Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to exercise general supervision over the administration and enforcement of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including Areas of Critical State Concern, and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. See, Section 380.031(18), Florida Statutes. The City of Key West is in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See, Section 380.0552(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code. Since the City is in the Florida Key's Area of Critical State Concern, City ordinances regulating land development do not take effect until DCA approves them "by rule." See, Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. See also, Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes (which provides that no proposed land development regulation in an Area of Critical State Concern shall become effective until DCA has adopted a rule approving such regulation.) In pertinent part, Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes provides: 380.0552 Florida Keys Area; protection and designation as area of critical state concern.-- PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.--State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which chapter is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, the following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shorelines and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. * * * MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.--Any land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment, amendment or rescission shall become effective only upon the approval thereof by the state land planning agency. The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance with the principles for guiding development set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, and shall either approve or reject the requested changes within 60 days of receipt thereof. Further, the state land planning agency, after consulting with the appropriate local government, may, no more often than once a year, recommend to the Administration Commission the enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan. Within 45 days following the receipt of such recommendation by the state land planning agency, the commission shall reject the recommendation, or accept it with or without modification and adopt it, by rule, including any changes. Any such local development regulation or plan shall be in compliance with the principles for guiding development. (Emphasis supplied.) In sum, any land development regulations adopted by the City must be submitted to DCA for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.0552(9). Such regulations become effective when approved by DCA. In evaluating an Ordinance submitted pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), DCA will look to the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DCA is directed to approve a proposed ordinance if it is in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development; conversely, DCA is without authority to approve a proposed amendment which is not in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development. On September 3, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance 91-25 (the "Ordinance") which provides for a 180 day moratorium on certain development activities in the City. The Ordinance prohibits ...the approval of Community Impact Assessment Statements and site plans for projects falling within the scope of the city's CIAS ordinance, where the proposed density or intensity of use is inconsistent with the permitted density or intensity under the future land use map of the city's pending comprehensive plan or the property is situated in an area designated as coastal high hazard or wetlands on the Future Land Use Map of the City's pending comprehensive land use plan... A building moratorium, such as that set forth in the Ordinance, constitutes a land development regulation as defined in Section 380.031(8), and Rule 28-20.19(4), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the moratorium could not take effect until approved by DCA by rule. A Community Impact Assessment Statement ("CIAS"), as defined in Section 34.04, Key West Code, describes expected impacts of proposed development on specified City resources and infrastructure. While a CIAS is not a development order, the City requires a CIAS as a precondition to the granting of a building permit for most large projects in the City. A developer is required to submit a CIAS for a proposed residential or hotel/motel development of ten or more habitable units or a proposed commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more. A CIAS is intended to ensure that the impacts a proposed project will have upon public facilities and the social and economic resources of the community are considered in the planning process and to avoid surprises during the planning process. The City will reject a CIAS that it finds to be incomplete or misleading. The City Commission held its first hearing on the Ordinance on June 18, 1991. At least five public hearings before the City Commission were held prior to the City's adoption of the Ordinance. The 1981 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (the "Existing Comprehensive Plan") sets forth certain parameters and standards for the issuance of development orders. The Existing Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-37, Florida Administrative Code. The City of Key West land development regulations and certain amendments to the Existing Comprehensive Plan have been approved by DCA in Chapter 9J-22, Florida Administrative Code. The City is required by the States's growth management statute, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to submit to DCA a new comprehensive plan. Since the City is in an Area of Critical State Concern, the new comprehensive plan will not take effect until it is approved by DCA by rule. The Existing Comprehensive Plan remains in effect until a new plan is adopted. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was in the process of preparing a new comprehensive plan to guide future development. By adopting the moratorium, the City sought to provide itself with an opportunity to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City submitted a proposed new comprehensive plan (the "Pending Comprehensive Plan") to DCA on December 2, 1991. DCA and the City are currently involved in negotiations over whether the Pending Comprehensive Plan is in compliance with the state's growth management law, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The Pending Comprehensive Plan was still in the draft stages at the time the Ordinance was adopted. As indicated above, the City adopted the moratorium for projects requiring a CIAS in an effort to ensure that the City would be able to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City is faced with numerous development-related problems which it attempts to address in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. These problems include: Water Quality Water Resources - The City draws all of its water from the Biscayne Aquifer. The water is pumped from wellfields on the mainland in Dade County and is transported through a single pipe to Monroe County to provide water to the Florida Keys population. While there is no immediate problem with the availability of water for the City, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are in the process of preparing a water supply plan for Dade County and the Keys. These agencies recently informed all Monroe County local governments that they are approaching the limit of water that can be supplied from the aquifer and it is expected that there will be limitations on any further increases in consumption and/or consumptive use permits. The City and DCA contend that the moratorium will help the City to effectively analyze and address these issues in its new comprehensive plan. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to develop a plan for potable water resources, including replacement of the aging water main, providing for emergency supplies, and emphasizing the need to conserve water. Sewer System - Sewage treatment in the City of Key West is a serious problem. The treated effluent is currently dumped into the Atlantic Ocean and has been implicated in the degradation of the environmentally sensitive and unique coral reefs. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to substantially improve its wastewater treatment level of service, prevent system infiltration, fix leaky pipes, and reduce the pollution of the surrounding waters. Stormwater Runoff - The waters surrounding the island of Key West have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The runoff generated by rains in the City is currently channeled into these waters either directly or via canals. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain extensive guidance regarding stormwater runoff. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to conduct a half million dollar study over the next two years to examine, develop, and implement a stormwater management plan. Section 4-2.1(d) of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would also require improved levels of service for stormwater runoff. Hurricane Evacuation - The evacuation of people out of the Florida Keys during a hurricane is an important element in the planning process for the City. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide any standards for hurricane evacuation. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan requires the City of Key West to develop a feasible hurricane evacuation plan and coordinate its implementation with the County. The City has taken no action on this directive to date. A model is being developed within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan for the safe evacuation of residents from the Florida Keys. The model will include updated information based upon the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of new development into the model is complicated. By temporarily limiting new development, the City can provide more certainty to this planning process. Wetlands and Environmental Protection - The Pending Comprehensive Plan seeks to strengthen and clarify the Existing Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding wetlands and habitat protection by reducing densities within wetlands, salt ponds, and coastal high hazard areas and requiring the adoption of amended land development regulations which extensively improve the City's environmental protection requirements. Residential Housing and Conversion to Transient Units - There have been a significant number of conversions from residential to transient units (hotels, motels, and other tourist accommodations) in the City during the last several years. The increase in "transient" persons exacerbates the strain upon public facilities, especially transportation facilities. The Existing Comprehensive Plan offers little protection to residential areas from commercial and transient intrusion. The Future Land Use Element of the Pending Comprehensive Plan attempts to guide and plan the locations of conversions. Transportation - Many roads in the City are currently operating at poor levels of service, including U.S. Highway 1, the main arterial roadway in the City. The City has never had a specific plan to improve the levels of service. The City is required under the growth management statute (Chapter 163) to provide adequate levels of service on the roads within the City. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan proposes to implement an extensive traffic circulation system over the next twenty years which will include roadway improvements, revised levels of service, and nonmotorized transportation provisions. Solid Waste - Currently, the City's solid waste is disposed at a local landfill. The City's solid waste disposal facility is currently operating under a year old consent order that directs the facility to be closed within three years. The Existing Comprehensive Plan states that the City is to provide adequate public facilities, but does not explain what constitutes "adequate". The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide a plan for the impending closure. The Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to provide the funding for solid waste disposal improvements. The clear goal of the Ordinance was to delay the approval of certain CIAS applications, site plans and building permits for 180 days while work continued on the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The City contends that the moratorium will help it to effectively implement the policies which it anticipates will be incorporated in the new comprehensive plan when it is finally in place. The Ordinance provided that the 180 day moratorium would begin on the effective date of the administrative rule approving the Ordinance. The City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the Ordinance. Normal rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, generally takes between 90 to 120 days. Many local governments experience a significant increase in development proposals immediately prior to the adoption of a new comprehensive plan. Many of these proposals are prompted by a fear as to the impact of the new plan and seek to acquire vested rights under the old plan. The City and DCA were concerned that such an increase in development proposals might complicate the planning process by rendering some aspects or assumptions of a new plan moot before the plan could even be adopted. Moratoria are frequently used by local governments in order to complete an effective comprehensive plan without the need for changes. In the year immediately proceeding the adoption of the Pending Comprehensive Plan by the City Commission (from September 1990 through September 1991), the City received seven CIAS applications. No CIAS applications had been received during the year prior. The City contends that many of the 1990/1991 applications were motivated by an attempt to obtain vested development rights. However, no persuasive evidence to support this speculation was presented. The City Commmission did not consider any reports, studies or other data in connection with the enactment of the Ordinance. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City Commission did not make any specific determinations that there were any immediate dangers to the public health, safety or welfare of the community nor was the Ordinance enacted as an emergency ordinance. After its adoption by the City Commission, the Ordinance was transmitted to DCA on September 5, 1991 for approval pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. The only information transmitted to DCA was a copy of the Ordinance. As indicated above, the City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the City's Ordinance. The City Planner contacted DCA to request approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City Planner and DCA concurred in the conclusion that the purpose of the Ordinance would be defeated if it was not immediately implemented. The City Commission did not specifically ask or authorize the City Planner to request DCA to enact the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City's concerns included, among other things, that the conversions of residential properties to transient tourist accommodations would accelerate during the process of finalizing the Pending Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City expects that its new comprehensive plan will reexamine the densities in coastal high hazard areas. By adopting a moratorium, the City sought to insure that any new developments will comply with the new densities ultimately adopted. On September 18, 1991, DCA filed the rule packet for the Emergency Rule with the Secretary of State and the Emergency Rule became effective on that date. DCA did not prepare an economic impact statement for the Emergency Rule. The rule packet consisted of: (a) a Certification Of Emergency Rule; (b) the Notice Of Emergency Rule; (c) a Statement Of The Specific Facts And Reasons For Finding An Immediate Danger To The Public Health, Safety And Welfare, (the "Statement of Specific Reasons") and (d) a Statement of the Agency's Reasons for Concluding that the Procedure Used Is Fair under the Circumstances (the "Agency Conclusions"). The Notice of Emergency Rule appeared in the September 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. In the Statement of Specific Reasons, DCA concluded that: ...Generally, a [comprehensive] plan revision process stimulates an accelerated rate of permit requests. Accelerated permitting including the acquisition of vested rights during a planning period will severly erode the City's ability to effectively revise and implement the comprehensive plan. Such accelerated development will also lead to further deterioration of current hurricane evacuation clearance time for the City. This action will increase the existing potential for loss of life and injury to person [sic] and property, will cause further deterioration of level [sic] of service on existing roadways and will lead to irreversible environmental degradation. Therefore this rule must be adopted by emergency procedures because of the potential immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare. In the Agency Conclusions, DCA concluded: The emergency rulemaking is fair because (1) it immediately approves the ordinance as adopted by the City of Key West Commission and (2) normal rulemaking would moot the intent of the adopted ordinance since the City of Key West would be required to continue accepting applications for building permits, site plans, of [CIAS's] covering work projects or both, as set forth in Section 2 of ordinance 91-25 until the Department's rule approving the ordinance becomes effective. DCA's Statement of Specific Reasons was not reviewed or discussed with the City or its planner prior to its preparation. In deciding to promulgate the Emergency Rule, DCA considered the major public facilities and natural resource problems confronting the City and the City's proposed strategy to deal with these problems in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. DCA concluded that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, and welfare currently exists within the City justifying the approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The evidence clearly indicates that the City is facing many significant problems from a planning perspective. Petitioner contends, however, that there is no evidence that any of those problems present an "immediate" threat to the public health, safety or welfare. