The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of St. Augustine’s proposed amendment to its Comprehensive Plan, adopted via Ordinance 2015-03, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an individual who owns property and resides in the City near the property that is the subject of the proposed amendment. Respondent City of St. Augustine is a municipality in St. Johns County, which has adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to chapter 163, which it amends from time to time. Intervenor St. Augustine Lighthouse and Museum, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation, which owns approximately 6.5 acres of property located at 100 Red Cox Drive, St. Augustine, upon which the historic St. Augustine Light Station is located. St. Johns County, which previously owned the lighthouse property, conveyed the property to Intervenor in 2014. The lighthouse property was zoned “Government Use” while the County owned the property, which is a zoning category that requires government ownership. When the property was conveyed to Intervenor, it became “non-conforming” because it is now privately owned. Under the City’s Land Development Code, additions, modifications, reconstruction, and repairs of non-conforming structures and uses are restricted. These restrictions are an inconvenience and impediment to the periodic reconstructions and repairs required to maintain and improve the lighthouse tower and its associated historic structures. To remove the non-conforming status of the lighthouse property, Intervenor considered various options for rezoning the property. The best zoning district match was determined to be “Maritime Use” because it included “maritime museum” among the allowed uses. The Maritime Use zoning district is listed as an implementing zoning district under the future land use designation Medium Density Residential Mixed Use in the Comp Plan. Therefore, Intervenor applied for a small-scale (under ten acres) comprehensive plan amendment to amend the FLUM to change the land use designation for the lighthouse property from Recreation/Open Lands to Medium Density Residential Mixed Use. The amendment includes a number of special limitations that restrict the kind of development that can occur on the lighthouse property, including: (a) limiting the use of the property to maritime museum; (b) maximum 20 percent lot coverage; maximum individual building footprint of 7,500 square feet; large building setbacks, including setbacks of up to 190 feet to protect the Maritime Hammock in the southwestern corner of the property and a 120-foot-deep “viewshed” in front of the lighthouse tower; (e) review of any development proposal by the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and finding of “no adverse effect” by the SHPO as a condition precedent to any City development approval; and (f) a reverter of title to the County if Intervenor ceases to use the property for historic preservation. Petitioner expressed concern about the number of properties in his neighborhood that are still on septic tanks. However, whether the City should extend its sewer lines to serve Petitioner’s property is an issue that is irrelevant to the validity of the proposed amendment. To the extent Petitioner attempted to tie the existing septic tanks to the issue of whether the proposed amendment is consistent with public infrastructure provisions of the Comp Plan, he failed to show an inconsistency. The lighthouse property is already served by the City’s wastewater system. Furthermore, the proposed amendment would reduce the uses allowed under the existing land use designation for the lighthouse property, which reduces potential future demand on the wastewater system. Petitioner is also concerned about the lack of sidewalks, “traffic controls,” and stormwater management capacity. However, Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed amendment increases the need for sidewalks, traffic controls, and stormwater management. The more persuasive evidence shows the opposite, that the proposed amendment and its development restrictions reduce the need. For example, the proposed amendment eliminates residential densities allowed under the current FLUM designation. There is parking provided on the lighthouse property and visitors to the lighthouse are not allowed to park on adjacent streets. Signage at the lighthouse property directs departing visitors away from Petitioner’s neighborhood and the nearby elementary school. As an educational exhibit on the lighthouse property, small traditional wooden boats have been built by volunteer craftsmen using only hand tools. Petitioner contends this is an industrial use, which is not allowed under the proposed land use designation. However, construction by handcraft in this manner is not an industrial activity. It is an appropriate use in conjunction with a maritime museum.
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 City of St. Augustine Plan Amendment 2015-03 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Ruben Anderson 60 Magnolia Drive St. Augustine, Florida 32080 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. 780 North Ponce de Leon Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32084 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondent has implemented an agency statement that meets the definition of a rule, but which has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) is charged with the management of state lands, including sovereign submerged lands. § 253.03(1), Fla. Stat. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is charged with the duty to “perform all staff duties and functions related to the acquisition, administration, and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.” § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The City of Titusville operates a municipal marina, which includes a 205-slip docking facility for mooring of commercial and recreational vessels (Marina), on sovereignty submerged lands leased from the Board. Petitioner owns a Florida-registered vessel which he keeps at the Marina pursuant to an annual mooring/dockage agreement. On June 9, 2009, the City of Titusville and the Board entered into a “fee waived” lease renewal and modification for a parcel of sovereignty submerged land in the Indian River (Lease). The Lease allows the Marina to operate “with liveaboards as defined in paragraph 26, as shown and conditioned in Attachment A, and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 05-287409-001, dated December 31, 2008, incorporated herein and made a part of this lease by reference.” Paragraph 26 of the Lease provides that: 26. LIVEABOARDS: The term “liveaboard” is defined as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. If liveaboards are authorized by paragraph one (1) of this lease, in no event shall such “liveaboard” status exceed six (6) months within any twelve (12) month period, nor shall any such vessel constitute a legal or primary residence. On or about July 31, 2015, Petitioner and the City of Titusville entered into the annual contractual mooring/dockage agreement, paragraph 4 of which provides that: 4. LIVEABOARDS: For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “liveaboard” is defined herein as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. Pursuant to requirements of the City’s Submerged Land Lease with the State of Florida, no vessel shall occupy the Marina in this “1iveaboard” status for more than six (6) months within any twelve (l2) month period, nor shall the Marina Facility constitute a legal or primary residence of the OWNER. Petitioner asserts that the alleged agency statement regarding “liveaboard” vessels “unreasonably and arbitrarily denies me the unrestricted right to stay on my vessel by limiting the number of consecutive days during which I may occupy the vessel,” and that “[t]he Board’s non-rule policy denies me the unrestricted freedom to enjoy my vessel as a second home.”
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 issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether an amendment to the comprehensive plan of the City of Cocoa Beach is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 1996, Respondent City of Cocoa (City) adopted Ordinance 1100 to amend the future land use map (FLUM) of the City’s comprehensive plan (Plan). The amendment affects about three-quarters of an acre designated as Parcels 2 and 5 in the subdivision recorded at plat book 21, page 9, public records of Brevard County, Florida. Parcel 2 is 0.18 acres of privately owned submerged bottom. Parcel 5 is 0.57 acres of uplands, of which 0.48 acres is road right-of-way. The affected area is adjacent to and in the Banana River and adjacent to the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. The amendment changes the future land use designation of each parcel to Moderate Density Residential. The amendment as to Parcel 5 is unconditional and took effect upon the adoption of the ordinance. The amendment as to Parcel 2 is conditional. The ordinance provides that the designation of Parcel 2 changes “only upon issuance of a dredge and fill permit by the City.” Prior to the amendment, the future land use designation of part of the land within Parcel 5 was General and the remainder was undesignated. Prior to the amendment, the future land use designation of the submerged bottom of Parcel 2 was Conservation. There is some dispute as to the designation of Parcel prior to the amendment. Petitioner contends it was Conservation; Respondents contend it was undesignated. The submerged bottom is white on the FLUM, and white designates Conservation. Although the FLUM also depicts roads in white, they are obviously not Conservation uses. The plan states that the Conservation designation is intended “primarily”--though not exclusively--for islands in the Banana River. There is nothing unusual in designating as Conservation submerged bottom in the Banana River and adjacent to the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. Respondents have not presented sufficient evidence to overturn the evident and logical designation of Parcel 2 as Conservation, prior to the present amendment. The area in question is bordered on the west and south by the Banana River and the east and south by roadways. To the north lies a 90-foot wide vacant lot. Surrounding land-use designations are Moderate Density Residential and Single Family Residential. To the north and east of the vacant lot is a three-story, 18-unit condominium. To the south of the road adjoining the south border of the subject area are numerous single family residences on lots ranging from 90-125 feet wide. Across the road intersection due east of the subject area is another condominium development. The area south of the subject area is general single family residential. The City’s analysis accompanying the redesignation of Parcels 2 and 5 explains that Parcel 2 “used to be dry land but has eroded away. At present, no use can be made of the property.” The analysis notes that the maximum allowable use under the Medium Density Residential designation would be 3/4 of an acre times 12 units per acre, for a total of 9 units. Without any explanation, the independent planning consultant employed by the City asserted that “[t]here are no environmental concerns on the upland, nor wetlands.” The consultant noted that the State of Florida was responsible for issuing dredge and fill permits. At the invitation of all the parties, the administrative law judge visited the site in the presence of all the parties. Consistent with all of the documentary and testimonial evidence, he found Parcel 2 under 1-2 feet of the water of the Banana River. The Conservation Element of the Plan contains data and analysis stating that seagrasses and algae in the lagoon provide nursery and breeding grounds for shellfish and finfish, and the “entire Banana River Lagoon has been designated as a critical habitat necessary for [the] survival [of the West Indian manatee].” The Plan notes that the lagoon is a feeding area for manatees, a source of detrital food, vital nursing habitat for larval and juvenile stages of marine life, and a contributor to water quality. The Plan notes that [u]rban development activities associated with the use of coastal lands are primary problems to the maintenance of [the] City’s natural resources. Many functions of vital estuarine areas have been impaired or threatened by encroaching development. These losses, in most cases, cannot be reversed and have contributed to declining fishery productivity as well as to other coastal resource related problems. The western edge of Cocoa Beach lies on the Banana River Lagoon. The Lagoon is a low flow system with negligible tidal exchange and little fresh water input other than runoff, discharge, and precipitation. Its naturally poor water circulation has been compounded by man- made alterations and the Lagoon has little capacity to handle pollutants. State Road 520 and the Minuteman Causeway have slowed the flow of water in the Lagoon, as have the numerous finder canals. Urban runoff, storm drain discharge, and discharge from various treatment plants near Cocoa Beach, in the surrounding municipalities and County areas, are the primary sources of pollution and are a cause of the Lagoon’s “poor” water quality, primarily in the form of high nitrogen and chlorophyll readings. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 1 is to adopt and modify land development regulations to manage future growth in the City. FLUE Objective 16 is to encourage the use of innovative land use regulations as to areas in need of redevelopment. Conservation Objective 1 is to require “positive siting and land management techniques . . . to maintain or improve estuarine environmental quality.” Conservation Objective 2 is for the City to provide, by the end of 1990, criteria for setting priorities for shoreline uses so as to give priority to water-dependent uses. Conservation Objective is to “protect species that are listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies.” As set forth in Section 187.201(16)(b)3 and 6, the third and sixth policies of the land-use section of the State comprehensive plan are to Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping, and recreational activities. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of Parcel 5 is unsupported by the data and analysis, including land use suitability analysis; is internally inconsistent with any provision of the Plan or the FLUM; or inconsistent with any provision of the State comprehensive plan. The designation of the uplands is consistent with the surrounding land uses and is not contraindicated by any data and analysis, especially given the small area involved. Petitioner has shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of Parcel 2 is unsupported by the data and analysis, is internally inconsistent with the cited objectives of the Conservation Element, and is inconsistent with the sixth policy of the land use portion of the State comprehensive plan. These findings are independent of the current designation of Parcel 2. If Parcel 2 is designated Conservation, as has been found, its redesignation as Medium Density Residential is also inconsistent with the FLUM, which more sensibly designates the submerged bottom as Conservation. Designation of submerged bottom for Medium Density Residential is unsupported by the data and analysis concerning the values of the Banana River in providing water quality and habitat values. Designation of submerged bottom for Medium Density Residential conflicts with the cited Conservation objectives and the sixth policy of the land-use section of the State comprehensive plan. This is not a case in which the designation of submerged bottom serves some rational purpose, such as facilitating water-dependent or public-facility uses. The only apparent purpose of designated the 0.18 acres of submerged bottom as Medium Density Residential is to allow greater density on the adjoining uplands. Under the facts of this case, designating 0.18 acres of submerged bottom--even though privately owned--as Medium Density Residential makes no sense.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendment as to Parcel 5 is in compliance and submit this recommended order to the Administration Commission for a final order determining that the amendment as to Parcel 2 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Moehle 65 Country Club Road Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 William Weller Rose & Weller Post Office Box 321255 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932-1255 Shaw P. Stiller Assistant General Counsel Stephanie Crossman Eligible Law Student Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Bram D. E. Canter 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephanie Gehres Kruer General Counsel 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James F. Murley, Secretary 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Martin County's amendments to its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), adopted by Ordinance 833, are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State land planning agency. The Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Through its Board of County Commissioners, it adopted Ordinance 833 on November 17, 2009, amending the LDRs pertaining to fishing and hunting camps. Petitioner is a person who resides in Martin County. She has an ownership interest in three parcels of land in the County. Two of the parcels are adjacent to land that is eligible for development as a hunting camp under the new LDRs. An owner of land that is adjacent to one of Petitioner's parcels has submitted plans for a hunting camp to the County. Petitioner's principal complaint is that Ordinance 833 allows new commercial uses at fishing and hunting camps, which she contends are uses that are inconsistent with policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan that require new commercial development to be located in the Primary Urban Service Area and which require that agricultural lands be protected. There are no policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan that specifically address fishing and hunting camps, but the following policies are relevant to the determination of the issues raised by Petitioner. Policy 4.7A.2. Development in Primary Urban Service District. Martin County shall require new residential development with lots of one-half acre or smaller, commercial uses and industrial uses to locate in the Primary Urban Service District. This requirement is to ensure consistency with the County's growth management policies and Capital Improvements Element and to assure that the Plan's LOS standards will be provided and maintained cost-efficiently. Policy 4.7A.10. Priority for public services. In