The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue presented for consideration herein concerns the standing of Petitioners to challenge the development order entered by the City of Alachua, Florida, granting DPI approval to Turkey Creek, Inc. That order dates from June 15, 1982. In particular, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent Turkey Creek asserts that Petitioners are not members of the class of individuals delineated in Subsection 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, who would have standing to appeal the development order; in that Petitioners are neither "owners" or within other classifications of individuals who might file an action before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, which action is in opposition to the grant of the development order. RECORD Although a transcription was not made of the motion hearing, the following items which are attached to this Recommended Order constitute the factual basis for this decision. Attachment "A" is the Notice of Appeal of development order; Attachment "B" is the petition for review of development order with its attendant exhibits; Attachment "C" is the letter of referral from the Secretary to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings; Attachment "D" is the answer and affirmative defenses to the petition filed by Turkey Creek; Attachment "E" is the motion to dismiss filed by Turkey Creek; Attachment "F" is the notice of hearing related to the motion to dismiss; and Attachment "G" is the supplemental authority offered by Turkey Creek. For purposes of this Recommended Order, notwithstanding the answer of Turkey Creek wherein facts of the Petition are denied, the factual allegations related to the standing issue as made through the petition are deemed to be factually accurate, with the exception of those contentions pertaining to conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact On January 4, 1982, the Turkey Creek Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval was filed with the City of Alachua, Florida, City Commission and North Central Florida Regional Planning Council in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. It was filed by Turkey Creek, Inc., as applicant. Turkey Creek, Inc. is wholly-owned by Norwood W. Hope, N. Forest Hope and A. Brice Hope. Turkey Creek proposes to develop 5,300 residential dwelling units on 976+- acres, which constitutes a residential development of regional impact according to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22F-2.10, Florida Administrative Code, involving real property located in the City of Alachua, Alachua County, Florida, as included in the property description found as an exhibit to the petition document which is Attachment "B" to this Recommended Order. Prior to June 15, 1982, the City of Alachua had previously duly zoned or did simultaneously zone the said 976+-acres PUD and commercial to permit the development as specified in the said application. June 15, 1982, is the date when the City of Alachua adopted the development order for the Turkey Creek Development of Regional Impact. Following the action by the City of Alachua, the Petitioners in this cause, in the person of counsel, filed a notice of appeal of the development order. This appeal was made on June 28, 1982, and on that same date, the petition for review of that development order was filed with the State of Florida, Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. On August 4, 1982, the matter was transmitted to the division of administrative Hearings for formal hearing by action of the Office of the Office of the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The case was subsequently assigned to this Hearing Officer and a motion hearing was conducted to consider a dismissal of this action based upon Respondent Turkey Creek's allegation that the Petitioners lack standing. The motion hearing was conducted on September 2, 1982. Petitioners are owners of real property included within the Turkey Creek development of regional impact and their property is adjacent or in close proximity to properties which were the subject of the City's zoning decision made in conjunction with approval of the development order.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Madeira Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the factors set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1.
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether two community development district petitions should be granted: the first, a Petition to Contract Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2; and the second, a Petition to Establish Rule [sic] for Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 5.