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law below, this contention is rejected. On October 10, 1991, DCA filed a rule packet for the Proposed Rule with the Secretary of State. The rule packet consisted of the Notice Of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013, the Estimate of Economic Impact on All Affected Persons (the "EIS",) a Statement of the Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 (the "Statement of Facts"), a summary of the Proposed Rule, a Comparison with Federal Standards, a Statement of Impact on Small Business and the text of the Proposed Rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 appeared in the October 18, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On October 24, 1991, DCA filed a Notice of Change with the Secretary of State, stating that the correct number for the Proposed Rule was 9J-22.014, since 9J-22.013 had already been used. The Notice of Change appeared in the November 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. DCA did not consider any appraisals, data, reports or other studies concerning the economic impact that could result from the imposition of a moratorium. Instead, DCA followed the approach it had used in approving prior ordinances enacted by the City and concluded that its role in reviewing the Ordinance for compliance with the Priniciples Guiding Development did not require an examination of the economic impact of the underlying policy decisions reached by the City Commission in adopting the Ordinance. The EIS states that: Costs and benefits will occur as a result of this ordinance and were considered by the City prior to adoption of the ordinance. The City did not provide any information to DCA on the economic impacts of the Ordinance or on the impact of the Ordinance on the value of properties affected by it. The evidence was unclear as to the extent to which the City Commission considered economic impacts in deciding to adopt the Ordinance. Several public hearings were held in connection with the adoption of the Ordinance and DCA assumed that interested parties had an opportunity to express their concerns regarding the economic impact of the Ordinance at these hearings. DCA did not inquire as to the number of projects under review by the City at the time the Ordinance was passed nor did it seek a determination as to whether any projects with vested rights were affected by the Ordinance. The City Planning Department has retained a consultant, as required by the Ordinance, to conduct an economic study of existing conditions and projections for future growth. The purpose of this study is to assist in developing future amendments to the Ordinance. The study is not final and was not considered by the Key West City Commission when the Ordinance was enacted. DCA concluded that the proposed moratorium adopted by the Key West City Commission was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Therefore, DCA concluded that Section 380.0552 required it to approve the Ordinance. Petitioner has not presented any persuasive evidence to establish that the Ordinance is in any way inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Petitioner owns 6.8 acres of vacant real property on Atlantic Boulevard in the City. He purchased the property in 1974 with the intent to develop it. Petitioner's property is located in an R-2H zoning district. The City's future land use map designates Petitioner's property as multi-family. Petitioner has spent approximately $71,000.00 to hire architects, engineers, surveyors, planners, biologists and attorneys to aid him in preparing to develop the subject property. In 1989, Petitioner submitted applications for a Department of Environmental Regulation Surface Water Management permit, and an Army Corps of Engineers dredge-and-fill permit, but neither of those permits have been issued to date. Generally the City requires a developer to obtain these "higher-order" permits prior to issuing a building permit. Petitioner has never applied for or installed sewer service, water service or any other utility service to the property. Since he acquired the property, Petitioner has not cleared any vegetation on the property except for minor trimming adjacent to the roadway which was required by the City for safety purposes. In June of 1989, the City passed a resolution notifying the Department of Environmental Regulation that it opposed Petitioner's application to place fill upon the property. On April 10, 1991, Petitioner submitted a CIAS to the City for a proposed 96 unit residential development in three buildings on the subject property. Before the Ordinance was enacted, the City Planner prepared a report dated July 3, 1991 reviewing Petitioner's CIAS as required by the CIAS ordinance. In that review, the City Planner concluded: The project is located in the R-2H zoning district and conforms to all provisions of that district, thus requiring no variances or special exceptions. On August 6, 1991, the Key West City Commission considered Petitioner's CIAS. The City Commission refused to approve the Petitioner's CIAS application. Specifically, the City Commission determined that Petitioner's CIAS application was incomplete and that the "submerged land district" designation ("SL") applied to the Petitioner's property as an overlay zoning district because Petitioner's property is located in an area which is deemed to include wetlands and mangroves. The City Commission requested that the CIAS address the "submerged land district" before the CIAS application could be deemed complete. The City Planner was not present at the August 6, 1991 City Commission meeting. The "submerged land district" in Section 35.07(f), City of Key West Code, provides that the density and site alteration of "environmentally sensitive areas including but not limited to wetland communities, mangroves, tropical hardwood hammocks and salt ponds shall be zoned with a maximum density of one (1) unit per acre. Site alteration shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total size." The "submerged land district" overlay zone applies to any parts of the property which fall within the description of "environmentally sensitive areas" in Section 35.07, City of Key West Code. Because there is confusion over the interpretation and applicability of the SL district and because the SL land use district does not appear on the City's official zoning map, it was not considered in the preparation of the July 3 Report. The evidence in this case was inconclusive as to whether Petitioner's property is located in a SL district and/or whether Petitioner's CIAS for his property can be approved under the City regulations in place prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. On August 22, 1991, Petitioner submitted an amendment to the CIAS as well as a Site Plan. The amendment to the CIAS contests the City's conclusion that Petitioner's property should be considered part of a SL district. As set forth above, during this time period, the City had began consideration of the Ordinance. The first hearing on the Ordinance was held on June 18, 1991 and the Ordinance was passed by the City Commission on September 3, 1991. The City Planner notified Petitioner by letter dated October 11, 1991, that his CIAS Site Plan review and approval had been "stayed" because of the enactment of the Ordinance and because of the project's "inconsistencies with the City's Pending Comprehensive Plan." Petitioner requested an exception from the effect of the Ordinance pursuant to the procedure contained in the Ordinance. A hearing was held before the City Commission and the request was denied.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue (the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the Property to two dwelling units per acre. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on the Property "be served by central potable water and central sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development" and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design, buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern corner of the Property and that all traffic facility improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection, including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land, FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for assignment of a zoning classification for the land. Petitioners' Challenge Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by the County. Petitioners contend: The FLUMA is not consistent with the stormwater drainage, retention, and management policies contained in Policies 1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MDR is not suitable or compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners failed to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on “water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding,” as required by Section 187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA is not consistent with Transportation Policy 1.0 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in a safe and efficient manner within an established level of service." The FLUMA is not consistent with the State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does not "ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies," as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA does not direct development away from areas without sediment cover that is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer and does not prohibit non-residential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature, in violation of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA does not comply with Section 187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the protection of surface and ground water quality in the State. Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan provides in part: The County’s land development regulations shall implement the following guidelines for stormwater management consistent with accepted engineering practices by October 1, 2007: Stormwater retention/detention basin depth will be consistent with the water management district's storm water requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so that sufficient filtration of bacteria and other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be given special consideration. * * * d. Require the use of swales and drainage easements, particularly for single family residential development in Karst Sensitive Areas. These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs); they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst features. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of the Property. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners, testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run- off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally of the problems and concerns regarding development and stormwater management systems in karst topography. She testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that specific karst features should be identified, and that any stormwater system designed or developed should take into account karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property, had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular stormwater management system would or could adequately protect against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche, testified that a stormwater management plan like the one recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed. Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3 FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part: Before approval of a future land use amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed future land use is suitable, and the County will review, and make a determination that the proposed land use is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity . . . . Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and residential uses, including residential subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south and east of the Property are developed residential properties and are designated MDR. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land "provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner." FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18. The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the County already has determined that at least certain urban uses, including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. The Property is in the receiving area under the County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those objectives. This means that the County already has determined that residential density can be transferred to the Property from the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6. This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy 1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with MDR. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However, that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31 and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject of this proceeding. Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3 FLUE Policy 13.2 provides: The Transfer of Development Rights program shall be the required method for increasing density within receiving areas, unless, through the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, an applicant can both justify and demonstrate a need for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides: Before approval of a future land use amendment, . . . the County . . . shall evaluate its impact on: The need for the change; The availability of facilities and services; The future land use balance; and The prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be assessed within the planning districts it has established. There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010, which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are 1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates.6 Besides being a County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis, the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to the total projected need for residential use, most of which already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential land by 2015, much less by 2010. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide projected incremental need for additional residential land use for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide demonstration of need complied with Marion County's Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much less for a 2010 plan. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases. However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other cases were comparable to the facts of this case. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan comprehensively for a longer timeframe. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra.) Transportation Element Objective 1.0 Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides: Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in an efficient and safe manner within established levels of service. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However, Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5 Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist, the consequence would be less development than the maximum allowed by the FLUMA. FLUE Policy 4.2 FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part: In order to minimize the adverse impacts of development on recharge quality and quantity in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs protection areas, design standards for all development shall be required and defined in the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the following: * * * f. Directing development away from areas with sediment cover that is inadequate to protect the Floridian [sic] Aquifer. * * * h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other Karst feature. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of LDRs, not FLUMAs. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature under the FLUMA. Marion County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 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 4th day of February, 2009.
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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment for Site 7 is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The City of Groveland is located in Lake County, mostly north of State Road 50 and the northeastern corner of the Green Swamp. The core of the City is in the vicinity of the intersections of State Road 50 with State Road 33 (to the south) and State Road 19 (to the north). There are many lakes and wetlands within the City and surrounding the City in Lake County. The Green Swamp was designated an Area of Critical State Concern by the Florida Legislature in 1979. It consists of approximately 500 million acres south from the City through south Lake County and into Polk County. It is bordered on the east by U.S. Highway 27 and on the west extends over the County line into Sumter County. The Green Swamp is important as a statewide resource to Florida because it is one of the last remaining intact ecosystems in Florida. It is one of Florida's largest wetland systems, second only to the Everglades. It includes the headwaters of five rivers, and provides recharge to the Floridan Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for Florida. It is an ecologically and hydrologically significant resource. It provides habitat for many endangered species including gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and wood stork. In 2003, the City annexed the parcels known in this proceeding as Sites 4, 5, 6, and 7 from Lake County into the City. All of the parcels are located east of State Road 33 and south of State Road 50 and within the boundaries of the Green Swamp. Sites 4, 5, and 6 total 171.1 acres of wetlands bordering Sumner Lake and the City's boundaries before annexation. Site 7 consists of 361 acres (264 acres of uplands and 97 acres of wetlands). (There is an approximately 70-acre County "enclave" in the middle of Site 7 which remained in Lake County.) Site 7 currently is used to grow citrus. It is connected to the City through the other three sites and Sumner Lake. At the time of annexation (and until City plan amendments are found to be "in compliance"),4 the future land use designation for Sites 4, 5, and 6 was Lake County Rural/Conservation. Site 7 had and still has its Lake County future land use designations. Its 97 acres of wetlands are designated Lake County Rural/Conservation, which allows one dwelling unit per 10 acres, while the 264 acres of uplands are designated as Lake County Transition, which allows one unit per 5 acres, or one unit per acre if the “timeliness” criteria under the Lake County Comprehensive Plan are met. These parcels were the subject of the City's FLUM amendments adopted on August 2, 2004. The FLUM amendments changed the designation of Sites 4, 5, and 6 from County Rural/Conservation to City Conservation. These City designations have been found to be "in compliance." The FLUM amendments also changed the future land use designation of Site 7's 97 acres of wetlands to City Conservation, and its 264 acres of uplands to City of Groveland Green Swamp Single Family Rural Development (GSRD), which allows two dwelling units per acre. With a transfer of development rights from the undevelopable wetlands to the developable uplands, which would be allowed under both the City's and the County's comprehensive plans, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on Site 7 under the City's designation would increase to 532, up from the 57 allowed under the current County designations. Compliance Issues As indicated in the Preliminary Statement, DCA's Petition and SOI alleged that the City's Plan, as amended by the Site 7 FLUM amendment, is not "in compliance" because: (1) it is inconsistent with Rule Chapter 9J-5 because it fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(5); (2) it is internally inconsistent with the City's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 1-1.10.1 (land use allocation), 1-1.10.2 (promoting orderly compact growth), and 1-1.10.3 (coordination with Lake County to reduce urban sprawl), and Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Policy 7-1.1.3 (land use planning of adjacent lands); (3) it is inconsistent with the Green Swamp Guiding Principles; (4) it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), because it does not react appropriately to the data and analysis on environmental site suitability; and (5) it is inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Goal 17(a) and Policies 17(b)1.-2. Urban Sprawl It is no longer disputed that there is a demonstrated need for the additional residential development allowed by the Site 7 FLUM amendment. The real contention by DCA is that the development should not occur at Site 7. DCA's urban sprawl argument focuses on five of the 13 "primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl": 4. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. * * * Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g). Indicator 4 DCA's argument as to Indicator 4 is two-fold: Site 7 is surrounded by rural land; and increasing densities will harm the natural resources of the Green Swamp. Site 7 is immediately surrounded by generally rural uses. As indicated, wetlands and Sumner Lake are to the immediate northwest. Directly to the north of the northernmost portion of Site 7 is a sprayfield owned and operated by the City of Clermont. North of the sprayfield is an open water body. The east side of Site 7 adjoins a marshy area on the west side of Lake Palatlakaha. The south side of Site 7 abuts CR 565 and low wetlands areas, with Lake Wash and other rural lands and wetlands farther south. While immediately surrounded by rural lands (City Conservation, County Rural/Conservation, and County Transition), Site 7 is located approximately 3,000 feet (not three miles, as DCA's primary witness on this issue believed as late as her deposition in this case) south of State Road 50, a highly traveled, major road that connects West Central Florida to East Central Florida. Site 7 is in a fast-growing area less than two miles southeast of the center of the City. Immediately to the north of Sumner Lake is the Westwood residential subdivision which lies along the southern boundary of State Road 50. Existing homes are scattered around the sprayfield. Westwood is located within the City’s boundaries and in the Green Swamp. It has a future land use designation of Green Swamp Single Family Low Density Development (GSLD), which allows up to four single-family detached homes per acre. This corresponds to the Lake County Ridge designation it had at the time it was annexed into the City. Westwood currently is under construction, with many homes already occupied. Along the northern side of State Road 50 north of Westwood is a parcel within the City designated on the FLUM as Commercial, which is proposed to be used for a Publix grocery store, and the Green Valley Country Club, an existing golf course community. To the west of Site 7 is an existing golf course and water ski community known as the Swiss Ski School. It is located within unincorporated Lake County in the Green Swamp and has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for 296 residential units. To the west of the Swiss Ski School lie Stewart Lake and Olsen Lake and their associated wetlands, which are in the Green Swamp in the unincorporated County and have County designations of Rural/Conservation and Transition. Farther west, along State Road 33 and still in the Green Swamp, lie developments having FLUM designations of GSSFLD allowing up to four units per acre. Both those developments lie within City limits. To the south of Site 7, and in unincorporated Lake County, with a County designation of Transition, lies a subdivision along Monte Vista Road which is vested for residential development partly at a density of two units per acre and partly at one unit per acre. Although there will be wetlands and Sumner Lake in City Conservation designations between Site 7 and developments to the north and west in the City, leapfrog development is not a concern for Site 7 and its surrounding area. To the extent Site 7 is separated from other urban or suburban uses in the City by lakes, wetlands, and conservation lands, no urban, suburban or even rural development of those conservation lands should be expected, so that "leaping over" those undeveloped lands should not be considered an indicator of sprawl. For these reasons, it is found that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is not premature. Nor is the conversion from agricultural use to residential use poorly planned. The development will be compact and orderly, and public facilities and services are available. Natural resources already receive a significant amount of protection in the plan. The development of Site 7 will promote conservation of natural resources by allowing only uplands to be developed onsite and allowing a density of up to two units per acre. A lower density would be an inefficient use of developable land. An inefficient land use pattern encourages the premature conversion of environmentally significant lands. Indicators 6 and 7 DCA's arguments as to Indicators 6 and 7 essentially are that some public facilities and services will have to be extended to Site 7, that there are places in the City capable of development using only existing public facilities and services, and that the City has planned for future public facilities and services elsewhere--namely, in the North Overlay, which is described below. As for existing public facilities and services (Indicator 6), development under the site 7 FLUM amendment will receive the same public services of law enforcement, fire, emergency services, and schools as are currently available to Site 7, at a lower residential density, under the existing Lake County Transition land use. Pursuant to an interlocal agreement with Lake County, the City already provides law enforcement services not only to Site 7 and surrounding areas in the City, but also to adjacent areas in unincorporated Lake County. As the City already provides public services in the area, it will be more cost-efficient to spread those costs among more homeowners. The proposed amendment will allow more homeowners to share these costs. DCA's only response to these facts, some of which were not known by DCA's expert witness, was that "the increased population on the site may require additional staff and facilities to serve the population." DCA's PRO, at 41. As for water and sewer, as indicated, a connection to central water and sanitary sewer is available at State Road 50, approximately 3,000 feet from Site 7 (a fact also not known by DCA's expert witness until shortly before the hearing). The developer will be required to pay for the cost of the new lines to Site 7. After those lines are installed, nearby property owners can voluntarily connect to central water and sewer. A few of the nearby property owners who have septic tanks have indicated an interest in connecting to the Site 7 sewer lines. For these reasons, the proposed amendment would result in an efficient use of central water and sanitary sewer facilities. As for future public facilities and services (Indicator 7), in 2003, as a result of a settlement agreement between the City and DCA on the City's 2003 plan amendment, the City proposed and adopted the "Groveland North Overlay" area and associated policies as a plan for future growth. The North Overlay was found to be "in compliance," is part of the City's FLUE, and is designated on Map 1-7 of the City’s FLUM series. The North Overlay is located to the north of the existing City limits and consists of several thousand acres. It is identified as an area in which future annexations are likely to take place in order to meet growth needs. The area is adjacent to parcels already annexed by the City, designated for urban densities, and planned for public facilities. It allows for a mix of uses. It shows that the City had identified a growth strategy to meet its need for the planning timeframe and beyond. It was established to ensure that, as land in the North Overlay was annexed into the City, new development would not develop as urban sprawl, but rather would be managed in a way which created a more effective land use pattern. While adopting the North Overlay, the City has a policy to annex land only on a voluntary basis. It does not exercise its rights under Section 171.0413, Florida Statutes, to require contiguous, compact unincorporated territory to annex. For this reason, it is difficult for the City to foresee with certainty which lands will annex into its municipal boundaries. In addition, starting in the mid-1990's, before adopting the North Overlay, the City began to annex land to the south in the Green Swamp. At that time, the City began the process of amending its comprehensive plan to include provisions to comply with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Green Swamp. In late 2000, the City embarked on a study to guide development and facilitate municipal expansion in the Green Swamp. The DCA provided funding for the study through a technical assistance grant. DCA also provided feedback for the study. The City hired a private consulting firm to do the study and produce a series of four quarterly reports. The final report is entitled "City of Groveland Small Area Study Final Report November 1, 2001." The Small Area Study considered an area of approximately 2,580 acres in the Green Swamp, which the City reasonably projected may be annexed. The geographic boundaries of the study were larger in the first three phases of the study, but were constricted for the final report at the request of DCA planner, Bob Dennis, to be closer to State Road 33. In addition, future annexations were projected to be phased, with areas closer to State Road 33 projected to occur before areas farther away from there. Site 7 is even farther away from State Road 33 and entirely outside the final boundaries of the Small Area Study. But the Small Area Study was not intended to bind the City, or restrict the City's annexation rights and powers, or change the City's policy of voluntary annexation. In other words, the projected annexations and phasing did not preclude consideration of out- of-phase or out-of-area annexations. The DCA grant required the Small Area Study to evaluate the area south of Groveland using several criteria, including upland area, utility availability and expansion, road/transportation network, Lake County land use designation, current land use activities, environmental assessment impacts, and the Green Swamp rules. The Small Area Study recommended that the City adopt two land use categories to apply to residential development in the Green Swamp: a land use category allowing a maximum of four units per acre, and another land use category allowing a maximum of two units per acre. A requirement of 60 percent open space and limitations on impervious surface for residential development also were recommended. For the protection of the Green Swamp and the Floridian Aquifer, the study also recommended that clustered development be encouraged and that central water and sewer be provided. The Small Area Study also recommended that wetlands be designated a Conservation land use. The Small Area Study also recommended that the plan require an upland buffer of 50 feet from the edge of the wetland line and that all development be prohibited in wetlands and floodplains. The City adopted those recommendations, as well as others. All of those plan amendments were found be DCA to be "in compliance." One of those amendments, FLUE Policy 1.3.11, prohibits any structure in the Green Swamp to be located within fifty feet of a wetland line. This requirement exceeds the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) performance standards for wetland buffers, which require an average uplands buffer of 25 feet, with a minimum buffer of 15 feet, as well as the standard included in the plan’s Conservation Policy 7.3.5, which applies only to development located outside of the Green Swamp, and requires an average buffer of 50 feet, with a minimum buffer of 25 feet. FLUE Policy 1.3.3 and Conservation Policy 7.13.1 prohibit all development in the wetlands and floodplains for land located within the Green Swamp. This policy is more stringent than the Guiding Principles and Rule 9J-5. Rule 28- 28.008(1) provides performance criteria for development in flood-prone areas, which may be adopted in land development regulations applying in Lake County portions of the Green Swamp. Rule 9J-5.013(3)(b) requires that land uses be distributed to allow wetland impacts to be minimized and mitigated. The City also implemented the recommendations of the Small Area Study for the two residential land use categories. As already indicated, the City adopted the GSLD land use category, allowing a density of up to four units per acre. FLUE Policy 1.1.17. It also adopted the GSRD land use category in FLUE Policy 1.1.18, allowing a density of up to two single family detached homes per acre. Both categories require that at least 60 percent of the property remain in open space and that development be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site. The amendments adopting the GSLD and GSRD land use categories were found by DCA to be "in compliance" and consistent with the Principles of Guiding Development in the Green Swamp. However, those categories were not yet assigned to all land considered in the Small Area Study, much less land outside its final boundaries. The appropriateness of GSRD for Site 7 is the issue in this case. Indicator 8 DCA's arguments as to Indicator 8 essentially focus on the timeliness provision in Lake County's Transition designation and the requirement to provide some new public facilities and services as a result of the City's Site 7 FLUM amendment. See Finding 4, supra. Development of Site 7 under Lake County's Transition designation would be limited to one unit per five acres. Site 7 would not qualify for development at one unit per acre under the timeliness provision, which requires more than 40 percent of the surrounding area within a mile radius, and 60 percent of the surrounding area within a two-mile radius, to be developed at a density of one unit per acre or greater.5 In addition, development of Site 7 under the City's FLUM amendment would make one unit per acre development of the 70- acre County "enclave" within Site 7 timely, which in turn may make one unit per acre development of other County land in the vicinity timely under Lake County's Transition designation. In effect, DCA fears that the City's Site 7 FLUM amendment will have a "domino effect" that will trigger rapid, wholesale conversion of rural County Transition land that can be developed at one unit per five acres to Transition land "timely" for development at one unit per acre. But DCA did not prove that its fear is reasonable. DCA also fears that the City's Site 7 FLUM amendment ultimately will result in too much residential development in the Green Swamp. But future County land use designation changes that will harm the Green Swamp will be subject to challenge by DCA. In any event, whether the City's FLUM change at issue in this case is timely depends on a number of factors besides just the timeliness provision of Lake County's Transition designation. Indicator 8 addresses allowing "land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services," not just patterns or timing that increases those costs. (Emphasis added). DCA did not prove that extending water and sewer lines will be a disproportionately high cost for the developer to pay and pass on to homeowners. The water and sewer lines will be placed along an existing right-of-way and will be required to be extended approximately 3,000 feet to reach Site 7. Longer lines have been installed within City limits. Also, as discussed above relating to Indicators 6 and 7, the Site 7 FLUM amendment will allow a greater sharing of expenses of facilities and services. Indicator 9 As to Indicator 9, there is some merit to DCA's argument that the Site 7 FLUM amendment fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. But this is partly because of the lakes and wetlands between Site 7 and those urban uses. In addition, there are some urban-like uses between Site 7 and other urban uses in the City. See Finding 14, supra. Internal Consistency DCA's Petition and SOI alleged that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is internally inconsistent with other parts of the City's comprehensive plan addressing urban sprawl considerations: FLUE Policies 1-1.10.1, 1-1.10.2, and 1- 1.10.3; and ICE Policy 7-1.1.3. After the Site 7 FLUM amendment was adopted, the City further amended its comprehensive plan. FLUE Policies 1-1.10.1, 1-1.10.2, and 1- 1.10.3 became, respectively: Policy 1.1.2; Objective 1.6 and Policy 1.6.1; and Policy 1.6.2. ICE Policy 7-1.1.3 was replaced by ICE Policy 11.1.1, and there was no objection to substituting the new, equivalent policy for purposes of this proceeding. FLUE Policy 1.1.2 states: The City shall designate land use on the [FLUM] to accommodate needs identified within the Comprehensive Plan supporting document (i.e., Data Inventory & Analysis). The City shall allocate a reasonable amount of land above identified needs to avoid economic impacts which a controlled supply of land places on land values and market potential. As found, it is undisputed that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is internally consistent with this policy. In its response to the ORC, the City adequately demonstrated that it had a need for additional residential land to accommodate its future population. Moreover, the ratio between the City's future land use needs and population growth is only slightly more than 1:1. The Site 7 FLUM amendment does not create an over- allocation of land uses in relation to its estimated population growth. Again, DCA's challenge is to the location of Site 7. FLUE Objective 1.6 states: "Discourage urban sprawl through a future land use pattern which promotes orderly, compact development." FLUE Policy 1.6.1 states: Land use patterns delineated on the [FLUM] shall promote orderly, compact growth. The City shall encourage growth and development in existing developed areas where public facilities and services are presently in place and in those areas where public facilities can provide the most efficient service. Land shall not be designated for growth and development if abundant undeveloped land is already present within developed areas served by facilities and services." Based on the findings as to the urban sprawl indicators, supra, DCA did not prove that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.6 and Policy 1.6.1, much less that internal consistency is beyond fair debate. FLUE Policy 1.6.2 states: "The City of Groveland shall coordinate with Lake County through a Joint Planning Agreement to develop an areawide [sic] planning approach by 2010, taking into account environmental suitability, functional relationships and areas where public facilities and services are available or proposed to be available by year 2020." ICE Policy 11.1.1 states: "The City of Groveland shall continue to work closely with Lake County, Lake County School Board, other municipalities and affected regional, state and national government agencies to coordinate the comprehensive planning effort of the City with those agencies affected, through the provision of information and participation on committees and working parties." DCA did not prove that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.6.2 or ICE Policy 11.1.1, much less that internal consistency is beyond fair debate. To the extent that internal consistency requires that the local government to comply with the intergovernmental coordination provisions in its comprehensive plan when it proposes and adopts plan amendments, DCA also did not prove that the City failed to do so, much less that its failure to comply is beyond fair debate. The City regularly coordinates its plan amendments with Lake County. The City provided a copy of its 2004-02 amendment package to Lake County when the amendment was transmitted to DCA, as was indicated to DCA in the transmittal amendment cover letter to DCA. A local government’s submittal to an adjacent local government of a copy of an amendment under review is a common way for a local government to coordinate amendments with other local governments. The City also regularly coordinates planning issues with Lake County and other Lake County municipalities by attending meetings of their planning departments. Obviously, the Site 7 FLUM amendment was adopted long before FLUE Policy 1.6.2's 2010 target for a joint planning agreement. At this time, there is no voluntary joint planning strategy with which it can be argued that this amendment is inconsistent. At the hearing, DCA was permitted to also argue internal inconsistency with new plan provisions adopted in July 2005, and found to be “in compliance” in September 2005 (but not provisions adopted in September 2005 and under DCA challenge at the time of the hearing).6 Newly adopted Sanitary Sewer Objective 5.3 reads: MAXIMIZE EXISTING FACILITIES AND DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL. The City shall maximize existing sanitary sewer facilities within its service area and promote compact efficient growth patterns. This objective must be read in conjunction with related Sanitary Sewer Policy 5.3.1, which requires all new development in the City to connect to the central sanitary sewer system, as well as with FLUE Policy 1.1.18, which requires all development in land designated GSRD to connect to central water and sanitary sewer utilities. Density is related to the ability to provide central sewer and water services. If a developer runs new water and sewer lines, which he must do at his own cost in the City, compact density will make development more economical for those services and will encourage an efficient land use pattern. A density of two units per acre is financially feasible for providing central water and sewer to Site 7, whereas the evidence was that a density of one unit per five acres, as urged by DCA, is not cost-effective for Site 7, at least given the developer's $6.5 million land acquisition cost. As the use of septic tanks is not an option in the City for any new development, a contiguous and compact form of development is essential not only for the property in question, but also for future development sites. Development of Site 7 will be connected to an existing City-owned and operated wastewater treatment plant, which has adequate capacity for the maximum of 532 homes allowed by the amendment. As the amendment will allow a compact development pattern of two units per acre and will maximize the use of an existing sewer facility, it is not internally inconsistent with ICE Objective 5.3. Newly-adopted ICE Objective 11.2 requires the City to implement a strategy to ensure the efficient provision of urban services, sound urban development, and accommodation of growth. The objective identifies negotiating interlocal agreements with Lake County and other local governments for joint planning areas and for providing public services. ICE Objective 11.2 requires future intergovernmental coordination and is not self-implementing. The Site 7 FLUM amendment is not internally inconsistent with ICE Objective 11.2. Guiding Principles The Guiding Principles were adopted by rule by the Administration Commission in 1974 and subsequently were approved by reference by the Legislature. See Rule 28-26.003; Ch. 79-73, § 5, Laws of Florida (1979). Preceding Rule Chapter 9J-5 and modern Florida statutory requirements for local comprehensive plans, the Guiding Principles actually were adopted to provide guidelines for the adoption of land development regulations. See Rule 28-26.004 and Rule Chapter 28-28, Land Planning-Part VII Boundary and Regulations for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern-Lake County; § 380.0551(2), Fla. Stat. The