providing public services and facilities and allocating public financial resources for them first priority shall be given to the Primary Urban Service District. Second priority shall support the staged development of suitable lands in the Secondary Urban Service District at densities specified in Policy 4.7B.1 or as they are converted to the Primary Urban Service District. Public Services that support or encourage urban development in other areas shall not be provided, except for improvements necessary to remedy an existing deficiency. Policy 4.12A.2. Restrictions outside urban service districts. Outside urban service districts, development options shall be restricted to low-intensity uses, including Agricultural lands, not exceeding one unit per 20 gross acres; Agricultural Ranchette lands not exceeding one unit per five gross acres; and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural agricultural uses. Policy 4.13A.1 The FLUM identifies those lands in Martin County that are allocated for agricultural development. This designation is intended to protect and preserve agricultural soils for agriculturally related uses, realizing that production of food and commodities is an essential industry and basic to the County's economic diversity. * * * The further intent of the Agricultural designation is to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban or even low density residential development. * * * Policy 4.13A.8(3) General Commercial development. * * * The areas designated for General Commercial development are specifically not adapted to permanent residential housing, and such uses shall be located in other areas designated for residential development. On the other hand, transient residential facilities including hotels and motels, timesharing or fractional fee residential complexes, or other transient quarters should be located in areas designated for commercial use. Ordinance 833 amended Article 3 of the LDRs, entitled "Zoning Districts." Section 3.3 was amended to change the definition of "fishing and hunting camps." The previous definition excluded overnight lodging facilities, but the amendment changed the definition to include "overnight accommodations, food, transportation, guides and other customary accessory uses and facilities as set forth in Section 3.76.1." Section 3.76.1 is a new section entitled "Hunting Camps" and establishes development standards for hunting camps, including a limitation on overnight accommodations to six guest rooms and a limitation on food service to customers of the hunting camp. Sales and rentals of hunting supplies and accessories are also limited to customers of the hunting camp. Ordinance 833 also defined "fishing and hunting camps" in a new Section 3.403. The definition in Section 3.403 is identical to the definition in Section 3.3, except that instead of including a reference to Section 3.76.1, the definition refers to Section 3.412.A. Section 3.412.A. adds the same development standards for hunting camps that are found in Section 3.76.1. There is no material difference between the two definitions. Common sense indicates that the lands designated "Agricultural" on the Future Land Use Map are more appropriate areas for fishing and hunting camps than the Primary or Secondary Urban Service Districts. People generally fish, hunt, and camp in rural areas, not in urban areas. Martin County contends that fishing and hunting camps are not commercial land uses, but are recreational uses. Petitioner claims, however, that the addition of overnight accommodations, food facilities, and accessory uses at fishing and hunting camps makes them inconsistent commercial uses. The dictionary definition of the word "camp" includes the idea of staying overnight in an area. See, e.g., Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 158 (1979). If a person stays overnight in a camp, he or she must have shelter and food. It is a matter of general knowledge of which the Administrative Law Judge takes judicial notice that fishing and hunting camps often provide lodging for hunters and fisherman to stay overnight and facilities for eating. Policy 4.12A.2 of the Comprehensive Plan allows "low- intensity uses," including "small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses" outside of urban service districts. This policy co-exists with Policy 4.7A.2, which requires new commercial development to be located in the Primary Urban Service District. Obviously, therefore, low-intensity uses and small-scale service establishments that support rural and agricultural uses are not the type of uses, even if they have commercial aspects, that must be located in the Primary Urban Service District. Although the County does not claim (for reasons that are not clear) that "customary accessory uses and facilities" for fishing and hunting camps are encompassed by the term "small-scale service establishments," the County asserts that customary accessory uses and facilities are the types of low- intensity uses which Policy 4.12A.2 allows outside the urban service districts. That is a reasonable interpretation of Policy 4.12A.2. The LDRs establish development guidelines for hunting camps that are consistent with low-intensity uses. Petitioner argues that no development guidelines are established for fishing camps and, therefore, they could be potentially include high-intensity commercial activities. If Ordinance 833 did not create development guidelines for fishing camps, that would not constitute a change because the previous LDRs already permitted fishing camps in agricultural areas without specifying any development guidelines other than a prohibition against overnight lodging. Both of the new definitions for "fishing camps" created by Ordinance 833 appear to incorporate by reference the guidelines applicable to hunting camps. However, even if the guidelines are not applicable to fishing camps, it cannot be assumed for the purposes of this consistency determination that the new LDRs permit uses at fishing camps that would not be low-intensity uses. The LDRs do not express or imply that intent. The new LDRs are not inconsistent with Policy 4.7A.10, related to the County's priorities for providing public services, because the LDRs do not support or encourage urban development. The new LDRS