tax rates, if necessary. Recent amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in Senate Bill 360, the "Community Renewal Act," which became effective June 1, 2009, postponed and extended until December 1, 2011, the statutory requirement to maintain the financial feasibility of the five-year capital improvements schedule (CIS) for potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, solid waste, public schools, and water supply. However, the Town concurred with Petitioner in requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue in case Senate Bill 360 is struck down in a pending constitutional challenge. The Plan Amendments include a CIE (Chapter 8) with a five-year CIS and a table to identify sources of revenue and capital projects sufficient to achieve and maintain the adopted levels of service, supported by data and analysis submitted with the Remedial Amendments. The Town's CIS five-year lists projects to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service (LOS) standards and identifies funding sources to pay for those projects. It describes the projects and conservatively projects costs and revenue sources. The CIS identifies revenue sources and capital projects for which there are committed funds in the first three years and identifies capital projects for which funds have not yet been committed in year four or year five. CIS is adequate to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service and is financially feasible. Stormwater and Drainage A drainage LOS is adopted in Revised Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1.2.1, which states: "All new development and expansion of existing residential development greater than 300 square feet of additional impervious coverage shall meet requirements under Chapter 62-25, F.A.C. for Outstanding Florida Waters." The exemption of minor residential improvements of 300 square feet or less is reasonable and does not violate Rule Chapter 9J-5 or Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department's ability to require retrofitting for existing drainage problems is limited by Rule Chapter 9J- 5.011(2)(c)5.b.i., which states that the Rule "shall not be interpreted or applied to [m]andate that local governments require existing facilities to be retrofitted to meet stormwater discharge water quality standards or stormwater management level of service standards." Nonetheless, the Town agreed in the Compliance Agreement to adopt appropriate policies and provide additional data and analysis on this issue. Policy 4.1.2.13 requires that the "Established Storm Water Drainage Committee shall monitor storm water facilities in [the] town, oversee maintenance functions, and evaluate and recommend capital improvements projects and funding sources." To pay for stormwater capital improvement projects, Policy 4.1.2.14 in the Plan Amendments states: "Yankeetown shall adopt a storm water utility fee ordinance and establish storm water utility fees by December 31, 2009 to provide necessary funding for capital improvements to the Town's storm water drainage facilities and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities." In accordance with the Compliance Agreement, the Town modified CIS Table 1 by adding $120,000 to FY 2011-2012 (Year 5) for the stormwater drainage improvement project and adding Note 5 to Table 1, which states: "Anticipated to be funded by a 75%/25% matching grant from SWFWMD, DEP or DCA. The matching (town) funds will be obtained from the proposed stormwater improvement fund. If no grants can be obtained and the stormwater improvement fund is not approved[,] the project will be funded from the general fund reserves and long term loans." Because the stormwater utility fee ordinance must still be adopted, and these funds are not technically committed at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments, the stormwater capital improvement project was placed in year 5 (2011-1012) of the CIS. As funding becomes available and committed, the project may be moved to an earlier year in required annual updates to the CIS. Drainage also is addressed in new Objective 4.3.2 and in new Policies 4.3.2.1. through 4.3.2.5. The Town has addressed stormwater and drainage appropriately in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Proportionate Share and Concurrency Management Policy 4.1.2.6 in the Public Facilities Element states: "The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares proportionate responsibilities in the provision of facilities and services to meet the needs of that development and maintain adopted level of service standards." Policy 8.1.3.4 in the CIE of the Revised Comprehensive Plan states: The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares a proportionate cost on a pro rata basis in the provision of facilities and services necessitated by that development in order to maintain the Town’s adopted level of service standards. Proportionate costs shall be based upon, but not limited to: Cost for extension of water mains, including connection fees. Costs for all circulation and right-of-way related improvements to accommodate the development for local roads not maintained by Levy County. Costs to maintain County Road 40 and 40[-]A and any other road within the town that are maintained by Levy County shall be governed by the Levy County Proportionate Share Ordinance and Yankeetown will continue to adopt and ensure the level of service is maintained [through] coordination mechanisms between the two planning departments. Costs for drainage improvements. Costs for recreational facilities, open space provision, fire protection, police services, and stormwater management. Although the Town does not have any public facility deficiencies, Rule Chapter 9J-5 requires that the CIE address "[t]he extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards"; and include a policy that addresses programs and activities for "[a]ssessing new developments a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements necessitated by development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.016(3)(b)4. and (c)8. Policy 8.1.3.4 meets this requirement. The statute forming the basis of IWI’s contentions regarding proportionate fair share is Section 163.3180(16)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires local governments "to adopt by ordinance a methodology for assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation options." The evidence was that the requirements of this statute will be met by the Town's Proportionate Fair Share Concurrency Management Ordinance, which had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings at the time of the final hearing, and which will implement Policy 8.1.3.4. IWI did not present any evidence regarding the alleged lack of a concurrency management system in the Revised Comprehensive Plan and did not prove that the Revised Comprehensive Plan fails to meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.055 for concurrency management. The Town is exempt from maintaining school concurrency requirements. Objective 8.1.3 and Policies 8.1.3.1 through 8.1.3.6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.055 for concurrency management. Policy 8.1.3.6 states: "The Town shall evaluate public facility demands by new development or redevelopment on a project by project basis to assure that capital facilities are provided concurrent with development." Policy 8.1.3.3 states: "The Yankeetown Land Development Code shall contain provisions to ensure that development orders are not issued for development activities which degrade the level of service below the adopted standard as identified in each comprehensive plan element. Such provisions may allow for provision of facilities and services in phases, so long as such facilities and services are provided concurrent with the impacts of development." The Town has a checklist system to track the specific impact of each development order on LOS concurrent with development. As indicated, a Proportionate Fair Share and Concurrency Management Ordinance had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings. Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality The Town is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain and coastal high hazard area. See Finding 2, supra. This presents challenges for wastewater treatment. The adoption of the Revised Comprehensive Plan followed public meetings and workshops held with representatives of DCA, including Richard Deadman, and expert Mark Hooks, formerly with the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and now with the State of Florida Department of Health. The Plan Amendments include Policy 8.1.3.1.1, which states in part: Due to the location of the town within the 100 year flood plain and within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), there are no plans to provide central wastewater treatment until a regional system can be developed in conjunction with the neighboring town of Inglis and Levy County, and constructed outside the Coastal High Hazard Area east of U.S. Highway 19. In the interim period before a regional central wastewater system is available, the Town shall require in all land use districts: a. Yankeetown shall develop a strategy to participate in water quality monitoring of the Withlacoochee River; b. develop an educational program to encourage inspection (and pump-out if needed) of existing septic tanks; c. all new and replacement septic tanks shall meet performance based standards (10mg/l nitrogen). The Town's approach to wastewater treatment under the circumstances is sound both economically and from planning perspective and is sufficient to protect natural and coastal resources, including water quality, and meet the minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. There is direction in the State Comprehensive Plan to: "Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas." § 187.201(8)(b)3., Fla. Stat. This direction is also found in Chapter 163.3178(1), Florida Statutes, and in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)5., which require local governments to limit public expenditures that would subsidize development in the CHHA. It also is impractical for the Town, with a population of 760 people, to fund and operate a central wastewater system. It is logical and economical to do this in partnership with the adjoining Town of Inglis and Levy County, which could share in the costs and provide a site for a regional wastewater facility located nearby but outside of the CHHA. In contrast, this approach was not a viable option for the entirety of the Florida Keys. The Town already has begun water quality testing under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.a. The Town will be required to prepare educational programs to encourage inspection of existing septic tanks (and pump-out, if needed) under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.b. and under new Policy 4.3.1.2. In the short-term, while the Town pursues a regional treatment facility located outside the CHHA, Policy 8.1.3.1.c. in the Revised Comprehensive Plan will be implemented by new Policy 4.1.2.1.IV.B., which states: Yankeetown shall require that all new or replacement sanitary sewage systems in all land use districts meet the following requirements: All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the system into floodwaters. Joints between sewer drain components shall be sealed with caulking, plastic or rubber gaskets. Backflow preventers are required. All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate damage to them and contamination from them during flooding. The DCA has objected and recommended, and Yankeetown has concurred that all new and replacement septic systems are to be performance-based certified to provide secondary treatment equivalent to 10 milligrams per liter maximum Nitrogen. Performance-based treatment systems that are accepted as achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have already been tested by the National Sanitation Foundation and approved by the State of Florida Department of Health. Performance-based systems achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have been certified and approved for use in Florida and are now available on the market "in the $7,200 range" for a typical two- or three-bedroom home, and there are systems that would meet the 10mg/l nitrogen standard for commercial and multi-family buildings. Compliance with the performance-based 10 mg/l nitrogen standard is measured at the treatment system, not in the receiving water, and additional nutrient removal and treatment occurs in the drainfield soils. Performance-based treatment systems also require an operating permit and routine inspection and maintenance, unlike conventional septic tanks. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated in its 1997 report to Congress: "Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long- term option for meeting public health and water quality goals." The existing Comprehensive Plan addresses wastewater in Chapter 4, Policy 13-2, which states: "Prohibit the construction of new publicly funded facilities or facilities offered for maintenance in the coastal high hazard area (including roads, water, sewer, or other infrastructure)." It also is addressed in the existing Comprehensive Plan in: Chapter 1, Policies 3-1 and 3-2 (Vol. II p. 11); and Chapter 4, Policies 1-2-1 and 1-2-7 (Vol. II, pp. 32, 34). A more in-depth analysis of the Town's previous approach to wastewater treatment is found in Volume III, Infrastructure Element, pp. 107-109 ("Facility Capacity Analysis, Sanitary Sewer"), which expresses similar long-term and interim approaches to wastewater treatment. The Revised Comprehensive Plan removes confusing and out-of-date references to "class I or other DOH-approved aerobic systems" used in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Amendments contemplate that the Town will pursue a long-term solution of a regional wastewater facility with the Town of Inglis and Levy County to be located outside the CHHA. The Revised Comprehensive Plan is adequate to protect the natural resources in Yankeetown and includes a short-term requirement that all new and replacement septic tanks meet the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard measured at the performance-based treatment system, together with a long-term requirement that the Town pursue a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located outside the CHHA. The Plan Amendments include: Objective 4.1.3; Policies 4.1.3.1 through 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.2.8 through 4.1.2.11; Policy 5.1.4.4; Policy 7.1.22.6; Policy 8.1.3.1; Policy 10.1.2.1; and Policy 10.1.2.3. These provisions move the Town in the direction of a regional central wastewater treatment located outside the CHHA and establish appropriate interim standards. Petitioner contended that the Town has allocated money for a new park when it needed a new central wastewater treatment facility. But the evidence was that the money for the new park came from a grant and could not be used for a new central wastewater treatment facility. Protection of Natural Resources and Internal Consistency The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the FLUM in the Revised Comprehensive Plan contain "Resource Protection" and "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use designations. In the existing Comprehensive Plan, these lands are designated Public Use Resource Protection and Conservation, respectively. The Plan Amendments reduce density in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district, which contains a number of islands, to a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres and maximum net density of one dwelling unit per five acres of uplands. Policy 1.1.2.1 in the Plan Amendments would allow development rights to be transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land to the development rights area receiving zone located between County Roads 40 and 40-A, as shown in Map 2008-02. The current Conservation designation for those lands sets a "maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres"; and Policy 1-2 in the existing Comprehensive Plan allows the transfer of development rights within the Conservation district "as long as gross density does not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres." Under Policy 1-2 of the existing Comprehensive Plan, a minimum of "two (2) acres of uplands" is required for a development in the Conservation land use district. Likewise, under Policy 1.1.2.1.2 of the Plan Amendments, a minimum of "two (2) contiguous natural pre-development upland acres" is required in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. Although allowed, few if any transfers of development rights actually occurred under the existing Comprehensive Plan. To provide additional incentive to transfer development out of the "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use district and into the urban receiving area, Policy 1.1.2.7.F. of the Plan Amendments would allow the land owner to retain private ownership and passive recreational use on the "sending" parcel, including one boat dock. All other development rights on the sending parcel would be extinguished. Besides facilitating the transfer of development rights, it is expected that use of boat docks on the islands will decrease environmental damage from boats now grounding to obtain access to the islands. Although the policies for Environmentally Sensitive Residential and Conservation Lands are slightly different, the minor differences do not fail to protect natural or coastal resources or fail to meet the minimum criteria set forth in Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Numerous policies in the Plan Amendments establish standards and criteria to protect natural and coastal resources, including: Policy 1.1.2.1.7(i), restricting dredging; Policies 1.1.1.2.10, 5.1.5.7, and 5.1.6.10, restricting the filling of wetlands; Policy 5.1.6.7, establishing wetlands setback buffers; Policy 5.1.6.4, establishing nutrient buffers; Policy 5.1.5.1, limiting dredge and fill; Policies 1.1.3.4 and 5.1.5.5, establishing standards and criteria for docks and walkways; Policy 5.1.16.1, protecting certain native habitats as open space; Policy 1.1.1.3, establishing low-impact development practices for enhanced water quality protection; and Policy 5.1.5.1, protecting listed species, including manatees. These provisions are more protective than the provisions of the existing Comprehensive and are supported by data and analysis. The Plan Amendments acknowledge and protect private property rights and include Objective 1.1.11 (Determination and Protection of Property Rights), providing for vested rights and beneficial use determinations to address unintended or unforeseen consequences of the application of the Plan Amendments in cases where setbacks cannot be achieved for specific development proposals due to lot size or configuration. FLUE Policy 1.1.1.2.8 and Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 5.1.6.4 in the Plan Amendments sets out procedures, standards, and criteria (including mitigation) for variances from the 150- foot Nutrient Buffer Setback. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendments protect natural and coastal resources within the Town. Internal Consistency Docks, Open Space, and Dredge and Fill IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because policies addressing docks, open space, and dredging requirements use different language and with different meanings in different contexts. Policies in the Revised Comprehensive Plan establish 100 percent open space requirements for certain natural habitats, namely: (a) submerged aquatic vegetation; (b) undisturbed salt marsh wetlands; (c) salt flats and salt ponds; (d) fresh water wetlands; (e) fresh water ponds; and (f) maritime coastal hammock. Pile-supported, non-habitable structures such as boat docks and walkways are allowed if sited on other portions of a site. (Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policies 5.1.5.7, 5.1.6.7, 5.1.6.10, and 5.1.16.1). Other policies limit dredging to maintenance dredging. Policy 5.1.5.1 states that the Town will: Prohibit all new dredge and fill activities, including construction of new canals, along the river and coastal areas. Maintenance dredging of existing canals, previously dredged channels, existing previously dredged marinas, and commercial and public boat launch ramps shall be allowed to depths previously dredged only when the applicant demonstrates that dredging activity will not contribute to water pollution or saltwater intrusion of the potable water supply. Applicant must also demonstrate that development activities shall not negatively impact water quality or manatee habitat. Maintenance dredging is prohibited within areas vegetated with established submerged grass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. This prohibition does not preclude the minor dredging necessary to construct "pile supported structures such as docks and walkways that do not exceed 4’ in width and constructed in accordance with OFW and Aquatic Preserve regulations," which are specifically exempted and allowed by Policy 5.1.5.7 of the Plan Amendments. Additional dredging and filling activities (beyond installation of pile supports) would not be required for docks sited where adequate water depth exists. Docks and walkways allowed under Policy 5.1.5.7 are not counted as open space. The policies concerning docks and walkways can be reconciled and do not render the Plan Amendments internally inconsistent. Low-Impact Development Policies IWI also contends that policies in the Plan Amendments requiring and encouraging low-impact development (LID) practices (which are not required or mandated under minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, but adopted for additional water quality protection) are internally inconsistent. The Plan Amendments require LID practices for some new uses (new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development) and encourage them for existing uses. The Plan Amendments require or encourage these practices in different land use districts, which address different commercial or residential uses, and also discuss these practices in different elements of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, which addresses different purposes and concerns, including the FLUE (Chapter 1), the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4), and the Coastal Management Element (Chapter 5). FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3 states that: In addition to complying with Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) standards, all new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development in all land use districts shall utilize "low impact" development practices appropriate for such use including: Landscaped biofiltration swales; Use native plants adapted to soil, water and rainfall conditions; Minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides; Grease traps for restaurants; Recycle storm water by using pond water for irrigation of landscaping; Dry wells to capture runoff from roofs; Porous pavements; Maintain ponds to avoid exotic species invasions; Aerate tree root systems (for example, WANE systems); Vegetate onsite floodplain areas with native and/or Florida-friendly plants to provide habitat and wildlife corridors; Rain barrels and green roofs where feasible; and Use connected Best Management Practices (BMPs) (treatment trains flowing from one BMP into the next BMP) to increase nutrient removal. Existing development shall be encouraged, but not required to use the above recommendations and shall not be considered nonconforming if they do not. In the Residential Low Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.2.5 states: "All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' development practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Residential Highest Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.3.3 states: "Existing platted parcels are encouraged to utilize site suitable storm water management such as connecting to swales where available. All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Resource Protection and Public Use land use districts, FLUE Policies 1.1.2.5 and 1.1.2.6. require LID practices for all development. In the Neighborhood Commercial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.7.6 requires LID practices for "all development." In the Commercial Water-Dependent land use districts, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.8.9 requires LID practices for "all new commercial development." In the Light Industrial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.9.2 requires LID practices for "all development." These policies can be reconciled. The use of slightly different language in a particular district, or creation of an exemption for existing uses, does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Policy 4.2.2.2 of the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4) of the Plan Amendments requires the adoption of land development regulations (LDRs) establishing minimum design and construction standards for new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development that will ensure that post development runoff rates do not exceed predevelopment runoff rates and encourage the same LID practices set out in FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3. IWI also contends that the inclusion of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the LID policies is internally inconsistent. To the contrary, it acknowledges that some of the listed practices may not be appropriate for a proposed specific use. For example, subsection (d) on "grease traps for restaurants" would not be appropriate if no restaurant is proposed. Under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, the Town has a year to adopt implementing LDRs providing further details, standards, and criteria for low-impact development BMPs for specific uses and within specific districts. The use of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the low-impact development policies allows for the exercise of engineering discretion in formulating LDRs. It does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Setbacks and Variances IWI also contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because buffers contain different setback distances and allow for a variance to the setback buffers. The policies addressing setbacks can be read together and reconciled. The Plan Amendments include two types of setback buffers adopted for different purposes: (1) for structures, a 50-foot setback from the river and wetlands in Policies 1.1.1.2.7 and 5.1.6.7; (2) for sources of nutrient pollution other than septic systems (such as fertilized and landscaped areas and livestock sources), a 150-foot nutrient buffer setback from the river in Policies 1.1.1.2.8 and 5.1.6.4; and (3) for septic systems, special setbacks in Policy 1.1.1.2.11 (which is referred to in the nutrient buffer setback policies). These different setback policies were adopted for different purposes and are not internally inconsistent. Data and analysis supporting the establishment of these different setbacks further explains the different purposes of the different types of setbacks adopted in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. The availability of variances to the 150-foot nutrient buffer setback allows some use on a parcel to ensure protection of private property rights in the event of an unforeseen taking of all use on a specific parcel where an applicant cannot meet the setback but can meet the listed criteria for a variance and provide the mitigation required for impacts. Protection of private property rights is a competing concern that must be addressed under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. The Plan Amendments need not address every possible or potential set of facts and circumstances. Additional detail can be provided in implementing LDRs adopted under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. Specific implementation and interpretation of policies and LDRs applicable to any particular development proposal will be made by the Town during application review process. Seemingly inconsistent policies can be reconciled by applying the most stringent policy. Seemingly inconsistent policies also could be reconciled by application of a specific exemption, variance, or beneficial use determination. Site-specific application and interpretation of policies and LDRs in development orders, and issues as to their consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, can be addressed under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. Small Local Governments IWI contends that the Town was not held to the same data and analysis standards under Section 163.3177(10)(i), Florida Statutes, as larger local governments. Under that statute and Rule 9J-5.002(2), the Department can consider the small size of the Town, as well as other factors, in determining the "detail of data, analyses, and the content of the goals, objectives, policies, and other graphic or textual standards required " Prior to adoption of the remedial amendments, the Town was unable to utilize GIS mapping. However, for the remedial amendments, GIS mapping was provided with the assistance of the Regional Planning Council. IWI did not prove beyond fair debate that the Town's data and analyses were insufficient under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. State and Regional Plans IWI also contends, for essentially the same reasons addressed previously, that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan provisions on water resources, natural systems, and public facilities and Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan provisions on natural resources, fisheries, and water quality. A plan is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and regional policy plan if, considered as a whole, it is "compatible with" and "furthers" those plans. "Compatible with" means "not in conflict with" and "furthers" means "to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan." § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Using those definitions, IWI failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Revised Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 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 30th day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the City of Miramar Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 1901 on October 17, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioners own and reside on property located at 17428 Southwest 36th Street in Miramar, Florida. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time between, and including appearances at, the transmittal hearing and the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners’ house is approximately 430 feet north of the property subject to the Plan Amendment (the “Subject Property”). Petitioners’ property is separated from the Subject Property by a residential canal, approximately 100 feet of wetland or marsh area, and a City street right-of-way. The residential canal is owned and controlled by Petitioners’ homeowner’s association. From the backyard of their home, Petitioners enjoy observing and photographing birds and wildlife that utilize the canal, including birds that can be seen from Petitioners’ property in the trees on the Subject Property and flying between the properties. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Univision is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to transact business in Florida. Its principal business address is 500 Frank West Burr Boulevard, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666. Univision is the owner of the Subject Property. Lennar is a Florida limited liability company, whose principal business address is 700 Northwest 107th Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33172. Lennar is under contract to purchase the Subject Property. Existing Conditions The Subject Property is approximately 120 gross acres of mostly undeveloped property. The Subject Property contains 102.2 acres of wetlands and 15.5 acres of uplands. At least 80 percent of the wetlands are covered by Melaleuca trees, which is an invasive species. Melaleuca is listed by federal and state agencies as a noxious weed, making it illegal to possess, sell, cultivate, or transport in Florida. The uplands on the Subject Property are limited to areas previously developed with radio transmission towers, a control room, and filled roadways connecting the on-site improvements. The improvements, with the exception of the fill roads, were removed in approximately 2017. The radio towers were secured by guy wires anchored by concrete blocks. The areas of the Subject Property underneath the guy wires were maintained to prevent vegetation from growing up into the guy wires. The areas where the concrete supports have been removed are wet, and the areas that were beneath the former guy wires contain fewer Melaleuca and some native vegetation, like sawgrass and ferns. However, the upland areas are also currently growing exotic grasses and Australian Pine, which are also invasive species. The Subject Property is currently designated on the City’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) as “Rural.” Pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Rural land use category allows the following types of development: (1) residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres (1du/2.5 acres); (2) agricultural and related uses, including crops, groves, horse and cattle ranches, private game preserves, fish breeding areas, and tree and plant nurseries; (3) parks; (4) police and fire stations, libraries, and civic centers; (5) special residential facilities, such as group homes; and (6) public utilities, including wastewater pumping stations, electrical utility substations, and telecommunications transmission facilities. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Rural to “Irregular (3.21) Residential,” which allows residential development at a density of 3.21du/acre.4/ Lennar proposes to develop 385 units on the property-- the maximum allowable under the Plan Amendment. Under Lennar’s development proposal, all of the on- site wetlands will be impacted. The Plan Amendment Process Broward County municipalities have a unique plan amendment review process. Each amendment to a municipal comprehensive plan must be consistent with, and incorporated into, the Broward County Land Use Plan (“BCLUP”). This Plan Amendment, as with all other municipal amendments, was reviewed and approved through both the County’s and City’s approval process. The Board of County Commissioners held an adoption public hearing on March 20, 2018, and approved Ordinance No. 2018-12, amending the BCLUP to change the County FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Agriculture to Irregular (3.21) Residential. On October 17, 2018, the City Commission held a duly advertised second public hearing, wherein the City voted to adopt the Plan Amendment. Lennar Permitting Lennar pursued permitting of its proposed development of the Subject Property during the Plan Amendment review process. On or about September 11, 2018, the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department (“EPGMD”) issued an environmental resource license (“ERL”) for the proposed development. The ERL is based on Lennar’s site plan for the site, not the Plan Amendment. The ERL recognizes that the impacts on the Subject Property wetlands are unavoidable and determines that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on those wetlands. On or about September 11, 2018, the South Florida Water Management District issued an environmental resource permit (“ERP”) for the proposed development. The ERP is based on Lennar’s site plan and other required documents, not the Plan Amendment. The ERP provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. On or about December 14, 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers (“ACOE”) issued a permit for the development proposed, based upon Lennar’s site plan and other required documents. The ACOE permit provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. Petitioners’ Challenge Section 163.3177(2) directs that “the several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent,” in furtherance of the major objective of the planning process to coordinate the elements of the local comprehensive plan. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance” because it creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners’ challenge rests on four provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”) Goal (unnumbered), FLUE Policies 3.5 and 6.10, and Conservation Element Policy 7.3 (“CE Policy 7.3”). FLUE Goal (unnumbered) The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains one overarching goal for the FLUE, which reads as follows: Maintain a long-range future land use pattern which promotes orderly and well- managed growth and development of the community, producing quality neighborhoods, enhancing the city’s aesthetic appeal, conserving the natural environment and open space, supporting a vibrant economic tax base, and minimizing risks to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (emphasis added). The goal is the singular goal for the overall FLUE, which includes 12 different objectives and many more policies for each objective. The purpose of the goal is to set the initial framework; it is a very broad statement setting the direction for the City’s long-term goals, but does not provide any measurable standards or specifics regarding implementation. Petitioners’ challenge focuses on the underlined phrase, and argues that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the goal’s direction to “conserv[e] the natural environment and open space.” The Subject Property is not currently designated as either “Recreation and Open Space” or “Conservation.” The Subject Property is private property that, by virtue of its land use designation, has always been intended for development as one of the uses allowable within the Rural land use category. Further, Eric Silva, the Director of the City’s Community and Economic Development Department, testified that the goal’s direction of “conserving the natural environment and open space” relates only to those areas that have been designated by the City, or another agency, for protection. The Recreation and Open Space Element (“ROS Element”) sets forth the specific objectives and policies to accomplish the City’s goal to “[p]rovide adequate and accessible parks and facilities to meet the recreation needs of all current and future Miramar residents.” In the ROS Element, the City has established a level of service standard of four acres of park and open space for each 1,000 City residents. Petitioners introduced no evidence that the Plan Amendment would diminish the amount of land designated for open space in the City, or otherwise impede the City’s progress toward the adopted standard. To the contrary, Mr. Silva testified that the City has over 300 extra acres of park space and that this Plan Amendment will not impact the City’s adopted level of service for parks and open space. Likewise, Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment would reduce the amount of land designated for “Conservation” in the City. Rather, Petitioners argue that the Subject Property should be converted to a nature preserve, or otherwise placed in conservation use. The issue in this case is not whether the City should designate the Subject Property for a different use, but whether the designation the City proposes is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the FLUE Goal. FLUE Policy 3.5 Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5, which directs the City to “[c]onsider the cumulative and long-term effects of decisions regarding amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and revisions to the Future Land Use Element.” Petitioners’ concerns here are similar to those with the FLUE Goal--the Plan Amendment will reduce green space and open space, which could be preserved under the existing Rural designation. Petitioners’ expert witness conceded that it is impossible to determine that the City did not consider the cumulative and long-term effects of the Plan Amendment. Moreover, the City introduced abundant evidence that it considered, during the lengthy Plan Amendment process, all impacts of the Plan Amendment on the City’s resources and infrastructure. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5. FLUE Policy 6.10 Next, Petitioners argue the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10, which states, “The City shall consider the impacts of land use plan amendments on wetland and native upland resources, and minimize those impacts to the maximum extent practicable.” Here, Petitioners focus on the density allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it allows development of 385 units, which will maximize, rather than minimize, impacts to the on-site wetlands. Petitioners argue that the residential density allowed under the existing Rural designation would yield development of only 48 units, which would provide for conservation of at least some of the wetlands on site, thereby minimizing the wetland impact. Petitioners’ argument ignores the fact that the Rural designation allows other types of non-residential development that may be as intense as residential, such as a civic center or fire station, or uses that require fewer improvements, but have a destructive effect on wetlands, such as horse or cattle ranches. The issue of whether the Plan Amendment minimizes impacts to wetlands is not determined by the mathematical function 48 units < 385 units. Instead, the determination hinges on the meaning of “minimizing impacts” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the City’s Comprehensive Plan, impact of development on wetlands must be considered in partnership with the County, and is dependent upon the value assigned to those wetlands, pursuant to the wetlands benefit index (“WBI”), as set forth in the Conservation Element. Based on the following relevant analysis, the Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10. CE Policy 7.3 Finally, Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as internally inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3, which reads as follows: The City shall distribute land uses in a manner that avoids or minimizes to the greatest degree practicable, the effect and impact on wetlands in coordination with Broward County. Those land uses identified below as being incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands, or when compatible land uses are allowed to occur, shall be mitigated or enhanced, or both, to compensate for loss of wetland functions in accordance with Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection. Compatibility of Land UsesRelative to the Wetland Benefit Index (WBI) Wetland Benefit Index Land Use Compatibility 1. Wetlands with a WBI value greater than or equal to 0.80 1. There is a rebuttable presumption that all land uses except for conservation uses are incompatible. 2. Wetlands with a WBI value less than 0.80 2. All land uses are compatible, provided that the wetland impact compensation requirements of Chapter 27, Article XI, are satisfied. Source: Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection CE Policy 7.3 is more specific than FLUE Policy 6.10 regarding the City’s direction to minimize impacts of development on wetlands. Petitioners’ planning expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it does not “avoid or minimize” the impact of wetlands at all, much less “to the greatest degree practicable,” as directed by the policy. Petitioners’ expert based his entire argument solely on the first sentence of the policy. Petitioners’ planning expert explained, incredulously, that, in his opinion, the rest of the policy “doesn’t matter.”5/ The opinion of Petitioners’ expert was not persuasive. The Policy must be read in its entirety; and, when read as such, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the policy. The first sentence of the policy is precatory and direction-setting. It states the City’s intent to distribute land uses in a way that minimizes wetland impacts. The following sentences describe in more detail how that direction will be accomplished, and specifically reference the incorporated chart. The policy provides that land uses identified in the chart as incompatible with wetland protection “shall be directed away from wetlands.” By contrast, the policy provides that for land uses identified as compatible, wetland impacts “shall be mitigated . . . in accordance with the Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27.” It is undisputed that the wetlands on the Subject Property have a WBI value of less than .80. Pursuant to the chart, then, all uses of the Subject Property are compatible with the wetlands on-site, as long as the wetland impact compensation requirements of the Broward County Code are followed. The policy clearly provides that no development, regardless of density or intensity, must be directed away from the wetlands on the Subject Property. If the WBI value of the on-site wetlands was .80 or higher, pursuant to this policy, Petitioners’ position that the Subject Property should be placed in Conservation use would be presumed correct, although rebuttable. To that end, Petitioners introduced expert opinion testimony as to the quality of the wetland areas on-site which were previously maintained by the property owner--namely the areas under the guy wires. In the opinion of Petitioners’ wetlands expert, the on-site wetlands could be restored to higher quality if the Melaleuca trees were removed and the stumps sprayed to prevent regrowth. Petitioners’ argument is irrelevant to a determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Having established that the WBI value of the on-site wetlands is below .80, the issue of whether the on-site wetlands could be restored is irrelevant. Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code governs application for, and issuance of, an ERL for wetland alteration. On September 11, 2018, Broward County issued an ERL to Lennar for its proposed development of the Subject Property. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding that the provisions of Chapter 27 were not satisfied by the County in issuing the ERL. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by City of Miramar Ordinance 1901, on October 7, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 26th day of June, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The development application here under consideration involves some 6,500 acres of pristine land in a sensitive ecological environment in Lee County, Florida. Much of the land consists of what is usually described as wetlands. The tract is located some ten miles southwest of Ft. Myers, immediately east of Estero Island (Ft. Myers Beach) and its seaward boundary includes San Carlos, Hurricane, Hell-Peckish, and Estero Bays. The major portion of the development consists of land known as the "Windsor Tract" and Petitioner is assignee of Windsor. Following the institution of a declaratory judgment action by Windsor against the State of Florida, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) on December 8, 1970 entered into a settlement agreement with Windsor whereby the boundary line between State and Windsor owned lands was delineated whether or not the agreed upon boundary line was above or below the actual mean high water line which has never been ascertained. The State quitclaimed to Windsor all interest landward of the boundary line and Windsor quitclaimed to the State all interest seaward of said boundary line. The agreement further provided that the TIITF would have no objection to Windsor applying for and receiving a bulkhead line coincident with said boundary line and a permit to dredge a perimeter canal 50 feet wide just inside this bulkhead line, plus three or four access channels from the perimeter canal northward through the tract to provide access to the sea from interior areas of the tract. In addition to the Windsor tract, Petitioner acquired additional lands north and west of the Windsor tract to bring the total acreage proposed for development to 6,484 acres. The property may be described as typically estuarine in nature largely occupied by a mangrove forest. Some 2,800 acres in the coastal rim of the property is comprised predominately of red mangroves receiving daily tidal flushings. A natural berm or levee some six to eight inches higher than the surrounding land meanders across the tract at an elevation of approximately 1.8 feet above mean sea level (msl). Between this berm and the salina the mangrove forest is predominately black mangroves. Above the salina (line above which tides seldom rise) the land, which is 2 to 2.5 feet above msl at the salina, gradually rises to an elevation of 4 to 5 feet. Vegetation goes from salt grass at the salina to wax myrtle, rushes and exotic shrubs, cabbage palms and pines. The area of the tract above the salina comprises some 1,800 acres. Petitioner's ADA proposes to deed back to the State the coastal area seaward of the berm (the predominately red mangrove area); leave untouched other pristine areas such as Cow Creek Slough, No Name Slough and natural lakes; dig an interceptor waterway immediately landward of the berm running from Hendry Creek on the east to the Tip Top Isles Canal on the west, a distance of some 7.5 miles; use the fill from the interceptor waterway, plus the fill from some 27 lakes to be dredged on the site, to raise the elevation of the land remaining for development to 5 to 6 feet above msl; and to construct, over a 25 year period, some 26,500 residential units comprised of town houses, garden apartments and elevator type apartments with parking on the ground level. This would place the first floor some 13.5 feet above msl. To accomplish this project zoning permitting a density for the entire 6,484 acres of 4.1 dwelling units per acre is requested. The Petitioner envisions a total population upon completion of the project of some 73,500 people, predominately retirees and second home buyers, with a resulting population varying between 45,000 in the summer to the full occupancy of 73,500 at the height of the winter season. The Petitioner also envisions few school age children due to the large percentage of residents being second home buyers and retirees, since the development is oriented toward those groups. Proposed dwelling units are one, two, and three-bedroom apartments ranging in price (1974 dollars) from $30,000 to $82,000 with a median price of $47,000. The interceptor waterway will vary from 250 to 800 feet wide, average 400 feet and have an average depth of 5 feet with a maximum depth of 7 feet. As finally proposed the waterway will not be open to the waters on either end and, for boats desiring to exit from the interceptor waterway to waters leading to the bays, hoists will be provided. The interceptor waterway concept was derived from maricultural ponds where nutrient input is regulated to provide the food for shrimp or fish being cultivated and harvested. By locating the waterway at the existing berm elevation of 1.8 feet 220 tides per year will exceed this elevation bringing in marine organisms to consume the nutrients and exit on a subsequent tide. Other nutrients will be carried by the outgoing tide through the tidal mangrove area to the bays. Runoff waters will enter the interceptor waterway after passing through "scrubber" lakes in each drainage district. These lakes vary in depth from 5 to 35 feet, with the majority being 35 feet deep. The drainage plan is designed for the runoff of waters from the impermeable surfaces created by the development to enter these lakes, flow from lake to lake over grassy swales to a subsequent lake before entering the interceptor waterway. This system is designed to meet water quality standards for runoff waters. Heavy metals are expected to be retained in the lake system and many nutrients are removed in the grassy swales between the lakes. Proposed lake areas comprise some 970 acres and no major conflict arose with respect to functions to be performed by the lakes. The interceptor waterway as here proposed has never before been tried in a fully natural habitat. It differs from the maricultural ponds from which it was designed principally in that the nutrient input into the latter can be carefully controlled while the interceptor waterway will receive all nutrients water runoff brings its way. One reason for the denial of the development was due to the conclusions of the SWFRPC regarding the interceptor waterway. At p. 25 of Exhibit 7 the SWFRPC staff reported: "In all, the 'Interceptor Waterway' concept that the applicant proposes to replace some of the functions of the destroyed wetlands, was found to be potentially useful but untested, and would require the destruction of a large mangrove forest." In its conclusions the SWFRPC stated in Exhibit 7, page 67: "The proposed 'Interceptor Waterway', which was designed to retain, filter and distri- bute urban runoff, is conceptual in nature and has never been tested. Its design and performance is based on a series of questionable assumptions and has overlooked the complex mix of urban effluents which will enter the waterway. Since the applicant was not able to demon- strate the viability of the Interceptor Waterway, the contamination of the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve by excess nutrients, petrochemicals, pathogens, and other pollu- tants associated with urban runoff can be expected." By Developmental Order (Exhibit 8) dated July 8, 1976, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County denied the ADA submitted by the Petitioner listing 15 reasons for denial and included 12 changes to be incorporated into a new ADA to be submitted before the DRI approval would be granted. In addition to the interceptor waterway the first listed reason for denial of the ADA in Exhibit 8 was the findings and recommendations submitted by SWFRPC which "are incorporated by reference and made a part of this order". One of the considerations cited in Exhibit 7 was Rule 29I-2.03(1)(l) and (m) which are policy guidelines for the SWFRPC in developments of regional impact. The policy there stated is for SWFRPC to: "Encourage local governments to reject pro- posals for development in the coastal zone that threatened to degrade the quality or hamper the productivity of estuarine and bay environment. Discourage development, adjacent to State Aquatic Preserves, from disturbing any high marsh areas or mangroves adjacent to the aquatic preserve or an environmentally sen- sitive area." Estero Bay has been designated an aquatic preserve by Section 258.39(28) F.S. Petitioner received a letter of commitment from Florida Cities Water Company to provide potable water to the development. Florida Cities proposes to obtain the water from the Sandstone Aquifer. Preliminary studies indicate that this aquifer has adequate capacity to provide the potable water demands of the proposed development. However, the full potential and capacity of this aquifer is not known by anyone, including the governmental agencies which are conducting the extensive tests necessary to make this determination. One reason given by the SWFRPC for recommending denial of the application is that: "The Sandstone Aquifer is an important potential water resource for Lee, Hendry and Collier Counties. Therefore, the Council's staff recommends that Lee County not make major commitments from the Sandstone Aquifer prior to completion of current ongoing studies of the Aquifer by the U.S. Geological Survey." Petitioner's alternative proposal to use saline waters from the Lower Hawthorne and Suwannee Aquifers and to construct a reverse-osmosis plant to remove the salt was not accepted because: "The applicant has failed to provide the SWFRPC staff and consultants with suffi- cient data to determine the possible impacts resulting from the proposed projects' tapping of the Lower Hawthorne Aquifer and Suwannee Formation for water supply purposes. Until detailed hydrological studies have been conducted, the SWFRPC staff cannot accept these saline resources as viable long-term water sources for the proposed project." (Exhibit 7, p. 35) Petitioner proposes to use waste water treatment plant effluent for irrigation of lawns and golf courses at the development. Although this requires cooperation from the sewage treatment facility such use of the treated effluent appears to be a happy solution for both parties. SWFRPC recommendations and conclusions respecting the population mix and housing patterns as proposed by applicant are that these have not been substantiated by documented information. Particularly the staff deems the user characteristics assumed by the applicant, viz, that 55 percent of the occupants of the housing units will be second home owners and that few children of school age will occupy the development is not accurate. For school age population mix the staff and county rely on the forecast by the Superintendent of Schools who uses the existing county-wide population mix to quantify the number of children expected in a population of 73,500 people. The type of dwelling units proposed, the distance from likely places of employment, and the type recreational facilities proposed militate strongly against a population mix containing the same percentages of school age children that exists throughout Lee County. On the other hand the estimate of number of school age children contemplated by Petitioner is probably too low and inadequate provision has been made by Petitioner for the impact the development will have on the school system. Petitioner has proposed providing a 55 acre site which would accommodate three schools. Another reason offered for denying the application is that the proposed development will have a major negative impact on the area wide transportation network. Lee County roads are presently carrying more traffic than that for which they were designed. A priori reasoning leads to the conclusion that any additional population increase in Lee County will aggravate the situation with respect to these overburdened roads. Furthermore, Lee County's road plan is projected only ten years into the future while the development of The Estuaries is projected twenty-five years into the future. No evidence was presented that the implementation of Lee County's ten year road development plan will be adequate to accommodate the more than 400,000 residents estimated to reside in Lee County in 1985. As noted above there are nine principal issues Section 380.06 F.S. requires to be considered. The first and primary consideration is the effect the development will have on the environment and natural resources of the region. In order to provide the housing and recreational facilities proposed by Petitioner some 1,800 acres of black mangrove forest will be destroyed. While the value of black mangroves to the estuarine system has not received the study that has proven the value of red mangroves to the ecology of the area, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the black mangroves play an important function in the ecosystem and a function whose value is fully comparable to that played by the red mangroves. Accordingly destruction of this large acreage of black mangroves will have an adverse impact on the environment and natural resources of the region. The interceptor waterway which is designed to perform part of the function performed by the black mangroves is not capable of absorbing the nutrients that can be assimilated by the 579 acres of black mangroves