City's plan contains goals, objectives, and policies that are consistent with the Guiding Principles. Nonetheless, DCA contends that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives to be achieved under the Green Swamp Guiding Principles, Rule 28-26.003(1): Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands, and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Protect the water available for aquifer recharge. * * * (j) Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins.7 One of the primary reasons for designating the Green Swamp as an area of Critical State Concern is its relatively high aquifer recharge capabilities. This results from the relative proximity of the surficial aquifer to the ground surface, together with relatively high rate at which water percolates through the soils overlying the surficial aquifer. The relatively high aquifer recharge rate results in a relatively high potentiometric surface in the underlying Floridan aquifer (Central Florida's primary drinking water source) and drives the groundwater system throughout Central and Southwest Florida. Florida contains many areas of no recharge, but low- to-moderate recharge characteristics are common throughout Florida. Within the Green Swamp, there are areas of low, moderate, and high aquifer recharge, depending primarily on the proximity of the surficial aquifer to the ground surface and the characteristics of the overlying soils. In the area of Site 7, the surficial aquifer is approximately 150 feet below ground surface. Site 7 has both Type A (sandy, upland) soils, which have a high infiltration rate, and Type B (wetlands) soils. The area has been regionally mapped by SJRWMD as having a net recharge rate of 0-4 inches (low) on the western side of the site, and 4-8 inches (moderate) on the eastern part of the site. As such, these recharge characteristics of Site 7 can be said to be "common" for the Green Swamp. As for groundwater contamination, a map of the Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Vulnerability admitted into evidence by DCA showed that the groundwater for Site 7 and the surrounding area are "more vulnerable" to contamination. However, DCA did not present a map for other parts of the Green Swamp or the rest of Florida for comparison purposes, and its expert witness on the subject was unable to quantify vulnerability or directly compare Site 7 to other parts of the Green Swamp and the rest of Florida. However, he did testify that areas of "high vulnerability" extend all the way to the west of Tallahassee and that the western part of the Green Swamp generally is more vulnerable to groundwater contamination than the eastern part, where Site 7 is, because the surficial aquifer is at or near the ground surface in the western part of the Green Swamp. As to the natural flow regime of drainage basins, Site 7 lies in the Oklawaha River Drainage Basin. The natural local drainage of Site 7 is into the Palatlakaha River via several smaller drainage sub-basins: Sumner Lake Outlet, Palatlakaha Reach, Lake Wash Outlet, and Pine Island Outlets. The Palatlakaha is a major tributary to the Oklawaha River. DCA did not prove that the Site 7 FLUM amendment will adversely impact the natural flow regime of the drainage basin Site 7 is in. DCA did not prove that Site 7 has any hydrologic or environmental characteristics that would require more protection than other parts of the Green Swamp. It follows that DCA did not prove a need for Site 7 to have a lower density than is allowed under the GSRD land use category already approved by DCA for the Green Swamp. Similar residential densities also have been approved in other parts of the Green Swamp. A plan's goals, objectives and policies must be considered when evaluating the impacts of development allowed by a land use category. The FLUM, the goals, objectives, and polices are interrelated. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. The hydrologic features and functions addressed in the Guiding Principles are protected in the plan, and those protections have been found by DCA to be consistent with the Guiding Principles. Those plan provisions will guide development to ensure that the aquifer, wetlands, flood detention areas, groundwater, surface water, Lake Sumner, and the natural flow of the drainage basin will be appropriately protected. The essence of DCA's argument that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the Guiding Principles is that, regardless of how much protection the plan's provisions afford, the Site 7 FLUM will allow approximately ten times the various impacts of development--e.g., impacts on wetlands, reduction of aquifer recharge due to increased impervious surfaces, water quality impacts, and water quantity impacts-- at one unit to five acres under the current Lake County Transition designation, so that adverse impacts are not minimized, and resources are not protected, as envisioned in the Guiding Principles. There are several flaws in DCA's argument, even assuming the impact factor of ten. First, the logical extension of DCA's argument would be that minimization and protection require no additional adverse impacts. If so, development at one unit per acre under Lake County Transition's timeliness provisions--a fivefold increase in impacts, under DCA's rationale--also would be inconsistent with the Guiding Principles. Second, planning should be based on reality,8 and DCA did not prove that residential development would occur on Site 7 at one unit to five acres. To the contrary, while continued development of small parcels in areas designated Lake County Transition is plausible, the evidence was that it is financially infeasible to develop Site 7 as a whole residentially at that density.9 For that reason, while ordinarily it is appropriate only to compare potential impacts from different possible land use designations, in this case it is appropriate to consider the impacts of the current use of Site 7 as an orange grove when deciding whether the Site 7 FLUM amendment is consistent with the Guiding Principles. The evidence was clear that, under all the criteria in the Guiding Principles cited by DCA, residential development under the Site 7 FLUM amendment is far preferable to the continued use of the property as an orange grove10--the likely if not absolutely clear result of maintaining Lake County's Transition designation.11 Third, as mentioned in Finding 57, supra, it was clear from the evidence that DCA has found residential land use designations of two units per acre and greater not only elsewhere in the Green Swamp, both in the City and elsewhere, to be consistent with the Guiding Principles, and DCA failed to explain why those densities would be consistent with the Guiding Principles elsewhere but not at Site 7. Again under this issue, DCA in effect fears that the City's Site 7 FLUM amendment will have a "domino effect" that will ultimately result in the entire Green Swamp being designated for two-unit per acre residential densities. But the entire Green Swamp is not like Site 7. Future County land use designation changes that actually will harm the Green Swamp will be subject to challenge by DCA, and it is unreasonable to assume that DCA will allow densities of two units per acre throughout the Green Swamp if it is allowed at Site 7. Environmental Suitability For essentially the same reasons DCA argues inconsistency with urban sprawl rules and plan provisions and with the Guiding Principles, DCA also contends that the City did not react appropriately to data and analysis indicating Site 7's alleged environmental unsuitability for residential development at two units per acre. Based on the previous findings, DCA did not prove that allegation.12 State Comprehensive Plan DCA alleges that the Site 7 FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan's Public Facilities goal and two related policies. Public Facilities Goal (a) addresses the need to protect substantial investments in existing public facilities. Related Policy (17)(b)1. provides incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Public Facilities Policy 17(b)2. promotes the "rehabilitation and reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction." As discussed above in the urban sprawl findings, the Site 7 FLUM amendment encourages the efficient use of existing public facilities. The increase in density, which the amendment allows, may be viewed as a land use incentive that encourages the maximization of existing public facilities both as to Site 7 and as to surrounding properties that may later connect to City utilities. The amendment furthers Public Facilities Goal (a) and Policy (b)(1). The Site 7 FLUM amendment also does not undermine or conflict with Policy (b)(2). The City’s plans to rehabilitate a downtown community redevelopment area (CRA) will not be adversely affected by development allowed by the proposed amendment. Also, there is insufficient land within the CRA to accommodate the City’s projected housing and land use needs. The amendment is not inconsistent with this policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the City's Site 7 FLUM amendment to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act), the State Comprehensive Plan (Section 187.201, F.S.), the West Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Findings Of Fact 1. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2-4. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. Rejected, argumentative. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8. Rejected, argumentative and legal conclusion. 9-12. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13. Rejected, legal conclusion. 14-17. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence and much of these proposed findings are argumentative legal conclusions. 18-21. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Also many of these proposed findings are merely arguments of law. 22-36. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Again, many of these proposed findings are argumentative and mere conclusions of law as opposed to statements of factual findings supported by the record of evidence admitted at hearing. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. 40-42. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 43. Adopted by reference. 44-48. Rejected, argumentative, mere recitation of testimony. 49. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 50-62. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence, argumentative, and, again, counsel argues law as opposed to presenting facts. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, the failure of the county to adopt a traffic circulation map simply renders moot any need for discussion of adequacy of maps in data and analysis. 66-67. Rejected, see statement for finding number 65 above. 68-69. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 70-71. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Counsel continues also to engage in legal argument as opposed to presenting findings of fact. 77-79. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's finding of fact. Rejected, generally this finding consist of an argumentative conclusion of law. 82-83. Rejected, the weight of the evidence does not support findings that these policies comply with requirements of 9J5. 84-96. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence does not support any finding that these objectives comply with requirements of 9J5. 97-118. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 George Ralph Miller, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433 Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 David J. Russ, Esq. Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esq. Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Fred H. Kent, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 53075 Jacksonville, FL 32201-3075 Chris Cadenhead, Esquire Post Office Box 5354 Destin, FL 32540 Richard Grosso, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission for enter a final order determining that the Walton County Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1080GM The following constitutes my specific rulings in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on Findings of Fact submitted by the parties.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002),1 and, if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Ellsworth served as a member of the Treasure Island City Commission from 1998 to 2004. Ellsworth is subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees for his acts and omissions during his tenure as a city commissioner for the City of Treasure Island (City or Treasure Island). Agnes Rice is presently one of the largest private land owners on Treasure Island. She owns property north of 127th Avenue. The portion of her properties north of 127th Avenue and east of Gulf Boulevard is known as "Kingfish Point." Her property north of 127th Avenue and west of Gulf Boulevard is known as the Rock House property. Mrs. Rice has ownership interests in at least two corporations doing business at Kingfish Point: John's Pass Marina, Inc., and Gator's on the Pass, Inc. John's Pass Marina, Inc., also owns land on Kingfish Point. Mrs. Rice hired an attorney, Tim Ferguson (Ferguson), who also had a master's degree in urban regional planning, to assist her in finding out the highest and best use for her properties on the north end of Treasure Island. Ferguson became a member of Mrs. Rice's advisory board, consisting of three attorneys, an accountant, and her son, Sid Rice. The advisory board had discussions with Mrs. Rice about assembling her properties on Kingfish Point. Mrs. Rice retained Ferguson to go before the City Commission and to meet with City officials to try to change the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to gain more flexible land use for her properties. Thereafter, Ferguson actively lobbied his ideas for amendments to the LDRs on behalf of Mrs. Rice before City officials in public meetings, as well as individual meetings with City officials and City Commissioners. At the same time, Ferguson was lobbying for amendments to the LDRs on behalf of 13 other clients. When Ferguson appeared before the City Commission concerning the amendments to the LDRs, he stated that he represented Agnes Rice as well as other property owners. In January 24, 2000, Ferguson met with Lynn Rosetti (Rosetti) and City Manager Chuck Coward to discuss things that could be done with the Rice property at the north end of Treasure Island. On January 30, 2000, Ferguson and Sid Rice met with Rosetti and the City manager to discuss some kind of hotel or resort that included mixed uses such as a mix of commercial, residential, and hotel. Ferguson and Rice also inquired about the possibility of vacating a right of way and about a height variance. Thereafter, Ferguson had meetings with Rosetti and the City manager on July 17, 2000; August 3, 2000; August 4, 2000; April 4, 2001; October 30, 2001; April 25, 2002; and May 7, 2002. Ferguson wanted amendments to the LDRs that allowed mixed-use development, height incentives, development agreements and planned community development. He provided input to the City officials on those issues. Some of Ferguson's suggestions were later incorporated into amendments to the LDRs. In April 2002, City staff presented to the mayor, the City Commission, and the Treasure Island Planning and Zoning Board (Planning and Zoning Board) proposed amendments to the LDRs in a report and draft ordinance, which included amendments that could be passed through the local ordinance process and amendments that would require comprehensive plan amendments before they could be implemented. Major components of the proposed amendments that could be passed by local ordinance without comprehensive plan amendments included the concepts of mixed uses in the Commercial General (GC), Resort Facilities (FRM-30), and the Resort Facilities High (RFH-50) zoning classifications; accessory uses; density/intensity averaging; grand-fathering existing hotel/motel density for redevelopment in CG, RFM-30, and RFH-50; a height redefinition, giving an additional five feet in height to all zoning categories; bulk standards-height bonuses (height increase incentive plan) in CG and RFH-50; and development agreements. The proposed amendments requiring amendments to the comprehensive plan included the concepts of density bonuses in RFH-50; floor area ratios in RFM- 30 and RFH-50; increase in hotel/motel density in CG; and transfer of development rights. On May 3, 2002, the City manager and the City planner prepared and submitted to the mayor and members of the City Commission a memorandum identifying those proposed changes to the LDRs that could be addressed by the local ordinance process and those that would require amendments to the comprehensive plan. On May 21, 2002, a Commission Workshop Session was held during which a first draft ordinance was presented to the City Commission. The first draft ordinance deleted proposed changes to LDRs that would require changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ellsworth voted in favor of passing proposed modifications to the City's LDRs. The first draft ordinance was incorporated into Resolution 02-48 for the draft ordinance's second reading and consideration on May 28, 2002. At the meeting on May 28, 2002, Ellsworth voted in favor of referring Resolution No. 02-48 to the Planning and Zoning Board for review and recommendation. The City Commission's vote to pass Resolution 02-48 and refer the ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board was not merely a ministerial act. Rather, it was a required step in the process of adopting the amendments to the LDRs. The draft ordinance referred to the Planning and Zoning Board included the following proposed changes to the LDRs: Various definitions applicable to LDRs, including definitions for density, density averaging, floor area ratio, and transfer of development rights. Amendments to the Property Development Regulations applicable to GC, RFM-30 and RFH-50 permitting mixed uses under the following conditions: "Mixed uses shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the total lot area." A new section relating to mixed uses, which authorized mixed-use developments within CG, RFM-30, and RFH-50; required site plan review for all proposed mixed-use projects; established rules for special exceptions for mixed-use projects; and provided for an unspecified percentage reduction in the parking requirements for a mixed-use project when it is determined that peak demand for parking of the various uses occurs at different times. A new section permitting density/intensity averaging between RFH-50, RFM-30, and GC for either hotel/motel uses or a mixed-use development that has a hotel/motel as the predominate use; providing that the shifting of any density/intensity could be used either between the same land districts or from a lower density district to a higher density district; and requiring that any project using density/intensity averaging would require written evidence of such averaging in a development agreement to be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. A new section establishing a height incentive increase plan, permitting an increase in the maximum allowable height for hotels/motels in the RFH-50 and GC land use districts. A new section providing for development agreements subject to the following requirements: Any interested party may make a proposal for a development agreement at any time prior to the completion of discretionary approvals for the development of a project. Such a proposal shall be formulated with the applicant and the City manager. A proposed development agreement shall be adopted, amended, or resolved by following the procedures outlined in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, for development agreements. At a minimum, the City Commission shall hold a public hearing following the notification procedures set forth in Section 70- 12 of the City Code. Development agreement shall be adopted by ordinance and may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. After completing its review of the proposed changes to the LDRs, the Planning and Zoning Board referred the proposed changes to the City Commission with recommendations for modifications. The recommendations were summarized as follows: The most significant recommendation being made by the Planning and Zoning Board involves density averaging and the height incentive increase plan. The Board is recommending that both tools be placed under the umbrella of Development Agreements so that there can be more control over how and when such tools are used. In addition, they are recommending that the height incentive increase plan can only be used north of 104th Avenue to John's Pass and shall apply only to parcels that are one (1) acre or more in size. Finally these recommended changes include the requirement that any such development agreement would