Conclusions Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (2000), a "community development district" (CDD) is "a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law." (All of the following statutory citations are to the year 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) Sections 190.006 through 190.046 constitute the uniform general law charter of all CDDs, which can be amended only by the Florida Legislature. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems, facilities, and basic infrastructures for: water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; needed bridges and culverts; CDD roads meeting minimum county specifications, street lights, and certain mass transit facilities; investigation and remediation costs associated with cleanup of environmental contamination; conservation, mitigation, and wildlife habitat areas; and certain projects within or without the CDD pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation; fire prevention; school buildings; security; mosquito control; and waste collection and disposal. Section 190.046(1) provides for the filing of a petition for contraction of a CDD. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 190.046(1), petitions to contract a CDD by more than 250 acres "shall be considered petitions to establish a new district and shall follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005." Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that the petition to establish a CDD be filed with FLAWAC and submitted to the County. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the proposed area to be serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the proposed real property in the CDD, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option" of all of the proposed real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land-use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must also contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan (the local government comprehensive plan). District 2 and SMR have done so. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments, as well. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct an optional public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLAWAC as to the proposed property for the CDD. Manatee County has exercised this option and has adopted a resolution in support of the contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires a DOAH ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner must publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Under Section 190.005(1)(e), FLAWAC must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Factor 1 Some statements in the original petition to contract District 2 were not true and correct and had to be revised. As revised, all statements in the petition were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. All statements in the petition to establish District 5 were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 2 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5 are not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the local government comprehensive plan. There was no evidence to the contrary. (A different and more detailed review is required to determine that future development within the proposed CDDs will be consistent with all applicable laws and local ordinances and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Establishment of a CDD does not constitute and should not be construed as a development order or any other kind of approval of the development anticipated in the CDD. Such determinations are made in other proceedings.) Factor 3 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas of land within District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and within proposed District 5 are of sufficient size, are sufficiently compact, and are sufficiently contiguous for each proposed CDD to be developable as a functional, interrelated community. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 4 In these cases, the evidence was that District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are the best alternatives available for delivering community development services and facilities to the areas that will be served by those two proposed CDDs. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 5 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 6 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas to be served by District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are amenable to separate special-district government. There was no evidence to the contrary. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, 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 22nd day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin McCormick Larrinaga, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Jose Luis Rodriguez, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capital, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Board to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2019-01002 (Application) filed by Edgewater Valor cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Edgewater Valor proposes to develop an 80-unit attached dwelling with 164 associated off-street parking spaces on 2.931 acres of property it owns. The property is located at 1026 Sunset Point Road and 1919 Edgewater Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The proposal consists of three buildings and a structured parking platform with a pool and deck on the west side of the parking platform. Sixty percent of the 164 parking spaces is garage parking, with the rest as exposed surface parking. Two of the buildings, both in the T district, are proposed at a height of 86 feet measured from base flood elevation. The third building, in the MDR district, is proposed at a height of 38 feet measured from base flood elevation. The buildings in the T district are set back 152 feet from the east property line. The building in the MDR district is set back 75 feet from the east property line. The proposal includes landscaping and setbacks that exceed the Board's requirements for approval. The Application requests Level Two approval of flexibility for a building height of 86 feet from base flood elevation in the T zoning district. A Level One approval allows a building height of up to 50 feet, and up to 100 feet as a Level Two approval. The Application also requests Level Two approval of flexibility for an attached dwelling use in the MDR zoning district. The attached dwelling has a building height of 38 feet from base flood elevation, where up to 40 feet is allowed as a Level Two approval and flexibility from lot width in the MDR zoning district. Edgewater Valor owns 2.437 acres of the property which is zoned T with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The remaining 0.494 acres is zoned MDR with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Residential Medium (RM). The property to the north of the proposed development is zoned T and is currently developed as a Comfort Suites hotel. The property to the south is zoned Office (O), MDR, and Preservation (P). There is a vacant automobile service station adjacent to the proposed development to the southwest, and a multi-family development to the south across Sunset Point Road. The property to the east is zoned MDR and P with single-family detached dwellings and attached dwellings further east along Sunset Point Road. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) and P. EDNA's boundaries are Sunset Point Road north to Union Street, and Edgewater Drive east to Pinellas Trail. The neighborhood consists of 400 homes that are mostly single-family, single-story detached dwellings. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive. The Comfort Suites hotel is located directly across from the proposed development on the opposite corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Sunnydale Drive travels east away from Edgewater Drive and dead-ends as a cul-de-sac with mostly single- family detached dwellings.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Amend the Boundaries of the Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2007)1, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the local public hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue Whether Resolution No. P64-96 of the Monroe County Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed or modified?