to be replaced by the interceptor waterway let alone the balance of the black mangroves Petitioner proposes to destroy when this area is filled. Furthermore the preponderence of the evidence is that the interceptor waterway as designed is not capable of assimilating the nutrients expected from the runoff of waters from the impermeable surfaces created by the proposed development. Thus this waterway would soon become eutrophic and incapable of assimilating any of the nutrient runoff. This would result in a serious degradation of the waters of the San Carlos, Hurricane, Hell-Peckish and Estero Bays into which runoff waters passing through The Estuaries flow, and to the marine environment presently served by the "scrubbing" function of the mangrove forest. The series of lakes designed to retain the runoff are adequate for the purpose intended. However, the proposed depths of the majority of these lakes of 35 feet raises serious questions that were not answered at the hearing. Although the issue respecting the stratification and ultimate eutrophication of these deep lakes was inferentially raised during the hearing, no scientific evidence was presented from which a determination can be made with respect to viability of lakes of this depth. The recommendation of Petitioner's original consultants was for numerous shallow lakes to retain and scrub the runoff waters. Since Petitioner proposes to raise the elevation of the land as much as four feet in many places and five times as much fill material can be taken from a 35-foot-deep lake than can be taken from a 7-foot-deep lake the deep lake appears essential to Petitioner's plans for development. The environmental impact of these numerous deep lakes remains questionable and this also militates against approval of the project pending resolution of this issue. The effect the development will have on the economy, housing, and energy resources of the region are little, if any, different than any other project to provide 26,500 housing units in the area would have. If the population of Lee County increases as predicted over even the next decade, it would appear more beneficial, and in consonance with Chapter 380 F.S., if the growth coincided with planned developments - even large ones - than with a hodge podge of growth stimulated by the need to house the incoming population. The proposed development site is in a hurricane zone and if evacuation is required this could cause some problems with existing evacuation routes, particularly if all residents of the affected area waited until the last minute to evacuate. Estero Island provides a buffer which will reduce, if not eliminate, most of the force of wind driven water. Furthermore, the hurricane connected water, principally tides, will have to pass through a considerable stretch of tidal mangroves which will further reduce that lateral speed, and hence the force of the hurricane tides that might be expected. The height of the first floors of all dwelling units 13.5 feet above msl, coupled with the geographical and topographical location of the development raises serious questions of the need to evacuate residents from The Estuaries even if a dangerous hurricane entered the coast from the gulf with the center passing up the Caloosahatchee River. Whether or not the development will efficiently use or unduly burden water, sewer, solid waste disposal, public transportation facilities and other necessary public facilities is no different than would any other development introducing 26,500 dwelling units in the area. If the forecast population of Lee County is realized some 10 percent of this increase in population could be located in The Estuaries if the project is approved. If the public transportation facilities are presently overloaded, as the evidence indicated, any additional use will further overload the facilities. Petitioner has agreed (and could otherwise be so required before a building permit is granted) to construct all roads within the development in accordance with county specifications, to construct an access road to the development site and to provide the necessary traffic amenities to connect the access road to existing roads. Use of the effluent from the county sewage treatment plant for irrigation purposes in the development clearly appears to be an efficient use of these facilities. Obviously all collection lines and facilities required within the project will be installed by Petitioner as well as access lines and lift pumps to the treatment plant. Large treatment facilities are generally more efficient than numerous small treatment plants. Lee County has a serious potable water problem which will be exacerbated by an increasing population. Whether this increase in population resides in The Estuaries or elsewhere in the county will have little effect on the overall water problem, except that the proposed use of treated effluent for irrigation would result in The Estuaries using water more efficiently than other developments where potable water is used for irrigation. The statutory requirement to consider whether the development will favorably or adversely affect the ability of people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment is not as relevant to a housing DRI as it would be to an industrial DRI. Of the maintenance personnel, clerks, firemen, domestic help, etc. that the development will employ, only a small percentage will find accommodations at the development. On the other hand those employed at the development will represent only a few people compared to the 73,500 residents. No evidence was presented that the development would unfavorably affect the energy resources of the region other than the normally expected energy usage by the population to be housed. The development is consistent with local land development regulations. Although the land on which it is proposed to locate this development is zoned RU1 this is the category in which all land not presently under development or approved for development is held. To say that the land is presently zoned to permit only one housing unit per acre, while technically correct, does not represent the true character of the existing zoning which in reality is better described as a holding category. All land is "held" in this category until the owner requests whatever zoning change he considers appropriate to the usage to which he desires to put the land. But for the ecologically sensitive area involved the density proposed by Petitioner of 4.1 units per acre is consistent with local land development regulations. The Developmental Order proposed that Petitioner resubmit an ADA to provide for housing for 12.968 residential units placed upon some 1,800 acres above the salina line. The Developmental Order further provided that only town house, single family and garden apartment units would be approved and defined town house and garden apartment as "single family dwelling units constructed in a series or group of attached units with real property line separating each unit." If only 1,800 acres above the salina line is approved for development the most acceptable dwelling mix from an economic standpoint would include 4 tower units 6 floors high with 10 units per floor with the first floor 10 feet above ground level. (Tr. p. 1007). This plan would also provide for lakes 400 feet x 1,200 feet with a depth of 5 to 8 feet which would provide adequate fill for the 1,800 acres involved. The proposed findings of fact presented by Respondents detailing the ecological and economical value of the mangrove forest proposed for displacement by applicant are supported by the record and are consistent with the above findings. Any issues raised in the proposed findings which were not discussed above were deemed to be not pertinent to the determination. Applicant's proposed findings of fact and Conclusions of Law in conflict with the findings above are not concurred with. Any explicit repudiation of these proposed findings are impracticable at this stage of the proceedings due to applicant's exparte modification of the application upon which the hearing was held. Applicant has proposed, at this stage of the proceedings, the elimination of the interceptor waterway, the reduction of the units to be developed from 26,500 to 17,000, on the payment of an impact fee assessed equally upon all developers. By so conditioning proposed findings applicant introduced factors not presented to the SWFRPC, Lee County, or to the hearing officer. Absent evidence upon which the impact of these proposed changes would have on the application as submitted; or more specifically, upon the factors required by Section 380.06(8) and (11) F.S. to be considered in approving an application for a DRI, no findings, conclusions or recommendations on what has now become an amended ADA can or should be made. By its proposed revision, after all evidence has been submitted, applicant purports to present for consideration, and ostensibly approval, a proposed development which, in all fairness to all concerned should be presented first to the agency, viz. the SWFPPC designated by law to assess the developments of regional impact.
The Issue The general issue for determination in this case is whether Amendment 00-D1 to Sumter County’s comprehensive plan (the “Plan Amendment”) is "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Sections 163.3161 through 163.3217, Florida Statutes. (All statutory references are to the 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) The initial Petition to Request Administrative Hearing (Petition) alleged numerous reasons why the Plan Amendment should be found not "in compliance." But from the time of the initial Petition--through the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, opening statement at final hearing, and Proposed Recommended Order (PRO)--Petitioners reduced the number of reasons why they contend that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" to the following: simultaneous conversion of Future Land Use (FLU) from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with parts of the County's Plan's; alleged lack of demonstrated need for land use allocations contrary to Section 163.3177 and Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 (all rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code); conversion of FLU from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with the Plan's Policy 4.6.1.1 (the so-called "90% rule"); and alleged failure to discourage urban sprawl contrary to Rule 9J-5.0006(6). These are the only compliance issues that still have to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, Intervenor contends that Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID) does not have standing.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor, the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc., owns land in the northeast part of Sumter County on which Intervenor plans to construct a mixed-use development of regional impact (DRI) known as the Villages of Sumter. The proposed DRI will encompass approximately 4,679 acres and is anticipated to contain: 11,097 residential dwelling units; 1,250,000 square feet of commercial area; 250,000 square feet of office area; 157,000 square feet of institutional area; 120,000 square feet of hotel (300 rooms); 100,000 square feet convention center; 23,500 square feet of movie theater (8 screens); 512 acres of golf courses (126 holes); 8 marina slips; 602 acres of wildlife management and Kestrel foraging areas; 162 acres of lakes, 162 acres of roads, 31 acres of parks and buffers; and 227 acres of stormwater and open space. The proposed DRI will feature neighborhood and town centers and will extensively utilize clustering, open spaces, and buffering as part of its design. It is anticipated that the Villages of Sumter DRI will have an internal vehicle capture rate of over 60%--i.e., over 60% of vehicle trips starting in the DRI will not go outside the DRI. The DRI will provide water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. Eighty percent of the residents in the Villages of Sumter DRI will have to be occupied by persons 55 of age or older, and no one under 19 will be permitted to reside within this DRI. When Intervenor filed its Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the Villages of Sumter DRI, Intervenor also requested the subject Plan Amendment to accommodate the DRI, including a change in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and FLUM from Agricultural use to UEA and PUD. The ADA itself served as a major part of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. (Another major part of the data and analysis was the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) prepared by the County in 1995.) The western part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel (i.e., the Villages of Sumter DRI) will be the western part of the southern boundary of a related DRI developed by Intervenor known as the Tri-County Villages. From there, the Tri-County Villages DRI extends north to the southern border of Marion County and east to the western border of Lake County. (Towards the east, the northern boundary of the DRI drops just a little south of the southern border of Marion County.) Tri- County Villages is a large mixed-use DRI. It includes residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. Prior to the Tri-County Villages DRI, Intervenor or its predecessor also developed other related mixed-use DRIs to the east in Lake County. SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 to oppose the Tri- County Villages DRI and 1994 comprehensive plan amendments adopted to accommodate the Tri-County Villages DRI. SCAID, T. Daniel Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd filed a petition initiating Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, T. D. Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd vs. Department of Community Affairs and Sumter County, DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM, to oppose DCA's determination that the County's 1994 amendments were "in compliance." SCAID, Farnsworth, and Weir are collaterally estopped to deny facts established in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM (SCAID I). (Latham and Roop are not estopped.) See Conclusions of Law 63-64, infra. In any event, all Petitioners agreed to official recognition of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM. Among the facts established by adoption of the Recommended Order by the Final Order in SCAID I was the history of the earlier DRIs, the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the comprehensive plan amendments required by the Tri-County Villages DRI: [¶4] [I]ntervenor [Villages] is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. [¶5] In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. [¶6] In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. [¶7] In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. [¶8] On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. [¶9] The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. [¶10] The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. [¶11] Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. SCAID I, 17 F.A.L.R. 4527, 4531-32 (Dept. Community Affairs Aug. 1995). (The Recommended Order may also be found on WESTLAW at 1995 WL 1052949.) At its inception, the Tri-County Villages DRI was projected to build-out in approximately 2015. When the Tri- County Villages DRI first began construction in late 1992, the developer pulled 24 building permits. In 1993, the County issued 406 residential building permits, 365 of which were pulled for the Tri-County Villages DRI. In 1997, the developer pulled 1,052 building permits for the Tri-County Villages DRI. To date, approximately 13,000 homes have been built in the Tri- County Villages DRI. Based upon present projections, the Tri- County Villages DRI is anticipated to be substantially built-out in 2003-04, 12 years ahead of its initially projected build-out date of 2015. Presently, there are numerous cultural and recreational activities, shopping options, medical and governmental services available to residents within the Tri-County Villages DRI. While still designated as a UEA and PUD on the County's FLUM, the Tri-County Villages DRI in fact is a self-contained urban area, especially in the context of Sumter County. Sumter County is mostly rural. According to the 1995 EAR, the County's permanent (non-seasonal) population was projected to be: 38,961 for 1998; 56,000 for 2005; and 64,200 for 2010. The unincorporated portion of the County contains 334,903 acres, approximately 99,436 acres of which are state- owned conservation lands, and approximately 202,000 acres of which are agricultural lands. There are five municipalities in the County--Wildwood, Bushnell (also the County seat), Center Hill, Coleman and Webster. None are as urbanized as the Tri- County Villages DRI. Simultaneous Conversion Objective 7.1.2 of the County's comprehensive plan provides in pertinent part: Upon adoption of this plan, Sumter County shall . . . provide for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area boundary and insures retention of agricultural activities, preserves natural resources and discourages urban sprawl. In pertinent part, the County Plan's Policy 7.1.1.2(e) provides that the County's land development regulations governing PUDs should be based on and consistent with the following standards for densities and intensities: Within the Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 8 residential units per gross acre in residential areas and 6 units per gross acre in commercial areas are allowed. . . . . Outside of an Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 4 residential units per gross acre in residential, commercial and agricultural areas are allowed. Policy 7.1.5.1 allows PUDs "in the following land use districts and at the following densities/intensities of use": 8 dwellings per gross acre in "Residential Areas Inside UEA"; 6 dwellings per gross acre in "Commercial Areas Inside UEA"; and 4 dwellings per gross acre in "Res./Comm. Uses Outside UEA." Petitioners contend that the foregoing objective and policies somehow combine to preclude the simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD; they appear to contend that these policies necessitated an intermediate conversion to UEA. (Protection of agricultural lands was raised in a more general sense, but this precise issue was not raised prior to final hearing.) But Petitioners argument not only is not persuasive, it is not even easily understood. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even without prior notice of this precise issue, one of the County's expert witnesses in land planning persuasively testified that the cited objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even Petitioners' expert land planner ultimately agreed that there is nothing in the Florida Statutes or Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 to prevent conversion of agricultural uses to more urban uses. Demonstrated Need As reflected in previous Findings of Fact, the subject Plan Amendment is for a highly mixed-use PUD. Of the many mixed uses involved, Petitioners focus on the allocation of land for residential use in their challenge to the demonstration of need for the Plan Amendment. In this context, demonstrated need refers to the existence of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the need for additional allocation of residential dwelling units on the FLUM. Petitioners assert that the methodology utilized by the County to project need is flawed. Determination of the need for a certain allocation of residential densities starts with a projection of population on the planning horizon (2020). In doing so, all available data and analysis must be considered. (Petitioners also assert that Policy 7.1.2.5(b)1. of the County's comprehensive plan requires such an analysis "utilizing professionally accepted methods," but that policy speaks to additional densities and allocations of land use for developments proposed in agricultural areas, while the Plan Amendment in this case converts the agricultural land to UEA and PUD.) For the purpose of analyzing whether there is a demonstrated need for this Plan Amendment, the County's planner, Roberta Rogers, relied upon need projections made in conjunction with the preparation of the County's EAR. The EAR, prepared in 1999, included a projection of the County's population for the 2020 planning horizon. The EAR projected that the permanent population of unincorporated Sumter County, by the year 2020, will be 79,475. (The total County permanent population is projected to be 94,205.) One of the purposes of an EAR is to provide data and analysis for comprehensive plan amendments. In preparing the population projections reflected in the EAR, Rogers began her analysis by referring to the projections for Sumter County formulated by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR"), as reported in 1996. The 1996 BEBR Report actually reflected projections made in 1995. BEBR publishes yearly reports that state both the estimated current and the projected future populations for each Florida county. The population projections reflected in BEBR Reports are based upon historical trends of 10-15 years' duration. Because the development in the Tri-County Villages DRI is a relatively recent phenomenon, Rogers believed that reliance upon the BEBR projections alone would have resulted in a significant under-projection of the County's future population. As a consequence, Rogers added an annual rate of growth of 1000 building permits per year through 2005 and 500 permits per year through the remaining portion of the planning period for the Tri-County Villages and the Villages of Sumter. Her approach was a conservative approach, since the actual number of building permits issued for the Tri-County Villages DRI in the past two years has significantly exceeded 1000 per year. Rogers conferred with BEBR, prior to completing her analysis, and was assured that her approach was appropriate. Such an adjustment for the Villages is particularly appropriate since the Villages cater to a very specific segment of the population, i.e., persons 55 and above. Over the twenty- year planning horizon relevant to the Plan Amendment, the population of persons in Florida aged 55 and above will increase dramatically as the "baby boomer" population ages. The demand for residential housing for these senior citizens will show a similar dramatic increase. Henry Iler, the Petitioners' land planning expert, took the contrary position, opining that no additional growth factor should be added to the 1996 BEBR projections. However, Dr. Henry Fishkind, an expert in demography who was involved in the original development of the BEBR population projection methodologies, directly contradicted Iler's opinion, concluding instead that Ms. Rogers' methodology was appropriate. As Dr. Fishkind stated that [Sumter] county has experienced a dramatic structural change to its population growth and development because of the Villages, and that has altered the characteristics of its population growth. In light of that, the use of past trends, which is what the bureau [BEBR] does, is simply extrapolate past trends, would not be appropriate, for it would not have taken into account that major structural change. Ms. Rogers identified the structural change, she measured its amount, and then she added on to the bureau's projections, which were extrapolations of the past trends. That's a very appropriate adjustment, and it's the kind of adjustment that econometricians and economists make on a regular basis. DCA's analysis concurred that the high absorption rates in the Tri-County Villages DRI had to be taken into account. To have ignored the explosion of growth in the Tri- County Villages DRI, particularly in view of the generally accepted expectation that the population to be served by the Tri-County Villages and by the Villages of Sumter will experience tremendous growth, would have resulted in an inaccurate population forecast. Even Iler had to concede that he was aware of building permit data being used to project population figures. It is simply not his preferred methodology to use such information. Thus, Rogers' projection of the County's total population for the year 2020 appropriately incorporated all available and relevant data and was formulated using an accepted methodology. While not part of their PRO, Petitioners previously attacked the County's population projections by questioning the continued success of the Villages to attract out-of-state retirees. Primarily through Weir's testimony, they attempted to raise the specter of a reduction of sales and Intervenor's subsequent financial ruin. But there was no credible evidence to support Petitioners' prophecy of doom. On the evidence presented in this case, it would be more rational from a planning standpoint to expect the Villages to continue to be a marketing and financial success. Having reasonably projected future population, it was then incumbent upon the County to determine how many dwelling units would be needed to accommodate anticipated housing needs. This determination was made by Gail Easley, an independent planner retained by the County to assist Rogers in preparation of the EAR. Easley performed this calculation for the County. Easley used 2.46 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the County, a figure taken from the BEBR reports (not from 1990 census information, as Iler incorrectly surmised.) There was no evidence that a number other than 2.46 was appropriate. It would not be appropriate for the number of dwelling units needed in the future to be calculated simply by the division of the anticipated population by the average household size. Rather, it is appropriate to apply a "market factor" (or multiplier) in order to ensure that there is a choice of types of housing and to accommodate lands that are not actually useable for residential construction. Even Petitioner's expert, Henry Iler, agreed that the use of a market factor was appropriate in order to ensure sufficient housing supply and to avoid an increase in housing prices. Easley furnished Rogers with the market factor for the EAR. The market factor chosen by Easley was 1.5, a factor she viewed as conservative and as appropriate for a jurisdiction that is beginning to urbanize. In more rural counties, a higher market factor, such as 2.0, should be used. While Iler implied that a lower marker factor would be more suitable, the record clearly established that the market factor used by Easley fell within the range of reasonable choices. (In SCAID I, the ALJ expressly found, in paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order, that the 1.87 market factor used by the County on that occasion was reasonable and actually low compared to factors used for other comprehensive plans that had been found to be "in compliance." As reflected by this Finding of Fact, facts and circumstances bearing on the choice of a market factor for Sumter County have not changed significantly to date. Cf. Conclusion of Law 64, infra.) Applying the 1.5 market factor to the projected population and average household size, the County determined that 62,274 dwelling units will have to be accommodated during the twenty-year planning horizon. (This includes 48,461 units in permanent housing, 9,113 in seasonal housing, and 4,700 in transient housing.) The County then allocated those dwelling units in various land use categories. Much of Petitioners' PRO on this point was devoted to criticizing parts of the evidence in support of the demonstration of need. They state the obvious that Easley did not perform a demonstration of needs analysis for the Plan Amendment in the EAR, but that was not the purpose of the EAR; nonetheless, the EAR contained valuable data and analysis for use in the demonstration of need analysis for the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also questioned DCA's reliance on the DRI ADA in conducting its demonstration of need analysis, based on the timing of the ADA and Plan Amendment submissions and decisions; but it is not clear what it was about the timing that supposedly detracted from DCA's demonstration of need analysis, and nothing about the timing made it inappropriate for DCA to rely on the data and analysis in the ADA. Petitioners criticized Rogers' reference to up-to-date building permit information that was not offered in evidence; but this information only further supported Rogers' demonstration of need analysis. Petitioners asserted that one of Intervenor's witnesses may have overstated residential sales in the Tri- County Villages DRI (1,750 sales a year versus evidence of 1,431 building permits for 1999); but the witness's statement was not used in any of the demonstration of need analyses. Finally, Petitioners attacked one of Intervenor's witnesses for an alleged "conflict of interest, a lack of professional integrity and an indication of bias"; but the basis for this allegation supposedly was evidence that the witness worked for the County while also working for Intervenor or its predecessor for a few years in the late 1980's, not enough to seriously undermine the credibility of the witness's testimony in this case (which in any event had little or nothing to do with the demonstration of need analyses.) It is at least fairly debatable that the County's demonstration of need was based on relevant and appropriate data, and professionally acceptable methodologies and analyses. Likewise, it at least fairly debatable that the County's projections regarding housing needs, the growth in the retirement population, and the absorption rates achieved in the existing Tri-County Villages DRI adequately support the allocation of 11,000 dwelling units permitted by the Plan Amendment. So-called "90% Rule" The County's Plan Policy 4.6.1.1 provides: The County shall maintain approximately 90% of its land area in land uses such as agricultural (including timberland, mining and vacant), conservation, and open (recreation, open space etc.) land uses for this planning period. (Emphasis added.) This policy is found in the Utilities Element of the County's comprehensive plan under a goal to protect and maintain the functions of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas in the County and under an objective to protect the quantity of aquifer recharge. Although couched as an approximation, the policy has been referred to as the "90% rule." Based on the evidence presented in this case, it is at least fairly debatable that the subject Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.6.1.1. The primary debate had to do with the proper treatment of certain "open space" provided in the Tri-County Villages DRI and the Villages of Sumter DRI-- 1,032 acres in the former and 2,135 acres in the latter. This "open space" consists of golf courses, preserves, wetlands, parks/buffers, and some stormwater/open spaces. Petitioners' expert refused to count any of this acreage for purposes of the so-called "90% rule" because, while the FLUE and FLUM have Agricultural, Conservation, and Recreation land use categories, there is no category designated "Open Space." (Meanwhile, there is an entire element of the plan entitled "Recreation and Open Space.") The witnesses for the County and DCA counted those 3,167 acres. They reasoned persuasively that the policy's express mention of "open space" (as opposed to a specific land use category designated "Open Space") supports their position. They also argued persuasively for the logic of including "open space," which serves the objective of the policy to "protect quantity aquifer recharge quantity," even if there is no specific land use category designated "Open Space." Counting the 3,167 acres of "open space" in the two DRIs, the percentage calculated under Policy 4.6.1.1 exceeds 90% for existing land uses. Omitting that land, as well as another 500 acres that should have been counted, Petitioners' expert calculated 88.96%. Petitioners' expert also calculated a lower percentage (85.34%) by using land uses he projected for the end of the planning period. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that it was not clear that Policy 4.6.1.1 should be interpreted in that manner. If so interpreted, it would be possible for all plan amendments reducing agricultural, conservation, and open FLUs to be prohibited even if existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" for another 20 years. It is at least fairly debatable whether such a result is logical, or whether it is more logical to wait until existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" before prohibiting further FLUE and FLUM amendments. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. They attempted to prove seven urban sprawl indicators. But their evidence was far from sufficient to establish any beyond fair debate. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity, low density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. To the contrary, while gross residential density may be relatively low (2.4-2.6 units per gross acre), the Plan Amendment PUD provides for highly mixed-use development, not single-use development, and densities in residential areas within the PUD are significantly higher (up to 5.6 units per acre), especially for Sumter County. Petitioners also did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, 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, or that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. To the contrary, the evidence was that part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel coincides with the western part of the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the Villages of Sumter PUD will be an extension of the Tri-County Villages DRI, which already has all the characteristics of an existing urban area. The reason why the eastern part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel does not coincide with the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI is the existence of land in between which is already in use and not available to become part of the Plan Amendment PUD. Development will not be in a radial or ribbon pattern like (usually) commercial development along main roadways; nor will development be isolated. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Obviously, conversion of agricultural land eliminates such land from agricultural use. But the Plan Amendment protects adjacent agricultural land by phasing development starting from existing urban areas in the Tri-County Villages DRI by mixing in open and recreational uses throughout the Villages of Sumter PUD and by providing some additional buffer between the periphery of the PUD and adjacent agricultural lands. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. Indeed, Petitioners' land use planning expert admitted at the hearing that he "didn’t have the time or expertise, really, to try to evaluate this particular question." To the contrary, the evidence was that the Plan Amendment PUD will include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. In addition, impact to schools will be minimal or non-existent due to the character of the PUD as a retirement community. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. To the contrary, the evidence was that clustering, open spaces and buffering in the Villages of Sumter PUD will provide a clear enough separation between rural and urban uses. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment discourages or inhibits in-fill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Specifically, Petitioners argued that in-fill in the City of Wildwood will be discouraged. But the evidence was to the contrary. Not only would development of the kind envisioned in the Plan Amendment PUD be unlikely to occur in Wildwood, sufficient land is not available for such a development there. Actually, the Plan Amendment might encourage in-fill in Wildwood, where service providers for the Villages of Sumter might be expected to reside. SCAID SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 by a small group of Sumter County citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of Sumter County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. SCAID has about 80 members, who are not required to pay dues. The majority of SCAID's members live in Sumter County, including all of the individual Petitioners in this case. SCAID is not incorporated but has by-laws drafted in 1995 or 1996. The by-laws provide for election of officers for one-year terms, but SCAID has not had an election of officers since 1994. Petitioner, T. Daniel Farnsworth, is and always has been SCAID's president. The evidence was that, when former SCAID member James Boyd resigned, Petitioner Linda Latham was appointed to replace him as secretary. SCAID has held just two meetings since its inception. Approximately 15-20 persons attended each meeting. Most communication with members is by regular and internet mail. Financial contributions are solicited from time to time for litigation efforts initiated by SCAID. Farnsworth, on behalf of SCAID, submitted comments on the Plan Amendment to the County between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. Farnsworth and Weir also testified on behalf of Petitioners at final hearing. The other individual Petitioners did not.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, under Section 163.3184(9)(b), the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order that Sumter County's Amendment 00-D1 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Jane M. Gordon, Esquire Jonas & LaSorte Mellon United National Bank Tower Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2204 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburg, Florida 34749-0327 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Council Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Sumter County comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 adopted on September 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94-6 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth and James E. Boyd, own property and reside within the northern part of unincorporated Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group while Boyd serves as its treasurer. By stipulation of the parties, petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (Villages), is a Florida corporation and the owner and developer of the Tri-County Villages development of regional impact, which is the subject property of this proceeding. Villages submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. Tri-County Villages To place this dispute in proper perspective, it is necessary to trace the history of the development which has occurred in and around the subject property. As noted earlier, intervenor is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. The Challenged Amendment On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. The Tri-County Villages DRI and ADA and plan amendment are related in that Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes, requires that the local government's review of the DRI and corresponding comprehensive plan amendment be initiated and concluded at the same time. In the instant case, the Tri-County Villages ADA served as much of the background data and analysis for the plan amendment. The Tri-County Villages DRI also served as the sector plan for the area covered by the amendment. In addition to the voluminous data and analysis included in the Tri- County Villages ADA, the plan amendment also included detailed data and analysis. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related issues, an analysis of environmental considerations, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis collectively demonstrated that the urban development proposed by the amendment was appropriate for the designated area. C. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? In their proposed recommended order, petitioners summarize their objections to the plan amendment as follows: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands, (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl, (c) the future land use map is internally inconsistent, (d) there is no demonstrated need for 1,960 acres of PUD land use, (e) PUD is not a valid land use category, (f) the amendment does not ensure adequate fire and emergency medical services, (g) the County failed to coordinate with the local school board, (h) there is no reasonable protection from flooding, (i) the amendment does not provide adequate parks and recreational facilities, (j) affordable housing needs are not met, and there is no requirement that the developer install water and sewer facilities at its own expense. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 1,960 acres of agricultural land will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by FLUE objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insures retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas," the cited rule considers this failure to be a prime indicator that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, FLUE objective 1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The plans, FLUE data and analysis demonstrate that one of the best areas for urban development in the County is the northeast portion of the County which covers the agricultural lands in the plan amendment. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the urban infrastructure currently in place. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD and Tri- County Villages amended development order sector plan will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. In view of the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land. Urban sprawl In the same vein, petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because of the conversion of 1,960 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, and which have allegedly been violated. They also point to the fact that large portions of the existing development have not been sold or built out, only 2 percent of the 1,960 acres will be devoted to commercial land use, the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural area, it must score approximately 50 points based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD failed to score 50 points, it was deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. The plan amendment scored 130 points, well in excess of the 50 point threshold. In addition to satisfying FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with FLUM maps VII-18A and VII-18C, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the FLUE data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18A demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations for urban development. Similarly, Map VII-18C indicates that the land has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. In fact, portions of land covered by the plan amendment are already within an established urban expansion area which is the OBGW DRI. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category and sector plan concept adopted by the plan amendment are planning methods specifically recognized and encouraged by prior DCA policy as reflected in the DCA's Technical Memo Special Edition 4-4 and the urban sprawl provisions incorporated into Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 18, 1994, as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that mixed use development and sector planning . . . will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Given the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. The consistency of the future land Petitioners next argue in general terms that the FLUM does not "reflect policies which call for maintaining agricultural lands, discouraging urban sprawl, promoting land use compatibility, protection from flooding, providing for adequate public recreation facilities, and other objectives," and thus it is internally inconsistent. The FLUM series in the plan as well as the FLUM series as amended by the plan amendment is a pictorial representation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUM is internally inconsistent as alleged in their petition. Demonstrated need Petitioners next allege that the plan amendment "is premature in time and fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege that the FLUM "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. In addition, the DCA may not choose one methodology over another. At hearing, petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended that other factors such as mortality rates and resale figures should have been used in calculating the multiplier. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments report. That report recommended that the County provide an analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population during the planning time frame (the year 2014) established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan. Based on historic data, the County calculated a multiplier which depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately 87 percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In actuality, a 1.87 multiplier is not really the most accurate depiction of the allocation of residential land county-wide because the population for OBGW and the other PUD in the County was not included in the calculation. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, the County added to the equation the projected population for OBGW and the PUD. The resulting revised multiplier equalled 1.46. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 1.88. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Moreover, petitioners' methodology was unacceptable because it did not project its population over the correct planning horizon. Petitioners failed to consider the 2014 planning horizon established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan which controls the development of land covered by the plan amendment. Instead, petitioners multiplier incorrectly used the 2001 planning horizon established by the plan. In addressing the need for additional residential allocation, the amount of residential land allocated must be a reflection of the population expected through the end of the Tri-County Villages sector plan 2014 planning horizon. The type of development contemplated by the plan amendment and the additional population has not previously occurred in the County. Since development of OBGW commenced in 1992, the building permits issued in the County have increased by 94 percent. Much of this increase can be attributed to OBGW. The number of yearly certificates of occupancy for OBGW has stayed relatively constant and is expected to remain constant throughout the planning horizon. Intervenor's marketing scheme for OBGW seeks to attract retirees predominately from the northeastern part of the United States. The residents are not generally County residents prior to moving to Tri-County Villages. This same marketing scheme will be used for the future development of the Tri-County Villages. Thus, the future Tri-County Villages residents are not expected to be from the County. Tri-County Villages is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Because this new population is a reality which was not comtemplated by the plan, and the plan does not have an excess of allocated residential land, the need for the increased residential densities has been demonstrated. Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was premature or not based on a demonstrated need. PUD as a land use category Because a planned unit development (PUD) is not "recognized" as a land use category in Rule 9J-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, petitioners contend that the use of that category in the plan amendment renders it not in compliance. For purposes of its compliance review, the DCA used the version of chapter 9J-5 which was in effect at the time of the submittal of the plan amendment. Then existing Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on March 23, 1994, established the generalized land uses which must be shown on the Existing Land Use Map (ELUM). Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that these same generalized land uses must be depicted on the FLUM as well. While it is true that PUD is not one of the generalized land uses listed in chapter 9J-5, the two rules cited above both allow a local government to depict other land use categories on the ELUM and FLUM. Because the plan references PUD as a mixed land use category, the County has properly depicted that category on both the ELUM and FLUM. Petitioners have failed to show that PUD as a mixed land use category is not recognized under the rules in existence when the plan amendment was reviewed. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged that the County has "not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses." They point to the fact that the area adjacent to and near the development is a "friendly rural community," and they allege that the development will harm this wholesome atmosphere. The plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and DRI Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Tri-County Villages development will provide approximately 1,100 acres of open space. Much of this open space will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. Another mechanism which ensures compatibility is the phased method of development proposed for the project. Under the phasing approach, only contiguous portions of the property will be developed at any given time during the planning period. In addition, existing agricultural uses on the property will continue until such time as the proposed development reaches that property. Given these considerations, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent land uses. Levels of service In their amended petition, petitioners assert that the plan amendment is in violation of FLUE objective 7.1.6 and FLUE policy 7.1.6.1, objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J- 5.011(2)2., 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., and 9J-5.016(3)(a) and (b)4., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, all pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services and flooding. Policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element adopts a recreational facility level of service for such facilities as softball fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, boat ramps and the like. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure that the availability of these facilities is addressed during the concurrency review process and not at the compliance review stage. In other words, when a proposed development reaches the stage of requesting a building permit, the County may require as a condition of the issuance of that building permit that a developer provide a certain facility. In this regard, it is noted that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that any development comply with concurrency requirements while the Tri-County DRI Amended Development Order requires that the developer provide for adequate public facilities. Both the plan amendment and the development authorized therein generally address the recreational level of service. However, if no additional facilities are constructed in the future, the plan amendment does not provide adequate baseball fields, softball fields, boat ramps or handball courts consistent with policy 1.1.1. In addressing these potential deficiencies, intervenor represented to the County that as a retirement community, the development would not generate a demand for these types of facilities. That is to say, the retiree population inhabiting the development would be less likely to participate in activities such as baseball or softball. The population would, however, generate a need for other recreational facilities such as golf courses, swimming pools, shuffleboard courts and bocci ball facilities, all of which the development has a surplus. In response to this concern, the County concluded that it was not appropriate to require the construction of certain facilities when the project would not generate a need for them. The County indicated that, during the plan evaluation and appraisal stage required in 1998, an amendment to the plan would be transmitted which would revise the plan to take into account such situations. If such an amendment is not adopted, intervenor will need to provide additional facilities necessary to meet concurrency requirements. There is no established level of service in the plan for fire protection or emergency medical services. Intervenor has, however, addressed these services in the Amended Development Order for the development. As reflected in that order, intervenor donated a five-acre parcel and constructed a fire station adjacent to the development. The station may also be used to house emergency medical services, if needed, although an existing emergency medical service provider is located in close proximity. Intervenor also donated to the County $80,000 for the purchase of fire fighting equipment, and each household pays the County a $30 annual fee for fire protection. Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services have been addressed. The plan establishes no level of service standard for schools. Because the development is a retirement community, children under age 19 are prohibited. As a consequence, it was determined that impacts to school facilities would be minimal. Intervenor contacted and advised the school board of its retirement community development plans and projected student impacts. In response, the school board concluded that minimal impact was expected as a result of the development. To the extent that the development in the future allows school age children to reside therein, the Amended Development Order specifically calls for a substantial deviation determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, to evaluate the potential impacts to school facilities. As a result of further review, intervenor may be required to provide additional school facilities. The plan establishes a level of service for stormwater drainage in terms of quantity and quality. Based on flooding which has occurred in the existing OBGW development, petitioners suggest that flooding will occur in the development proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. While such flooding has occurred in the OBGW development, there is no evidence that the flooding was caused by a reduction or violation of the stormwater drainage level of service. Indeed, the evidence shows that the flooding was caused by an unusually heavy period of rainfall in combination with debris clogging the inlets of the stormwater system. The actual stormwater system for OBGW, which was reviewed and approved in the OBGW DRI review process, was designed for and required to meet the plan's drainage level of service. As a concurrency matter, any system designed for the future development contemplated in the plan amendment will also be required to meet the stormwater drainage level of service. Accordingly, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment violates the plan's level of services standard for stormwater drainage. Affordable housing Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment "fails to provide for affordable housing as required by Objective 3.5 of the Housing Element of the (plan)" in violation of various rules and the state comprehensive plan. The rule alleged to have been violated requires a local government to analyze the affordable housing stock within the local government. The local government must then adopt comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies which establish programs to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the present and future residents. Housing Element objective 3.5 and the implementing policies which follow provide one of the mechanisms, coordination with the private sector, which the County uses to address the provision of affordable housing countywide. The provisions of objective 3.5 and the implementing policies place no specific requirements on the private sector. These plan provisions only require that, in addressing the provision of affordable housing, the County work with the private sector. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, neither the plan provisions nor chapter 9J-5 require the plan amendment to address the affordable housing deficiencies countywide. As a DRI requirement, however, the plan amendment does address the provision of affordable housing. A detailed housing analysis was provided in the Tri-County Villages ADA. The analysis included a review of the affordable housing stock pursuant to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's housing demand, supply and need methodology. The analysis further concluded that after phase 3, additional affordable housing may be necessary. To address this deficiency, the ADA for the development requires intervenor to reanalyze the available affordable housing consistent with objective 3.5 of the Housing Element. Thus, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to provide affordable housing. i. Infrastructure funding Finally, petitioners allege that the plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE policy 1.5.4. That policy provides as follows: All PUDS shall provide for central potable water and sanitary sewer facilities at the developer's expense and provide for fire hydrants and fire flow within the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standards. Intervenor has created community development districts as a mechanism to fund the development infrastructure. Intervenor is able to raise funds by the sale of bonds through these districts. The residents of the development will ultimately repay the bonds. Even so, petitioners allege that this funding mechanism is inconsistent with the cited policy because the infrastructure is not funded "at the developer's expense." The purpose and intent of the policy was to insure that the County not be obligated to fund infrastructure related to the PUD development. The developer, and ultimately the residents, of the project will fund the infrastructure through the community development districts. The County will not be obligated. This funding mechanism is consistent with policy 1.5.4. in that the County is not responsible for the funding of the PUD-related infrastructure. Accordingly, petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited policy.
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 Sumter County's comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6974GM Petitioners: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-9. 11-14. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 19-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 22-23. Covered in procedural statement. 24-29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20. 30-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-25. 42. Rejected as being unnecessary. 43-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28-36. 78-85. Partially accepted in findings of fact 37-39. 86-95. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-42. 96-148. Partially accepted in findings of fact 43-49. 149-162. Partially accepted in findings of fact 50-53. 163-166. Partially accepted in findings of fact 54-56. Respondents/Intervenor: With certain changes, the substance of proposed findings 1-53 has been generally incorporated into this recommended order. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mr. T. D. Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 David L. Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 R. Dewey Burnsed, Esquire Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
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 Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