be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board prior to the City Commission taking action on the development agreement. In that manner, a second set of checks and balances will occur prior to the density averaging and the height incentive increase plan being utilized. The City planner was directed by the City Commission to work up a draft ordinance including the modifications recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. The draft ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 02-06. On October 8, 2002, the City Commission considered on first reading Ordinance No. 02-06, which reflected the proposed changes to the LDRs as proposed by City staff as modified by the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board. At the meeting, the City planner noted two problems with the proposed ordinance as it related to the provisions relating to the height incentive increase plan included as part of the development agreement provisions of the LDRs. First, there was an inconsistency between the first sentence of the proposed ordinance applicable to RFH-50 and CG with the provisions of subsection (4) applicable to RFH, RFM-30 and CG. The City planner recommended that the height incentive increase plan be applied only in RFH-50. Second, the City planner recommended deletion of the restriction that the height incentive increase plan apply only north of the 104th Avenue, because City staff had advised that the City could not split a land use district for disparate treatment. The City planner's suggested changes were accepted by the City Commission, and the proposed ordinance was passed forward to second reading. Ellsworth participated in the vote on October 8, 2002, voting in the affirmative on moving the proposed ordinance to second reading. On October 22, 2002, the City Commission considered on second reading Ordinance No. 02-06, as modified by the City Commission on first reading on October 8, 2002. Ellsworth participated in the vote on October 22, 2002, voting with the majority to approve the ordinance. The votes taken by the City Commission on October 8, and 22, 2002, were steps that were necessary in the process to amend the LDRs. Resolution No. 02-48 and Ordinance 02-06 (at its initial reading on October 8, 2002, and as finally passed on October 22, 2002) had modifications that were beneficial to landowners on Treasure Island. The total acreage of land in the City is 766.4885 acres. Of the total acreage, 40.4860 acres are zoned CG, 46.3162 acres are zoned RFM-30, and 46.3162 acres are zoned RFH-50. At the time of Ellsworth's votes for Resolution 02-48 and Ordinance 02-06, he was employed as the general manager of John's Pass Marina, Inc., and also worked for Gator's on the Pass, Inc. Agnes Rice is the sole owner of John's Pass Marina, Inc., and has an ownership interest in Gator's on the Pass, Inc. John's Pass Marina, Inc., owned 1.59 acres of property zoned CG at 12795 Gulf Boulevard/Kingfish Drive where John's Pass Marina is located. The property owned by John's Pass Marina, Inc., comprises slightly more than 3.9 percent of the property zoned CG in the City. Agnes Rice individually owned several parcels of land in the City, at various locations, at the time that Ellsworth voted on Resolution 02-48 and Ordinance 02-06. Most of the properties owned in the Kingfish Point area are owned by Mrs. Rice, including the "Rock House" property, which is .91 acres located on the western side of Gulf Boulevard at 12714 Gulf Boulevard and is classified as RFH-50. Mrs. Rice also owns three other parcels on the western side of Gulf Boulevard which are classified as RFH-50: .14 acre at 12717 Sunshine Lane; .12 acre at 12721 Sunshine Lane; and .02 acre with an address listed as Coney Island. Mrs. Rice's total acreage classified as RFH-50 is 1.19 acres. Agnes Rice also owns other properties in the Kingfish Point area, including properties upon which the following businesses are located: Gator's Café and Saloon, Gator's Gift Shop, Majesty Cruise Lines office, some rental properties, a parasailing business, and a high and dry boat storage. Of these properties owned by Agnes Rice, 3.92 acres are classified as CG: .6 acre at 12766 Gulf Boulevard; 1.89 acres at 12781 Kingfish Drive; .78 acre at 12783 Gulf Boulevard; and .65 acre at 12725 Gulf Boulevard. Less than one acre of the property owned by Agnes Rice in the Kingfish Point area was classified as residential: .19 acre lot, three .12 acre lots, one .11 acre lot and .08 acre lot at 12700 to 12714 Lagoon Drive and 110 127th Avenue. The properties owned by John's Pass Marina, Inc., and Agnes Rice that were zoned CG were affected by the votes Ellsworth cast for Resolution 02-48 and Ordinance 02-06. There are properties owned by Agnes Rice on Treasure Island, other than property zoned CG, which were affected by the votes Ellsworth cast for Resolution 02-48 and Ordinance 02-06. The 1.59 acres in the CG land use category owned by John's Pass Marina, Inc., at the time of the subject votes, constituted the following percentages of land on Treasure Island: approximately 3.92 percent of the total acreage of CG; 1.81 percent of the combined acreage in CG and RFH-50; and 1.18 percent of the combined acreage in CG, RFH-50, and RFM-30. Considering the 1.59 acres in CG owned by John's Pass Marina, Inc., plus the 3.92 acres of CG owned by Mrs. Rice on Kingfish Point, the total acres in CG owned by Mrs. Rice and her corporation at the time of the subject votes constituted the following percentages of land on Treasure Island: 13.6 percent of the total CG; 6.26 percent of the combined acreage in CG and RFH-50; and 4.1 percent of the combined acreage in CG, RFH-50, and RFM-30. Considering the 1.59 acres in CG owned by John's Pass Marina, Inc., plus the 3.92 acres of CG owned by Mrs. Rice on Kingfish Point plus the 1.19 acres of RFH-50 owned by Mrs. Rice north of 127th Avenue, the total 6.7 acres CG and RFH-50 owned by Mrs. Rice and her corporation at the time of the subject votes constituted the following percentages of land on Treasure Island: 7.6 percent of the combined acreage in CG and RFH-50 and 4.99 percent of the combined acreage in CG, RFH-50 and RFM-30. When interviewed by an investigator for the Commission on Ethics in this case prior to Ellsworth's voting on Ordinance 02-06 on October 8 and 22, 2002, Ellsworth advised the investigator that he was employed by A.E. Rice, Inc. Ellsworth was not employed by A.E. Rice, Inc., at the time he told the investigator that he was employed by A.E. Rice, Inc., and he has never been employed by A.E. Rice, Inc., which does not exist. A few months after his interview with the investigator, Ellsworth advised the investigator that he was employed by Kingfish Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., and John's Pass Marina, Inc. Ellsworth also advised the investigator that he did not know whether either of those corporations owned property on Treasure Island. It is clear that prior to his voting on October 8 and 22, 2002, Ellsworth viewed himself, without regard to the corporation that was issuing his paycheck, as working for the Rice family and, in particular, Agnes Rice. He described Mrs. Rice as the "matriarch." In the past, Ellsworth had abstained from voting on matters involving "[a]ny piece of property that the [Rice] family owned." He described his abstention as follows: I have recused myself from voting on anything that has gone down here. Any piece of property that the family owned. Even so minute as having a fund raiser for a fishing tournament, you know a fishing tournament fund raiser where all the money goes to charity. We've been involved with that for ten years. You know and I have to recuse myself from voting on that saying yes or no where they can have a tent up because there might be some type of monetary gain there. Because we do own a restaurant, there is a bar there, I say we do I'm doing that. The Rices own a bar and restaurant here and yes even if the money goes to charity somebody could go in and buy cocktails and that would ultimately benefit my employer. Ellsworth recused himself from voting on matters involving any piece of property owned by the Rice family based on an informal opinion obtained in 1998 by the City attorney from the Commission on Ethics concerning the propriety of Ellsworth voting on matters that were being presented to the City by the Rice family. Prior to his votes in October 2002, Ellsworth had been advised by the City attorney that the facts and circumstances could justify Ellsworth abstaining on voting on the LDR amendments. In making his assessment and giving advice to Ellsworth, the City attorney was of the opinion that Ellsworth was directly or indirectly employed by some of the entities that were involved in the ownership of the property on the north end of Treasure Island. The City attorney never advised Ellsworth that Ellsworth had a conflict, but he felt that it was a close call and abstention would be supportable. On or about September 25, 2002, Ellsworth spoke to Commission on Ethics staff counsel, Chris Anderson, by telephone. Ellsworth told Anderson that the City was considering some changes in the LDRs that would have an impact on some persons or companies that he worked for who were property owners or had an interest in the LDRs. Ellsworth told Anderson that there was an active complaint currently before the Ethics Commission on the subject of the vote. Ellsworth advised Anderson that the amount of land owned by persons or companies that he worked for was "nine acres, seven commercial." Anderson told Ellsworth that in view of the fact there was an active complaint on essentially the same activity, he should not vote on the changes to the LDRs when it came back to the City Commission for a vote. Anderson also had a "size-of- class" discussion with Ellsworth regarding the size of the land owned relative to the size of land affected. Ellsworth advised that his employer or the people he worked for was the biggest or one of the biggest landowners. A few days after Anderson spoke with Ellsworth, Tim Ferguson, the same attorney who had been retained by Agnes Rice to lobby the City Commission concerning the changes to the LDRs, spoke with Anderson. Ferguson told Anderson that he was representing Ellsworth and asked essentially the same questions that Ellsworth had asked. Ferguson also wanted to know if the Commission on Ethics would issue an advisory opinion on Ellsworth's voting in the upcoming votes on changes to the LDRs. Anderson advised Ferguson that the practice of the Commission on Ethics under the circumstances was to defer to the active complaint and investigative facts rather than issue an advisory opinion. Anderson emphasized to Ferguson that Ellsworth should not vote and that Ellsworth likely had a voting conflict. A few days before Ellsworth spoke with Anderson, Anderson had a conversation with the City attorney concerning Ellsworth voting on the changes to the LDRs. Anderson told the City attorney that Ellsworth was "going to step on a snake twice; it's a no-brainer; don't vote on it again when it comes back."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Irving Ellsworth violated Subsection 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and recommending the imposition of public censure and reprimand, and a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 11th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 10, 1987, the Department filed Proposed Rules 9J- 14.006 and 9J-15.006 with the Department of State, and published notice of its intent to adopt these proposed rules in the December 18, 1987 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. In pertinent part, these proposals disapprove certain Map Amendments requested by Petitioners, and approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners in October, 1987. Petitioners timely filed petitions for draw-out proceedings pursuant to Section 120.54(17), Florida Statutes, and in March, 1988, the Department transmitted these petitions to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Department has determined that normal rule-making proceedings under Section 120.54 are not adequate to protect Petitioners' substantial interests, and has suspended rule-making regarding these Petitioners and the Map Amendments at issue in this case. Petitioners' standing is not at issue in this proceeding. The Florida Keys' Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners in February, 1986, and Volume III of the Plan, consisting of land development regulations, was approved by the Department and the Administration Commission in July, 1986. The Department uses, and relies upon, the provisions of this Plan in interpreting and applying the Principles For Guiding Development set forth at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, and in determining if proposed changes in land development regulations or Plan amendments are in compliance with said Principles. As part of its Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County adopted land use district maps in February, 1986, which depict the approved land use and zoning of individual parcels. Petitioners herein urge that the zoning of their parcels in February, 1986, as portrayed on the district maps, is in error or is not justified due to their particular circumstances. Therefore, they have sought Map Amendments which were approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners in October, 1987, but which the Department proposes to disapprove as not in conformance with the Principles for Guiding Development. All proposed changes to land use district maps must take into account the uses and restrictions applied to the districts by the development regulations, as well as the goals and policies set forth in the Plan. The Keys' Comprehensive Plan states that amendments or changes may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners based on: changed projections, such as public service needs, from those on which the text or boundary was based; changed assumptions, such as regarding demographic trends; data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features; new issues; recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; and data updates. However, no change may be approved if it results in an adverse community change. Typographical or drafting errors may be corrected by the Board at any time, without notice or hearing. In pertinent part, the land development regulations set forth in Volume III of the Keys' Comprehensive Plan provide: Existing Uses All uses existing on the effective date of these regulations which would be permitted as a conditional use under the terms of these regulations shall be deemed to have a conditional use permit and shall not be considered nonconforming. * * * Sec. 5-201. Uses permitted as of right are those uses which are compatible with other land uses in a land use district provided they are developed in conformity with these regulations. * * * Sec. 5-301. Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other land uses permitted in a land use district, but which require individual review of their location, design and configuration and the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular location. * * * Sec. 7-101. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate and limit the continued existence of uses and structures established prior to the enactment of these regulations that do not conform to the provisions of these regulations. Many non-conformities may continue, but the provisions of this Chapter are designed to curtail substantial investment in non-conformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of these regulations. * * * Sec. 7-103. Nonconforming Uses. Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Ordinary repair and maintenance. Normal maintenance and repair to permit continuation of registered nonconforming uses may be performed. Extensions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the structure in which such nonconforming uses are located; or Occupancy of additional lands. Relocation. A structure in which a nonconforming use is located may not be moved unless the use thereafter shall conform to the limitations of the land use district into which it is moved. Change in use. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to any other use unless the new use conforms to the provisions of the land use district in which it is located. Termination. Abandonment or discontinuance. Where a nonconforming use of land or structure is discontinued or abandoned for six (6) consecutive months or one (1) year in the case of stored lobster traps, then such use may not be re-established or resumed, and any subsequent use must conform to the provisions of these regulations. Damage or destruction. ... if a structure in which a nonconforming use is located is damaged or destroyed so as to require substantial improvement, then the structure may be repaired or restored only for uses which conform to the provisions of the land use district in which it is located. Fair market value shall be determined by reference to the official tax assessment rolls for that year or by an appraisal by a qualified independent appraiser. The extent of damage or destruction shall be determined by the Building Official, in consultation with the Director of Planning, by comparing the estimated cost of repairs or restoration with the fair market value. Sec. 7-104. Nonconforming Structures. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the land use district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Ordinary repair and maintenance. Normal maintenance and repair of registered nonconforming structures may be performed. Relocation. A nonconforming structure, other than an historic structure previously listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Florida Inventory of Historic Places, or designated as historic by the Board of County Commissioners, shall not be moved unless it thereafter shall conform to the regulations of the land use district in which it is located. Termination. Abandonment. Where a nonconforming structure is abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such structure shall be removed or converted to a conforming structure. Damage or destruction. Any part of a nonconforming structure which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than fifty percent of the fair market value of said structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within six (6) months of the date of the damage. ... any nonconforming structure which is damaged or destroyed so as to require substantial improvement may be repaired or restored only if the structure conforms to the provisions of the land use district in which it is located. Fair market value shall be determined by reference to the official tax assessment rolls for that year or by an appraisal by a qualified independent appraiser. The extent of damage or destruction shall be determined by the Building Official, in consultation with the Director of Planning, by comparing the estimated cost of repairs or restoration with the fair market value. THE BROTHERS' PROPERTIES Map Amendment 48 was requested by R. Krajfasz, Bruce Barkley and Betty Brothers Rein (Case No. 88-1071 RP) concerning certain property they own on the west shore of Little Torch Key which is currently zoned NA (native area) , and which they are seeking to have rezoned SC (suburban commercial). This is an undeveloped parcel with 700 feet adjacent to, and to the south of, U.S. 1, which is surrounded by other, larger, undeveloped properties zoned NA and SR (suburban residential). The property is a salt marsh wetland which cannot be developed without substantial filling. Existing conditions include scrub mangroves, buttonwood and mangrove stands. The Keys' Comprehensive Plan recognizes the unique and irreplaceable character of the area's natural environment and seeks to protect the quality of nearshore waters, wetlands, and transitional areas through the designation, NA. It expresses the policy of prohibiting the destruction, disturbance or modification of any wetland, except where it is shown that the functional integrity of such wetland will not be significantly adversely affected by such disturbance. There has been no such showing regarding Map Amendment 48. It is also an expressed policy in the Plan to establish and promote a scenic corridor along U.S. 1, and prohibit development along U.S. 1 that disturbs the natural horizon. (See Sections 2-103, 104, 105 and 109, Vol. II, Keys' Comprehensive Plan.) Approval of this Map Amendment is inconsistent with these policies since SC zoning allows much more intensive use of the property, placing a greater demand on water resources and other infrastructure in the Keys. Bud and Patricia Brothers have requested the rezoning of certain undeveloped properties they own on Big Pine Key, known as Long Beach Estates, consisting of approximately 14 acres planned for a motel site, and 30 lots of greater than one acre each. These requests are for Map