are not inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, related to the protection of agricultural soils because the allowance in the Comprehensive Plan for uses other than farming in the agricultural areas shows that the policy to protect agricultural soils is not meant to preserve every square foot of agricultural soil for farming. The new LDRS are not inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, related to the protection of agricultural lands from encroachment by urban or residential development because the LDRs do not authorize urban or residential uses in conjunction with fishing and hunting camps. Petitioner did not show that the restricted commercial activities at fishing and hunting camps are urban uses. Therefore, such uses do not contribute to urban sprawl. They are reasonably treated by the County as low-intensity, support services which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies to prevent urban sprawl into agricultural areas and to otherwise protect agricultural lands.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan (Manatee Plan) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County via Ordinance No. 13-10 on December 5, 2013, are “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Katie Pierola is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mrs. Pierola made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Greg Geraldson is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mr. Geraldson made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted the Manatee Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Robinson Farms is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County and owning real property in the County. It owns the property affected by the 2013 Amendments. The 2013 Amendments The 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map of the Manatee Plan to change the future land use classification of approximately 20 acres of land owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The land is described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 13-10. It is located on the north side of 9th Avenue Northwest, about 600 feet east of 99th Street. The RES-1 classification allows one dwelling unit per acre (du/a). The RES-3 classification allows up to three du/a. The General Introduction chapter of the Manatee Plan, Section D – Special Plan Interpretation Provisions, would be amended to add the following new text: D.5.16 Ordinance 13-10 (ROBINSON FARMS PLAN AMENDMENT) The 20± acre property identified as the Robinson Farms Plan Amendment and designated RES-3 on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 shall be limited to a maximum of thirty eight (38) residential units. Coastal Evacuation Area and Coastal High Hazard Area All 20 acres of the Robinson Farms property is within the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA). The CEA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The evacuation Level A for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional evacuation study applicable to Manatee County, as updated on a periodic basis. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.2.4.2, which addresses the purposes of the CEA, states in part: To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation area requiring evacuation during storm events. To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents. To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage. All but 4.68 acres is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The geographic area below the Category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, pursuant to applicable law, as updated on a periodic basis. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.2, which addresses the purposes of the CHHA, repeats the same purposes that are set forth above for the CEA. Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goal 4.3 of the Coastal Element of the Manatee Plan is: Protection of the Residents and Property Within the Coastal Planning Area from the Physical and Economic Effects of Natural Disasters Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 states: Limit development type, density and intensity within the Coastal Planning Area and direct population and development to areas outside the Coastal High Hazard Area to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural hazards in the area. Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 states: Direct population concentrations away from the Coastal Evacuation Area FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CEA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal Evacuation Area. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) states, in part: The area designated under the CEA Overlay District on the Future Land Use Map shall also be subject to all goals, objectives and policies for any land use category overlaid by the CHHA District, except where policies associated with the CEA Overlay conflict with such goals, objectives and policies. In this event, policies associated with the CHHA Overlay District shall override other goals, objectives and policies. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CHHA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay District. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a) states that, in the event of a conflict between CHHA policies and other policies in the Manatee Plan, the CHHA policies shall override. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments are not based on best available data and analysis as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). However, that rule was repealed in 2011. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis.” This section explains: To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Petitioners contend that the proposed reclassification of the Robinson Farms property from RES-1 to RES-3 does not react appropriately to the data which show the Robinson Farms property lies within the CEA and CHHA. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is not the mapping of the CEA and CHHA that creates a conflict with the 2013 Amendments. The conflict is created by the policies which address future land uses in the CEA and CHHA. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments make the Manatee Plan internally inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 which require “population concentrations” to be directed away from the Coastal Evacuation Area. No evidence was presented by Petitioners or by Manatee County on the County’s interpretation of the term “population concentrations.” However, FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. Therefore, assuming as we must that the Manatee Plan is internally consistent, it follows that “population concentrations” in Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 means any increase in residential density. Because the 2013 Amendments increase residential density in the CEA, they are inconsistent with this objective and policy. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CEA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CEA. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CHHA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CHHA. Competing Policies Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that there are other policies in the Manatee Plan, such as those that discourage urban sprawl and encourage infill in the Urban Core Area, which the County must weigh along with the policies discussed above. The County contends that it weighed these conflicting policies and reached a fairly debatable determination that the 2013 Amendments are consistent with the Manatee Plan. Contradicting this argument are FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) and FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a), which state that the CEA and CHHA policies shall override any conflicting goals, objectives, and policies in the Manatee Plan. Urban sprawl, infill, and other policies of the Manatee Plan cannot be invoked to avoid the specific prohibitions in FLUE Policies 2.2.2.4.5(a) and 2.2.2.5.5(a) against any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the CEA and CHHA. Density Offsets Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that the County’s reduction in dwelling units in other parts of the CHHA over the past several years is a valid consideration in determining whether an increase in residential density on the Robinson Farms property is permissible despite the prohibition in FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a). In support of their argument, they cite Department of Community Affairs v. Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 WL 2497934 (Nov. 16, 2006). However, the Leeward Yacht Club case involved the comprehensive plan of Lee County, which did not prohibit increases in residential density in the CHHA. In contrast, the Manatee Plan quite plainly prohibits “any amendment” to the Future Land Use Map that would increase residential density in the CHHA. Previous Proceedings These same parties were involved in a dispute regarding an earlier proposed amendment to the Manatee Plan to reclassify property owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The 2010 Amendment was different in that it affected 28 acres (which encompasses the 20 acres in the 2013 Amendments). The 2010 Amendment would have increased the residential density on the 28 acres from 28 dwelling units to 105 dwelling units, all in the CEA. It would have added 56 dwelling units to the CHHA. Petitioners challenged the amendment and an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge D.R. Alexander (DOAH Case No. 11-0009GM). On April 13, 2011, Judge Alexander entered a Recommended Order which recommended that the 2010 Amendment be determined not in compliance because: The amendment was not based on relevant and appropriate data because the most current SLOSH model results were not used; The amendment was inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) which prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. The amendment was inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 which require that population and development be directed to areas outside the CHHA. The Recommended Order went to the Administration Commission, which ultimately dismissed the case when Manatee County rescinded Ordinance No. 10-02 and the 2010 Amendment. In Manatee County Ordinance No. 11-035, which was the ordinance used to rescind the 2010 Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the 2010 Amendment was internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 because the amendment increased residential density in the CEA and CHHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the 2013 Amendments adopted by Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Minix, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Edward Vogler, II, Esquire Vogler Ashton, PLLC 2411-A Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-4948 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Peter Antonacci, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
Findings Of Fact Harbor Course South is a one hundred and seventy two lot real estate development which is a portion of the Ocean Reef Club located at the extreme northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The Harbor Course South property was acquired in approximately 1964 along with over 1200 acres of adjoining property for approximately 1.5 million dollars. Driscoll Properties, Inc. ("Driscoll"), a Florida Corporation, is the developer of Harbor Course South. Driscoll Foundation, Inc., (the "Foundation") is a non-profit Florida corporation which owns a portion of the Harbor Course South property. (Driscoll and the Foundation are collectively referred to as the "Intervenors" or the "Permittees.") The Ocean Reef Club is a one thousand two hundred unit development encompassing approximately eight hundred acres including at least two eighteen hole golf courses, a marina and an air strip. Nine holes of golf are located in Harbor Course South. These nine holes were leased to the Ocean Reef Club in 1974-1975 pursuant to an agreement providing for creation of golf course lots and lake-front lots in Harbor Course South. The nine holes of the golf course located in Harbor Course South were in place by at least 1978 and have been in use since that time. In order to install those nine holes, some roads were cut through the property and the lakes were dredged. Thirty-eight of the one hundred and seventy-two lots in Harbor Course South