Changes 61 and 63 (Case Nos. 88-1074 and 88-1075 RP). These properties are currently zoned NA, and the rezoning sought is SR. Existing conditions consist of red mangrove, hammock species, sea grape, pond apple, bay cedar and similar species. Map Amendments 61 and 63 have not been shown to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element in that they would reasonably result in development which would have significant adverse affects on wetland areas, beaches, berms and the quality of nearshore waters. (See Sections 2-104, 105 and 107.) The requested rezonings of the Brothers' Properties (Map Amendments 48, 61 and 63) would be inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Specifically, they would adversely affect the shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves and wetlands, native tropical vegetation, dunes, water quality and the natural scenic resources of the Florida Keys. Petitioners failed to present competent substantial evidence in support off these requested Map Amendments. There is no demonstrated need for additional commercial development in the Little Torch Key area. BIG PINE KEY Petitioners Schirico Corporation and BHF Corporation have filed Map Amendments 66 and 67, respectively, (Case Nos. 88-1076 and 88-1077 RP) which seek to rezone their properties on Big Pine Key to SC from NA and SC (Schirico), and from SR (BHF). Although there was conflicting evidence concerning the exact extent of wetlands on the Schirico property, both the Petitioner and the Department presented evidence demonstrating that a significant portion of the property in Map Amendment 66 is wetland with wetland species, including black, white and red mangroves, and buttonwood. The property is in a transition zone between uplands and wetlands, and is crisscrossed with mosquito ditches. The requested Amendment is for the entire undeveloped parcel of almost ten acres, designating it all SC. The BHF parcel is approximately 5 acres in size, undeveloped, and is located off of U.S. 1 with SC property between it and U.S. 1. The property is also adjacent to SR and IS (improved subdivision) properties. The traffic flow along an arterial road from this parcel to U.S. 1 is very heavy due to existing commercial development and the county road prison camp located in close proximity. This parcel acts as a buffer between commercial uses, and would be an ideal site for affordable housing. There is an excess of undeveloped SC property on Big Pine Key, and, therefore, both of these proposals are inconsistent with sound economic development. Map Amendment 66, requested by Schirico, is inconsistent with the Principles of Guiding Development which seek to protect mangroves, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat, as well as native tropical vegetation, and to limit adverse impacts of development on water quality in the Keys. Map Amendment 67, requested by BHF, is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development which emphasize the need to strengthen local government's land use management capabilities, provide affordable housing, and to protect the public welfare. THE MEDIAN STRIP The following Petitioners own property which comprise the median strip between U.S. 1 and County Road 5 on Plantation Key: Robert Vaughn (Map Amendment 170; Case No. 88- 1094 RP); Diane Droney (Map Amendment 172; Case No. 88-1095 RP); Jean Anderson (Map Amendment 173; Case No. 88-1096 RP); Monte Green (Map Amendment 174; Case No. 88-1097 RP); Harry Palen (Map Amendment 175; Case No. 88-1098 RP); Robert Vaughn (Map Amendment 176; Case No. 88-1099 RP); and Karl Beckmeyer and William Horton (Map Amendment 177; Case No. 88-1100 RP). In addition, Petitioners Outdoor Advertising of the Keys (Case No. 88-1067 RP), Dorothy M. Baer (Case No. 88-1092 RP) and C. W. Hart (Case No. 88-1093 RGA) support Map Amendments 170, 172-177. The median strip between U.S. 1 and County Road 5 is 120 feet deep and individual lots in the median are generally 60 feet wide. Petitioners each own from one to six lots in the median strip which are currently used and developed for substantially commercial purposes, such as cabinet making and sales, greeting card and novelty shop, retail plant nursery and office, a mini-mall with 17 stores, gas station and a professional office building. Current zoning of this property is SR, and Petitioners seek SC zoning with these Map Amendments. Although there is some undeveloped property in the median strip, there is no residential development in this strip. A 120 foot wide strip between highways is not appropriate for residential development. This median strip is primarily a commercial area, and Petitioners in this case have existing commercial uses, or own property adjacent to such commercial uses. Therefore, these applications should be dealt with together, as one package, rather than individually, according to Maria Abadal, the Department's planning manager who directs the critical area program in the Keys. Abadal testified that commercial areas should be zoned for commercial uses, and SC is a commercial zoning classification. Donald Craig also testified that some of these Map Amendments should be approved because SR is intended to encourage residential development, and residential uses are not appropriate in a median strip. He noted that other median strips in the Upper Keys have SC zoning. Finally, Bernard Zyscovich confirmed that the character of this strip is clearly commercial, and it is not appropriate for residential development. Of particular relevance to these Map Amendments are the following provisions of the Keys' land development regulations: Sec. 9-106. Purpose of the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC) The purpose of this district is to establish areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to serve the needs of the immediate planning area in which they are located. This district should be established at locations convenient and accessible to residential areas without use of U.S. 1. Sec. 9-107. Purpose of the Sub Urban Residential District (SR) The purpose of this district is to establish areas of low to medium density residential uses characterized principally by single-family detached dwellings. This district is predominated by development; however, natural and developed open space create an environment defined by plants, spaces and over-water views. All of Petitioners' properties allow access from County Road 5, and, therefore, can be used without disrupting the flow of traffic along U.S. 1. Most of Petitioners' existing commercial buildings are less than 2500 square feet. Buildings of this size are allowed as a matter of right in SC zoning, but are a conditional use in SR zoning. Therefore, if destroyed by fire or natural disaster, Petitioners could not replace existing structures as a matter of right under their current SR zoning, but could do so under SC zoning sought by these Map Amendments. Maria Abadal expressed the Department's opposition to these Map Amendments, which she stated ware inconsistent with the policies expressed in the Keys' Comprehensive Plan to restrict upland clearing along U.S. 1, prohibit development that is disruptive of the natural horizon along U.S. 1, and promote a scenic corridor along U.S. 1. However, these parcels are already cleared, and have been used for commercial purposes for many years. There is, therefore, no basis for a finding of inconsistency based upon these policies. She also testified that these Amendments are inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development which seek to protect the historical heritage, character, and natural scenic resources of the Keys. There is no basis to find that an existing commercial area will be inconsistent with these Principles since there is no evidence in the record of any unique historical heritage, character or scenic resources associated with these commercial uses. By recognizing the existing character of these parcels, and allowing their continued commercial use as a matter of right in the event of destruction by fire or a natural disaster, approval of these Map Amendments would appear to reduce the need for new commercial uses elsewhere on Plantation Key, while assuring continued citizen access to long-standing commercial activities. THE SEWAGE PLANT NEIGHBOR Robert and Judy Wittey have filed Map Amendment 194 which seeks to rezone their 100 foot by 152.47 foot lot on Plantation Key from IS (Improved Subdivision) to SC (Case No. 88-1113 RP). Petitioners currently use this property to operate a commercial air conditioning business, with fiberglassing, welding and associated storage. There is a 5200 square foot commercial building on the property. Surrounding uses include a condominium, with its sewage treatment plan located immediately adjacent to the Wittey property, a high school athletic field, with a sewage treatment facility within 150 feet of this property, the high school's automotive repair garage and vocational training facilities, and a commercial contracting business. A generator for the condominium is also located next to this property. There are no single-family residential uses on the street where this property is located. The Wittey property is not part of a platted subdivision. Under its current IS zoning, the building located on this property is a nonconforming use, and may not be expanded or reconstructed if destroyed by fire or a natural disaster. SC is the lowest intensity land use designation that could be applied to this property which would result in the current structure being a conforming use. In pertinent part, the Keys' land development regulations provide that the purpose of the IS designation is to accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of the owners of subdivision lots that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the regulations. There was no showing of inconsistency with the Principles for Guiding Development if Map Amendment 194 were to be approved. Specifically, it was not shown that approval of this Map Amendment would have an adverse impact on public facilities or the natural resources. The Petitioners demonstrated that SC is, in fact, the appropriate zoning for this property, and that IS is totally inappropriate since this property is not part of a platted subdivision. There is no basis to zone this property IS based upon the existing uses surrounding this property. THE PILOT/FISH HOUSES Map Amendments 242, 243 and 245 involve the applications filed by Petitioners Coral Lake Realty, Inc. (Case No. 88-1114 RP), Jack and Dorothy Hill (Case No. 88-1115 RP) and Shirley Gunn (Case No. 88-1117 RP) for the rezoning of properties they own surrounding a basin, known as Lake Largo, on North Key Largo. The Coral Lake Realty property is the site of an existing restaurant, known as The Pilot House, and marina. The Gunn property is the former site of a commercial fish house, which was abandoned in 1985 due to a decline of commercial fish harvests and a loss of wholesalers. Gunn's property is also the location of a burned out building, a dive shop, and a few commercially leased docks. The Hill property is used to operate a commercial fish house, fish processing, and the patching and building of traps. These properties are one- half mile off of U.S. 1. Petitioners' properties are currently zoned CFSD-5 (Commercial Fishing-Key Largo), and they are seeking to have them rezoned MU (mixed use). In pertinent part, the Keys' land use regulations provide: Sec. 9-118. Purpose of the Commercial Fishing Special Districts (CFS). The purpose of these districts is to establish areas where various aspects of commercial fishing have been -traditionally carried out while prohibiting the establishment of additional commercial fishing uses which are inconsistent with the natural environment, immediate vicinity or community character of the area. Sec. 9-119. Purpose of the Mixed Use District (MU) The purpose of this district is to establish or conserve areas of mixed uses including commercial fishing, resorts, residential, institutional and commercial uses and preserve these as areas representative of the character, economy and cultural history of the Florida Keys. The only uses permitted as of right in a CFSD-5 district are commercial-fishing, detached dwellings and accessory uses. The MU designation allows, but does not encourage or promote, commercial fishing. It is designed for intense mixed uses, some of which would be inappropriate for this basin. There are areas in the Keys where fish houses are located in MU zoning. Petitioners have not demonstrated there is any shortage of MU areas in the Keys. According to Lane Kendig, an expert in comprehensive planning, promoting commercial fishing is one of the main aims of the Keys' Comprehensive Plan, and the CFSD zoning category is a primary method of implementing this aim. Because commercial fishing activities can only be located in areas such as this which have deep water access, CFSD zoning of properties with these site specific characteristics should be encouraged, and approval of these Map Amendments would be inconsistent with this objective of the Plan. The community character of the Lake Largo basin is heavily dominated by commercial fishing and associated activities, although some mixed uses are also present. (See Section 2-109.) It is surrounded by SR and IS districts, and existing residential uses. The Pilot House restaurant (Map Amendment 242; Case No. 88-1114 RP) is a nonconforming use in the CFSD-5 zone which could not be expanded, or replaced as of right if destroyed by fire or natural disaster. Bernard J. Costello, principal stockholder in The Pilot House, testified that MU zoning is being sought to allow the placement of more docks in the basin, and to make additional improvements to the restaurant which could not be allowed in CFSD-5. It is his intention to continue to use this property as a restaurant and marina if the Map Amendment is approved. The Hill fish house (Map Amendment 243; Case No. 88-1115 RP) processes, freezes and cooks fish which is primarily shipped in from other countries and states. Only 10 percent of the product handled through this fish house is caught locally in the Keys, while in 1972, all of the product was local. Due to the decline of local commercial fishing, about five years ago imported fish became the majority of product handled in this fish house. Some fishermen now sell directly to trucks, and bypass the fish houses. Recreational users now comprise a significant portion of boat slip renters on the basin. While there has been a decline in local commercial fishing, such uses are still present and the uses permitted as of right in CFSD-5 are more appropriate for this basin than those uses for which the MU designation was developed. These Map Amendments would be inconsistent with the community character of this basin, and would not comply with those Principles for Guiding Development which seek to strengthen the capabilities of local government for managing land use and development, limit adverse impacts of development on water quality, and protect the unique historic character and heritage of the Keys. "NOSEEUMS" Jerome and Mary Behrmann have filed Map Amendment 263 (Case No. 88- 1118 RP) seeking to have their property located on Key Largo rezoned from SR to SC. This property has been operated as a tropical plant nursery for about five years. Donald W. Ross has filed Map Amendment 268 (Case No. 88-1119 RP) seeking to also have property located on Key Largo rezoned from SR to SC. This property is used to operate an aluminum siding business. There is no access to these properties, except from U.S. 1. Petitioners' present uses are nonconforming in a district zoned SR, and, therefore, may not be modified, repaired or replaced if destroyed by fire or natural disaster. Both of these petitions deal with properties located on the same side of U.S. 1 in an area of intense natural vegetation and hardwood hammocks. With the exception of Petitioners' properties, the area immediately adjacent on the same side of U.S. 1 is undeveloped. However, on the opposite side of U.S. 1 is intense commercial development, including strip stores, used car sales, a flea market and convenience store. A power station is located to the north of these properties on the same side of U.S. 1. Due to the heavy infestation of microscopic insects, known locally as "Noseeums," resulting from natural vegetation on these and adjoining properties, residential development would be very difficult. These mosquito-like gnats become active in the early evening and at night, and are so small that they cannot be prevented from entering residences by screening. Local residents will not go outdoors after dark in areas infested with "Noseeums." Petitioners' commercial activities do not require them to be on these properties at night. In the area adjoining Petitioners' properties, U.S. 1 is a four lane divided highway which forms a natural land use, and zoning barrier from the commercial activities on the opposite side of the highway. Petitioners' parcels represent relatively small portions of an area zoned SR which extends approximately one mile along U.S. 1, and is from 650 to 700 feet deep. The only issue in this case is whether Petitioners' properties should be rezoned SC, which would leave the rest of this area zoned SR. Such a rezoning of these parcels to SC would be a classic case of spot zoning since it would confer special benefits to these owners without regard to adjoining owners, and would destroy and disrupt the overall integrity of this SR district. There are sufficient undeveloped SC properties in this immediate area, and there is, therefore, no demonstrated need for additional SC zoning. Petitioners' expert, Bernard Zyscovich, acknowledged that those properties presently zoned SR which adjoin Petitioners' properties could be used for residential development. This is an area in Key Largo where the County is attempting to direct residential development. Although it is not on the water and does not have a water view, there are other residential areas in the Keys which lack these amenities. The rezoning to SC sought by Map Amendments 263 and 268 would be inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the Keys' Comprehensive Plan (Sections 2-106 and 109): To protect the functional integrity of upland hammocks that contribute to the tropical and native character of the Florida Keys, particularly along U.S. 1 and County Road 905. * * * To restrict the clearing of upland vegetation that contributes to the tropical and native character of the Florida Keys along the U.S. 1 and County Road 905 corridors. * * * To limit the development of new land uses to intensities and characters that are consistent with existing community character where a community character change would have undesirable social, cultural, economic or environmental impacts. * * * To establish and promote a scenic corridor along U.S. 1 and County Road 905. These Map Amendments would also be inconsistent with those Principles for Guiding Development that mandate protection of upland resources and native tropical vegetation such as hardwood hammocks, limiting adverse impacts of development on water quality, and enhancement of natural scenic resources. CAPTION'S COVE Robert Maksymec is the principal stockholder of development partnerships known as Tormac and Planmac which are Petitioners in Cases 88-1121 and 88-1122 RP, respectively, and which are seeking Map Amendments 135 and 136 for certain undeveloped, scarified properties owned by Petitioners surrounding a basin known as Captain's Cove on Lower Matecumbe Key. These properties are zoned CFA (commercial fishing area) and Map Amendments 135 and 136 seek SC zoning. Although this property is located between Captain's Cove and U.S. 1, it is accessible by arterial roads without using U.S. 1. Petitioners propose to develop these properties into a hotel with 52 boat slips, and marine shops. Deed restrictions on the property bar commercial fishing. The Department of Environmental Regulation has issued Permit Number 441008425 to construct a 52 boat slip and docking facility conditioned on non- commercial uses, and prohibiting fuel or storage facilities, as well as boat cleaning, hull maintenance and fish cleaning at the permitted facility. Under CFA zoning, Petitioners' proposed use is nonconforming. CFA allows more commercial and intense uses than CFSD-5. In pertinent part, the Keys' land use regulations provide: Sec. 9-106. Purpose of the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC) The purpose of this district is to establish areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to serve the needs of the immediate planning area in which they are located. This district should be established at locations convenient and accessible to residential areas without use of U.S. 1. * * * Sec. 9-116. Purpose of the Commercial Fishing Area District (CFA) The purpose of this district is to establish areas suitable for uses which are essential to the commercial fishing industry including sales and service of fishing equipment and supplies, seafood processing, fishing equipment manufacture and treatment, boat storage and residential uses. These properties are surrounded by commercial and marine commercial uses, and across the basin is a residential area. There is no demonstrated need for undeveloped SC properties in this area. Since these properties are located on a water basin with residential areas in close proximity, SC zoning is inappropriate and inconsistent with the Principles For Guiding Development, which seek to limit the adverse impacts of development on water quality, and ensure sound economic development. It also appears, however, that the current CFA zoning may also be inappropriate for this property due to existing deed restrictions, DER permit conditions, and the decline in commercial fishing activities in the Keys in recent years. Nevertheless, the only issue in dispute in this case is whether the SC designation sought in Map Amendments 135 and 136 is consistent with the Principles For Guiding Development, and it is not. THE OLD POST OFFICE Petitioner Catherine Nash has filed Map Amendment 215 (Case No. 88- 1128 RP) by which she seeks to have property she owns in Tavernier, known as The Old Post Office, rezoned from its current SR to SC. The subject property is currently used to operate an art gallery and related business, but was formerly used from 1926 to about 1960 as a grocery store and post office. The only access to this property is from U.S. 1. The property is surrounded by SR zoning. Across U.S. 1 there are SC zoned properties. There was conflicting testimony whether Petitioner's existing building could be rebuilt in SR zoning if destroyed by fire or natural disaster. It has, therefore, not been established that SC zoning is necessary to protect the present existing use of this property. Due to the lack of access to the property other than from U.S. 1, it fails to meet an essential requirement for SC zoning. Approval of Map Amendment 215 would also represent a clear case of spot zoning since this would be an isolated SC parcel amid an SR district. Petitioner's Map Amendment has not been shown to be consistent with the Principles For Guiding Development, and in particular those which seek to strengthen local government's capabilities for managing land use and development, and which seek to ensure sound economic development which is compatible with the unique historic character of the Keys. TROPIC SOUTH Petitioner Tropic South was represented at hearing, but no evidence in support of Map Amendment 91 (Case No. 88-1083 RP) was offered. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT There is no evidence that the Department has developed an economic impact statement (EIS) for those portions of the proposed rules disapproving the above referenced Map Amendments previously approved by Monroe County. The Department did prepare an EIS for those Map Amendments transmitted by Monroe County which the Department approved, but those Amendments, and that EIS, are not the subject of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department approve Map Amendments 170 and 172 through 177 (The Median Strip), as well as 194 (Sewage Plant Neighbor), and otherwise disapprove all other Map Amendments which are the subject of this proceeding, as proposed in Rules 9J-14.006 and 9J-15.006, Florida Administrative Code. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department prepare an Economic Impact Statement which addresses the impact of its proposed action on Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulations (LDRs) adopted by Respondent, City of Sunny Isles Beach (City), by Ordinance No. 2002-165 on December 10, 2002, as amended, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, the following undisputed findings of fact are determined: The City sits between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean in northern Dade County just south of the Town of Golden Beach (Town) and just north of the City of Bal Harbour. It was incorporated in 1997. As required by Section 163.3161, Florida Statutes, on October 5, 2000, the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. See Exhibit E. The Plan was amended by Ordinance No. 2002-147 on January 17, 2002. See Exhibit B. The Plan's Future Land Use Map contains a land use category known as Mixed Use-Resort/High Density (MU-R), which is "designed to encourage development and redevelopment within the area east of Collins Avenue for resort style developments catering to tourists and seasonal residents (hotel, hotel/ apartments, vacation resorts and resort style apartments) as well as high quality residential apartments." The category also allows associated retail uses such as restaurants and conference facilities that are internal and accessory to hotel/resort development. Pertinent to this dispute is Policy 15B of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which establishes density and intensity standards for the MU-R land use category. More specifically, the policy provides the following standards: This category allows an as-of-right density of a maximum one hundred (100) hotel- apartment units per acre and fifty (50) dwelling units per acre for apartments and a floor area ratio (FAR) intensity of 2.5. The allowable number of hotel rooms is controlled by floor area ratio. Additional residential density and FAR intensity may be permitted for developments that comply with bonus program requirements. Residential densities with bonuses may not exceed eighty (80) units per acre for solely apartments and one hundred twenty five (125) units per acre for hotel- apartments, exclusive of lockout units. (Emphasis added) Under the foregoing policy, a maximum density of 100 units per acre is allowed for hotel-apartment units, a maximum density of 50 units per acre is allowed for apartments, and a floor area ratio (FAR) intensity of 2.5 has been established. However, the underscored portion of the policy authorizes a bonus density and intensity program which allows a developer to exceed the prescribed density and intensity standards for developments "that comply with bonus program requirements." If the bonus density program requirements are satisfied, the policy establishes a cap for the density bonus at 125 hotel-apartment units per acre and 80 residential units per acre. While the policy does not establish a similar cap for the intensity bonus, it essentially defers the amount of the intensity cap and the details of the bonus program to the LDRs, which are to be adopted at a later time. Objective 8 of the Plan provides that the City "shall adopt, maintain, update and enhance development regulations and procedures to ensure that future land use and development in the City of Sunny Isles Beach is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Objective 15 of the Plan provides that the "land use densities, intensities and approaches [contained in Policy 15B] shall be incorporated in the Land Development Regulations." Finally, Section 163.3202(1), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments, within one year after submission of their comprehensive plans, "adopt or amend and enforce land development regulations that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plan." On December 10, 2002, the City approved Ordinance No. 2002-165, which adopted a comprehensive set of LDRs to implement the Plan. See Exhibit C. In 2003, the LDRs were further amended in minor respects by Ordinance Nos. 2003-167, 2003-171, 2003-173, and 2003-178. See Exhibit D. In sum, the LDRs consist of more than one hundred pages of regulations, and except for one of these, Section 703.8.4(i)3, none of the other LDRs directly relates to this dispute. Section 703.8.4(i)3 implements Policy 15B by outlining the criteria and requirements necessary to qualify for additional intensity or FAR through the bonus program. It also establishes a cap on FAR intensity. If the bonus program requirements are satisfied,3 the regulation allows a maximum intensity bonus of 1.5 FAR, or a potential total FAR of 4.0, which exceeds the 2.5 FAR contained in Policy 15B. (Intensity bonuses to increase the FAR can also be obtained through the transfer of development rights under Section 515 of the LDRs. However, those bonuses are not in issue here.) Petitioners include a group of twelve City residents; the Town, which lies adjacent to, and just north of, the City; and two Town residents. There is no dispute that Petitioners will be substantially affected by the LDRs and thus they have standing to bring this challenge. In their Cross-Motion, which essentially tracks the allegations in their Amended Request for Hearing, Petitioners assert that they, and not the City, are entitled to a summary final order in their favor for three reasons. First, they argue that it is beyond fair debate that all of the LDRs, including Section 703.8.4(i)3, are inconsistent with Policies 4A and 4C of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan because the City failed to solicit comments from the Town prior to the adoption of the LDRs. Second, they argue that it is beyond fair debate that the City violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g) when it adopted Section 703.8.4(i)3. Finally, they contend that it is beyond fair debate that in order to achieve consistency with the Plan, the LDR must not establish a FAR that is beyond the intensity standard (2.5) established in the Plan. Policies 4A and 4C of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element provide as follows: 4A. The City will notify and solicit comments from adjacent jurisdictions and the School Board of any requests for land use amendments, variances, conditional uses or site plan approvals which impact property within 500 feet of a public school or within 500 feet of the boundaries of an adjacent jurisdiction. 4C. The City will notify and solicit comments from adjacent jurisdictions and the School Board of its existing standards or proposed regulations being considered for problematic or incompatible land uses. Nothing in the two policies requires that the City solicit comments from adjacent jurisdictions when adopting the LDRs being challenged here. Rather, these policies specifically address notice and comments as to "land use" changes, not the adoption of LDRs, or to "regulations being considered for problematic or incompatible land uses." Even assuming arguendo that the two policies require some type of prior notice, Petitioners do not dispute the fact (as set forth in the Department's Determination) that prior to the adoption of the LDRs, "the City notified the Town both in writing and orally". (Determination, Finding of Fact 6). Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) contains general data and analyses requirements for comprehensive plans. Paragraph (2)(g), which Petitioners assert was violated by the City when it adopted Section 703.8.4(i)3, provides as follows: (g) A local government may include, as part of its adopted plan, documents adopted by reference but not incorporated verbatim into the plan. The adoption by reference must identify the title and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. The adoption by reference may not include future amendments to the document because this would violate the statutory procedure for plan amendments and frustrate public participation on those amendments. A local government may include a provision in its plan stating that all documents adopted by reference are as they existed on a date certain. Documents adopted by reference that are revised subsequent to plan adoption will need to have their reference updated within the plan through the amendment process. Unless documents adopted by reference comply with paragraph 9J-5.005(2)(g), F.A.C., or are in the F.S., the F.A.C., or the Code of Federal Regulations, copies or summaries of the documents shall be submitted as support documents for the adopted portions of the plan amendment. This rule sets forth the manner in which local governments may adopt and incorporate by reference documents into their comprehensive plans. If they choose to do so, they must identify the title and author of the document being incorporated by reference, the edition of the document, and the specific portion of the document relied upon. Whenever an amendment or change to the incorporated document occurs at a future time, the local government must readopt those changes in order for them to be valid and effective. On its face, the rule applies exclusively to the use of incorporated documents in comprehensive plans, or plan amendments, and has no application to LDRs. In the case of Town of Golden Beach et al. v. City of Sunny Isles Beach et al., No. 03-472AP (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct., Appellate Division, June 15, 2004), a copy of which has been submitted as Exhibit G, Petitioners unsuccessfully sought by petitions for writ of certiorari to quash a City Resolution which granted Intervenor's application to construct a condominium at 19505 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach. The application sought approval of a site plan for the condominium and approval of the use of the property as a receiver site for the transfer of 38,847 square feet of transfer development rights in accordance with the City's LDRs. In that proceeding, Petitioners contended that they were denied due process because the City failed to provide proper notice to neighboring property owners under Section 515.7 of the LDRs; and that the City violated the essential requirements of the law by improperly transferring development rights and additional floor area ratio through bonuses to the developer, in excess of the 2.5 FAR expressly permitted by the City's Plan and LDRs. The court ruled in favor of the City on both issues. The parties agree, however, that a motion for rehearing of that decision has been filed by Petitioners, and the decision is not yet final. Further, the decision does not clearly indicate whether the same consistency arguments raised here were adjudicated in that matter. The notice issue is not the same.
The Issue Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In December, 1990, Hamilton County prepared a proposed comprehensive plan. That proposal was submitted to the Department in accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Within the Conservation Element of the proposed plan the County included Policy V.2.13, which stated: The County shall only allow hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities as special permits within areas designated agricultural and located within the rural area of the County. Further, the County's land development regulations shall include conditions for such approval of a hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facility as a special permit regarding the location, site design, buffer requirements, access to principal arterials and major intersections, requirements for appropriate public facilities, and require- ments which consider wind currents in relationship to population centers, which will direct any incinerated materials or noxious odors from these population centers. In no case shall a hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facility be located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area as designated within this Comprehensive Plan. Policy V.2.13 was associated with Objective V.2 which states: The County shall include within the land development regulations, by 1992, provisions for the conservation, appropriate use and protection of the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources, water recharge areas and potable water wells. There was no specific data and analysis in the proposed plan directed to Policy V.2.13. Other policies associated with Objective V.2 addressed water issues. In the data and analysis which the County submitted to DCA with its proposed comprehensive plan the County did identify known pollution problems. This included a reference to point discharges for wastewater, non-point sources of water pollution, point air pollution sources and non-point sources of air pollution. None of the known activities were associated with hazardous and bio- medical waste treatment facilities. The data and analysis associated with the Conversation Element in the proposed plan also identified watersheds, wetlands, lakes, flood prone areas, and current water sources. The data and analysis further discussed the circumstances related to watersheds, wetlands, rivers, lakes, flood prone areas and air quality as the County perceived the existing conditions for those topics. Finally, the data and analysis spoke to the issue of projected water needs. No mention was made concerning how the aforementioned data and analysis would be considered in granting special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. On April 14, 1991, DCA transmitted its comments to the County concerning the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting data and analysis, together with its objections and recommendations for modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan. This activity was in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes. The report that was transmitted is known as the "ORC" Report. The County received the ORC Report on April 22, 1991. The ORC Report made a number of objections to the objectives and policies set forth in the Conservation Element to the proposed comprehensive plan and recommendations for modifications to the same. The ORC Report specifically objected to Policy V.2.13 wherein the DCA stated: Policy V.2.13 does not describe the 'special permits' concerning hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities within agricultural areas, does not define the extent of the buffers, and does not prohibit these facilities in conser- vation areas. The general recommendation to improve Policy V.2.13, among policies found within the Conservation Element, was to this effect: Provide data and analysis to support the above- referenced policies. Revise the policies to identify the specific implementation programs or activities that will be undertaken by the County to achieve the goal and objectives with which the policies are associated. Eliminate or define all conditional and vague language. Revise the Future Land Use Map to support the revised policies. The County then held two public hearings related to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. See Section 163.3184(15), Florida Statutes (1991). The first public hearing was held on June 18, 1991. At that time no decision was reached to adopt a comprehensive plan. The public hearing was adjourned. On July 23, 1991, the County reconvened the public hearing related to the comprehensive plan adoption. Following the second public hearing associated with the plan adoption, the County in the person of its Board of County Commissioners who had conducted the public hearings, adopted a comprehensive plan for Hamilton County. The adopted comprehensive plan was transmitted to DCA on July 30, 1991. The transmittal letter supporting the adopted comprehensive plan noted that the comprehensive plan was adopted on July 23, 1991. The transmittal letter pointed out the changes to the adopted comprehensive plan which were not reviewed by DCA when DCA considered the proposed comprehensive plan. As with the proposed comprehensive plan, the County submitted data and analysis with the adopted comprehensive plan pointing out the data and analysis accompanying the adopted comprehensive plan which had not been reviewed by the DCA when it considered data and analysis supporting the proposed comprehensive plan. Within the conservation element to the adopted comprehensive plan Objective V.2 remained as set forth in the proposed comprehensive plan. Certain policies associated with Objective V.2 had changed. However, Objective V.2. and its associated policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan continued to address water issues. In particular, Policy V.2.13 did not change with the plan adoption. Additional data and analysis submitted by the County supporting the Conservation Element to the adopted comprehensive plan deleted the Suwannee River State Park as a conservation area. Specific references were made to Jumping Gully Creek, Swift Creek, Hunter Creek and the Withlacoochee River and activities associated with those water bodies. However, as with the proposed plan it was not explained how the County intended to use the original and additional data and analysis in deciding special permit issues for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. When the County adopted its comprehensive plan it added an objective and a policy that had not been included with the proposed comprehensive plan in the category of objectives and policies for both urban development areas and rural areas in the Future Land Use Element. New Objective I.15 stated: Residential areas shall be protected from uses which cause or result in greater than average noise, hazards or odors. The associated Policy I.15.1 stated: No medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous, or solid waste shall be disposed of by incineration or by any other method which produces air pollution emissions subject to permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation within Hamilton County, unless the use or facility was permitted and otherwise legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991. The supporting data and analysis which the County provided the Department with the adopted comprehensive plan did not address Objective I.15 nor Policy I.15.1, with the exception that residential land use projections are described. The adopted plan provided specific information concerning future residential land use. That description was supported by a residential land use need methodology and analysis of future residential land use needed. As with the proposed plan, the adopted plan included a reference to industrial land use within the Future Land Use Element. In both the proposed plan and the adopted plan in Policy 1.3.1 it was stated: Lands classified as industrial consist of areas used for the manufacturing, assembly processing or storage of products. Industrial development may be approved in areas of the County not designated industrial on the Future Land Use Plan upon submission and approval of a development plan which shall include at the least: an industrial site plan; traffic plan; and traffic impact studies; provisions for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater treatment system meeting requirements of the State of Florida for that use; and a submission of a Future Land Use Plan Map amendment to Industrial classification. Industrial uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. The data and analysis associated with industrial land use which had been provided with the proposed comprehensive plan remained consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan when describing the methodology for identifying projected industrial land use. The comments in the data and analysis supporting the proposed and adopted plans indicated: Projecting the need for additional acreage for industrial use cannot be approached using a methodology similar to those used for residential and commercial Future Land Use needs. This is due to the fact that there is no direct relationship between population and industrial location. The additional future acreages for industrial location are anticipated to occur on a site specific basis as needed at the time industrial activities are proposed. Within the adopted comprehensive plan, Future Land Use Element related to urban development areas and rural areas is found the general industrial land use classification. The general industrial land use designations are located in the central area of the county to the southwest of the City of Jasper along County Road 249. There is an additional limited industrial land use classification within the urban development area and rural area category. It identifies industrial opportunities at interchanges on Interstate 75. At these interchanges, upon submission of a site plan that comports with development standards, with due regard for safety and adequate access, light industrial development is allowed which does not require an air emission permit from the State of Florida. Industrial land use designations as well as other land use designations were based upon an analysis of the amount and character of undeveloped land in the county, reliable population projections and growth patterns anticipated for the area, together with the availability of the public services to accommodate the projected population. The adopted comprehensive plan includes a Future Land Use Map and Map Series found within the Future Land Use Element of the adopted plan which depicts industrial land use. Intervenors' property carries a general industrial classification in the future land use designation in the adopted plan. Intervenors' property is not located on the Interstate 75 corridor and therefore would not be considered for this special industrial land use classification. The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Council) assisted the County in preparing its proposed and adopted plans. The Council staff were engaged in that process as early as 1986. From that point forward the Council staff conducted field surveys relating to land use, compiled data from existing data sources and reviewed population projections and growth patterns in Hamilton County. The Council staff compiled information concerning public facilities, recreational and solid waste facilities, information relating to physical capacity for those facilities and information concerning the financing of capital projects. In anticipation of the requirements set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Council staff conducted field surveys of existing land use to determine the character of undeveloped land in the county. The staff reviewed the population projections of the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research. These activities were designed to assist the County in analyzing the amount of land necessary to accommodate projected growth and the availability of public services. The Council staff was responsible for preparing the proposed plan statement related to goals, objectives, and policies. The staff also prepared the Future Land Use Plan Map. The documents prepared by the Council staff were subject to review and workshops were held to consider those matters. Modifications were brought about through public comments presented at the workshops. The Council staff prepared an evaluation, appraisal and review report to examine the success of previously adopted comprehensive plans. Following the conduct of workshops the public sessions for plan adoption were held on June 18, and July 23, 1991. As representative for the County, the Council staff invited the Department to send representatives to attend the public hearing sessions. The Department was represented at those sessions. In the public hearings related to the plan adoption, there was considerable public testimony expressing concern about health and environmental impacts involved with the incineration of bio-medical waste. In particular, remarks were made about air emissions of mercury and dioxins and the disposal of ash residue from the incineration process. Documents were also presented by members of the public who opposed waste incineration. One document was from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Seminar-Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regulations, Management, Technology, Emissions and Operations. Another document was entitled Hazardous Waste News #82, June 20, 1988, identified as a weekly news and resource for citizens fighting toxins. A third document was entitled "Facts" related to definitions within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes and observations from the author of this document concerning Intervenors intended operations of a bio-medical incineration facility in Hamilton County. Finally, there was a document from the Hamilton County School Board calling for a buffer zone between any school in the county and facilities which incinerated or otherwise disposed of substances through incineration or other disposal means which would create air emissions from the destruction of solid waste, hazardous substances, bio-hazardous waste and biological waste as defined within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes. The Hamilton County School Board also expressed a desire to completely prohibit the incineration or other disposal of those substances which were generated outside Hamilton County. The EPA document spoke in terms of the emissions from incinerators as being particulate and gaseous emissions. The particulate emissions being constituted of char and soot and minerals in the form of metals, silicates and salts. The gaseous emissions referred to in the EPA document were constituted of combustible emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, PCDD and PCDF and noncombustible emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, HCLs, hazardous compounds such as POHCs, products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins, and uncondensed volatile metals in excess air. Dr. Ralph Dougherty, an expert in environmental mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry and the chemistry of waste incineration, provided expert testimony concerning the significance of some of the information provided to the County in its public sessions. This testimony was presented at the administrative hearing. Dr. Dougherty did not attend the public hearing associated with the plan adoption. Dr. Dougherty in addressing the waste stream that is created by bio- medical waste described how the incineration process in destroying polyvinyl chloride, PVC plastic, saran wrap and neoprene converted those materials to chlorinated organics such as dioxin. As Dr. Dougherty established, dioxins are very hazardous substances. Kenneth Krantz appeared for the Intervenors at the public sessions for the plan adoption. At that time Basic Energy Corporation was known as TSI Southeast, Inc. (TSI). He provided written information to the county commissioners concerning the TSI bio-medical waste disposal business intended to be located in Hamilton County. TSI took no issue with Objective I.15 which was adopted on July 23, 1991. Intervenors proposed different text for policy I.15.1 and requested adoption of two additional policies I.15.2 and I.15.3 which would place some restrictions on solid waste disposal but would allow an opportunity for operating the TSI facility in the county. Information provided by Krantz in the public sessions indicated that TSI intended to operate a business to incinerate solid, bio-medical and solid municipal waste, together with a waste recycling area, Pelletizer area and turbine-generator area. Krantz addressed the county commissioners concerning county building permit information about the facility, permitting by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Information was provided concerning square footage for buildings within the overall TSI facility. Information was provided by TSI concerning the intended pollution control systems as being constituted of fabric filters and dry-lime injection systems, together with a detailed description of pending permit applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation for additional incineration units. Information provided by TSI addressed the expected constituents of the air emissions to include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, organics such as dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter. A site location map and schematic showing the flow within the waste stream was also provided. TSI also provided information at the public sessions about the Intervenors anticipated emissions rates for two previously permitted units and the third and fourth units that were being considered by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This data about emission rates included a comprehensive listing of anticipated emissions by pollutant type to include projected measurements of omissions for units one and two which would deal with medical waste combustion and units three and four which would deal with medical waste combustion and possibly refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As commented on by members of the public who appeared at the public sessions for adopting the plan, information provided by the Intervenors verified that significant amounts of pollutants would be discharged into the air through Intervenors' operations. TSI provided information concerning the modeling that was done to measure concentration levels for the expected pollutants. Information was provided concerning the incineration process and the manner in which calculations were made concerning expected emissions levels. Information was provided concerning anticipated annual and short term emission rates for the four units intended to be operated by the TSI. The technical information about the intended TSI facility was through documents that appeared to be from an engineering consulting firm. All information provided in the public sessions that has been described was properly available to the county commissioners when adopting the plan. The information provided at the public sessions which has been described was not presented to the Department with the adopted plan. As stated, on July 30, 1991, the County submitted its plan to the Department to determine if the adopted plan was in compliance with the requirements of law. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991). On September 12, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the adopted plan, not "in compliance". See Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to that provision, DCA filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings setting forth the reasons for its decision to find the adopted plan not "in compliance". That petition was filed on September 23, 1991. The DCA took no issue with Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On February 20, 1992, Intervenors petitioned to intervene in the not "in compliance" case. As identified in the statement of issues, the Intervenors were and continue to be opposed to the adoption of Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On March 17, 1992, an order was entered which granted the Intervenors leave to intervene. Intervenors own property in Hamilton County. As contemplated by Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes (1993), DCA and the County engaged in settlement discussions. This culminated in a stipulated settlement agreement executed by DCA and County on November 24, 1993. The stipulated settlement agreement is referred to in the statute as a compliance agreement. Intervenors did not join in the settlement. On January 18, 1994, the County adopted the remedial amendments, referred to in the statute as plan amendments pursuant to a compliance agreement called for by the compliance agreement. The remedial plan amendments were submitted to the Department for consideration. On March 10, 1994, DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent addressing the compliance agreement amendments and the plan. DCA gave notice that it attended to find the plan and remedial comprehensive plan amendments/compliance agreement amendments "in compliance" with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding that the Intervenors did not submit further pleadings within 21 days of the publication of the cumulative notice of intent, the Intervenors were allowed to proceed with their challenge to the plan that was not the subject of the compliance agreement leading to the compliance agreement amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Hamilton County comprehensive plan to be "in compliance" with the exception that Policy V.2.13 is only "in compliance" in its latter sentence, the remaining language in Policy V.2.13 is not "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX "A" CASE NO. 91-6038GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Intervenors' Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is rejected in its suggestion that there is a perpetual ban on bio-hazardous waste incineration. It is otherwise not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Intervenors' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is not relevant. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of adoption was January 18, 1994. Paragraphs 15 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 is not relevant. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 41 is rejected to the extent that it is suggested that it constitutes agency policy. Paragraphs 42 through the first phrase in 49 are subordinate to facts found. The latter phrase in Paragraph 49 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 50 through 58 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 59 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 60 through 75 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 76 through 82 are rejected as not constituting allowable analysis of data presented in support of the plan adoption. Paragraphs 83 and 84 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 85 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 91 are rejected to the extent that it is suggested that some lesser standard is involved with consideration of data for optional plan elements as opposed to mandatory plan elements. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991) and Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes (1993). Paragraph 92 is acknowledged but did not form the basis for fact finding in the recommended order. Paragraph 93 is rejected as intended to interpret Policy I.15.1 as an absolute prohibition against waste incineration in the County. Paragraph 94 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 95 through 102 are not relevant. Paragraphs 103 through 105 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 106 through 108 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the rejection of Policy V.2.13 in part. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Terrell L. Arline, Esquire Suzanne Schmith, Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Box O Jasper, FL 32052 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald J. Schutz, Esquire Suite 415 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Linda L. Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this proceeding is whether a future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment, adopted by Hillsborough County on October 27, 1994, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update for the planning time frame through 2015 (variously referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” or "CPU-2015"), that changed the future land use category on a 253 acre parcel1 in Northwest Hillsborough County ("the Geraci Parcel") from Regional Commercial ("RC") to Community Mixed Use-12 ("CMU-12") complies with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioners Nick and Peter Geraci are the fee simple owners of a parcel of land comprising approximately 450 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dale Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road, two hundred fifty-three (253) acres of which are at issue in this proceeding. Advance Leasing is a Florida corporation that was a contract vendee for a portion of the Geracis’ property intended for development as a “super regional” or “regional scale” mall, and was the applicant in the amended applications for DRI approval of that mall. Hillsborough County’s motion to dismiss Advance Leasing as a party for failure to establish standing as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was granted at the final hearing. Advance Leasing failed to establish that it was an entity that either owned or operated a business within Hillsborough County or owned property in Hillsborough County as of October 27, 1994. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and to determine compliance with the relevant provisions. Respondent Hillsborough County is a local government with responsibility to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171 and 163.3174, Florida Statutes. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners makes the final, legislative decision on all Comprehensive Plan amendments in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Charter Section 9.09 specifies that a single local planning agency, created by special law, "shall have responsibility for Comprehensive Planning and related activities[.]" The Hillsborough County Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended by Chapter 97-351, Laws of Florida, designates the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission”) as Hillsborough County's local planning agency. The Planning Commission is charged with preparing Comprehensive Plans and making recommendations to the public bodies for Hillsborough County and the incorporated municipalities within Hillsborough County. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory and its recommendations are not binding upon Hillsborough County. Intervenors Sierra Club and Dr. Richard and Bonnie Hoffman have established their standing to participate in this proceeding as "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Sierra Club represents numerous members who reside in Hillsborough County, and also operates a business within the boundaries of Hillsborough County by way of its local affiliate. The Hoffmans own property within Hillsborough County. Both Sierra Club and the Hoffmans participated in the local government proceedings in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the portion of CPU-2015 challenged by the Petition to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 14th day of October, 1998.