were originally platted in 1978 or 1979. These thirty eight lots are referred to as Section 1 of Harbor Course South. All of lots in Section 1 have been sold to individual purchasers for an average price of $34,210.00 per lot. The thirty-eight lots in Section 1 were all sold prior to 1988. In approximately 1979, some roads were cleared and paved on the Harbor Course South property in order to provide access to the thirty-eight originally platted lots in Section 1. A number of the lots in Section 1 have been permitted for construction by Monroe County and houses have been constructed on several of them. No individual lot owner in Section 1 has been denied a permit for clearing at least some of his land for a homesite. Both the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ("U.S.F.W.S.") and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (the "Commission") have determined that the clearing and/or development of the lots in Section 1 will not require permits for the taking of endangered or threatened species or their nests. In 1985, the Intervenors, in conjunction with the Ocean Reef Club, sought a determination as to the extent of their vested development rights with respect to the Harbor Course South property by initiating a vested rights hearing before Monroe County. These proceedings were initiated under Chapters 380 and 120, Florida Statutes and resulted in a Joint Stipulation on February 23, 1988 recognizing that the Intervenors have vested rights to develop the Harbor Course South plats. (The Joint Stipulation is referred to as the "Vested Rights Determination.") The Vested Rights Determination recognized that the Intervenors and the Ocean Reef Club had incurred obligations and expenditures based upon the approval of the master plan for development of Ocean Reef in 1977 in accordance with the then-existing regulations of Monroe County. The expenses and improvements upon the property included the construction of roadways, water main extensions, medical facilities, and golf courses. As a result of these expenditures, the Vested Rights Determination established that the Intervenors were authorized to continue development under the master development plan for the Ocean Reef Club, notwithstanding the enactment of a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations by Monroe County on September 15, 1986. No appeal of the Vested Rights Determination was filed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs or any other party. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots in Harbor Course South were subdivided into three plats in 1986. These plats have been designated Ocean Reef Plat Numbers 17, 18 and 19 (also referred to as Sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively of Harbor Course South.) The Intervenors were not required to obtain a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission prior to subdividing and/or selling lots of the Harbor Course South property. Most of the infrastructure for development of Plats 17, 18 and 19 is in place. Paved roads were completed in 1987-1988. The electrical lines and sewer lines are in place and operational in all three plats. The water lines are in place and connected in Plat 17. The waterlines are also in place, but not connected, in Plats 18 and 19. The total area of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Harbor Course South is 134.09 acres. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots occupy approximately 53.66 acres of this total. The lots in the area are priced at an average of $127,000 each. The Intervenors have begun selling the lots in Plat 17 (Section 2 of Harbor Course South). This plat consists of twenty-five lots. No competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the exact number of lots sold or houses constructed in this area, but it appears that ten to twelve lots were sold between July 1, 1989 and December 13, 1989. At least one house has been constructed on this plat and three building permits are pending before Monroe County. Prior to selling the lots in Plat 17, the Intervenors reached an informal agreement with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission as discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 33 below. In accordance with that agreement and because there was no indication of the presence of endangered or threatened species on these lots, it was determined that none of the lots sold in Plat 17 would require the issuance of a permit from the Commission before land clearing could take place. The sales of the lots in Plat 17 were not completed until after the issuance of a Proposed Permit by the Commission for the "incidental taking" of endangered and threatened species with respect to the entire Harbor Course Property. (This Proposed Permit is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 44.) After the Proposed Permit was issued and this challenge was filed, the titles to the lots sold in Plat 17 were transferred to the purchasers. As indicated above, some of these lot owners have proceeded with the development of their property without the need of a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission. None of the lots in Plats 18 and 19 (Sections 3 and 4) have yet been offered for sale. The natural vegetation of North Key Largo, including the Harbor Course South property, consists largely of tropical hardwood hammock. The quality of the vegetation varies widely throughout the area. Development of the Ocean Reef Club has largely supplanted the hardwood hammock in that area. The golf course which is located on the Harbor Course South property was placed in the midst of the hammock. The golf course and the infrastructure for development of Harbor Course South have fragmented the hammock in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo is a unigue flora to North America, being extremely tropical in character. It is characterized by vegetation more commonly found on the tropical islands of the Carribean and is different from the tropical hammocks of mainland South Florida because of a difference in hydrology, i.e., the Florida Keys are substantially drier and have a lower water table. The hammock of North Key Largo has a very high species diversity with one hundred and five species of trees and shrubs and fifteen species of woody vines in the hammock vegetation. The ecology of a hardwood hammock is cyclical. Over the years, the hammock has demonstrated its ability to regenerate naturally. Thus, while much of North Key Largo was used as agriculture land in the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, the hammock has recovered in those areas where it has been allowed to naturally regenerate. The species of plants in the hardwood hammock are well-adopted for colonizing. The trees are "good at getting their seeds into places where they will grow." Many of the species of hammock trees and shrubs have fruits that are attractive to birds and some animals such as raccoons. These animals, birds, and raccoons eat the fruit, do not digest the seeds, but pass them in their fecal material which helps spread the vegetation. Tree growth in a young hammock is initially rapidly vertical before spreading out to provide larger coverage. A mature hammock provides a "closed canopy" of branches which affords protection and transportation for many animals including woodrats and cotton mice. As the hammock matures, there is an accumulation of humis and leaf litter on the ground beneath the trees. This humis layer serves as a seed bed for new growth and accumulates over the years. The humis layer is an important factor in assessing the quality of a hammock as habitat for endangered species. It takes decades for a hammock to fully mature to the point that it provides habitat and food sources for woodrats and similar creatures. Because of the biological richness of the hardwood hammock, as well as to protect the off-shore coral reefs from the detrimental effects of run-off from development, the State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreational Land Acquisition program, ("CARL") has designated much of area of North Key Largo at the top of the acquisition priority list. The area slated for acquisition under the CARL program extends approximately twelve miles from the point where U.S. Highway 1 enters Key Largo northeastward to the southern boundary of Harbor Course South. The State of Florida has already acquired large tracks of North Key Largo under the CARL program. These tracks include a large portion of the land on the east side of State Road 905 from Port Bougainville to the southern border of the Ocean Reef Club (Harbor Course South.) Moreover, the Foundation is currently negotiating with the State regarding the acquisition of approxiately twelve hundred acres immediately adjacent to Harbor Course South. The federal government has established the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge which embraces most of the land lying west of State Road 905 from Card Sound Road (near and west of the Ocean Reef Club) south to Lake Surprise, a distance of approximately twelve miles. In sum, a large portion of the property in North Key Largo outside the Ocean Reef Club and Harbor Course South does not have vested development rights. A vast majority of this property is, or will likely become in the near future, publicly owned for conservation purposes. Thus, large quantities of high quality tropical hardwood hammock habitat have been, or are in the process of being, acquired in the immediate vicinity of the Harbor Course South property. The hardwood hammocks of North Key Largo are inhabited by certain endangered and threatened species. The Commission has the authority to determine endangered species within the area of its jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 35 U.S.C.A. 1531, et seq. The Key Largo woodrat (neotoma floridana smalli) and the Key Largo cotton mouse (peromystus gossypinus allapaticola) are animals which can be found in the secondary growth and mature tropical hardwood forests of North Key Largo. Both the woodrat and cotton mouse as well as the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (heraclides aristodemus ponceana,) have been listed as endangered species in Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo also serves as a habitat for the Eastern Indigo snake (drymarchon corais couperi), which has been listed as a threatened species by the Commission pursuant to Rule 39-27.004, Florida Administrative Code. Rock piles, tree roots, mounds, piles of sticks, holes in the rock substrate, holes in the humis layer beneath the trees and similar hiding areas all serve as nests or "refugia" for the woodrat. A mature hammock provides an ideal habitat for the woodrat. Destruction of the habitat of the woodrat has been a key factor in the woodrat becoming an endangered species. The Key Largo cotton mouse occupies much of the same habitat as the woodrat. Although the density of the population has not been established, there is no dispute that some portions of the Harbor Course South property are populated with woodrats and cotton mice. The quality of the habitat varies significantly throughout the property. There is only limited evidence of the presence of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly on the Harbor Course South property. There have been a few citings of the species in the vicinity of Harbor Course South, but it does not appear that this property is an important habitat for the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. There is no specific evidence of the presence of the Eastern Indigo snake on the subject property. Before a lot owner in Harbor Course South can clear his homesite, the Monroe County Code requires the owner to secure a habitat analysis which must be prepared by an accredited biologist approved by the County. That analysis determines the quality of the hammock on the lot, which in turn determines the amount of vegetation which the County will allow the lot owner to clear. This requirement was in place for the first thirty eight lots that were originally platted in Section 1. Under the existing Monroe County Land Clearing Regulations, only twenty percent of a lot with high quality tropical hardwood hammock can be cleared; forty percent of a lot with medium quality hammock can be cleared and forty to eighty percent of a lot with low quality hammock can be cleared. As of the date of the hearing in this case, all lot owners in Harbor Course South who have applied for a building permit were allowed to clear at least a portion of the lot for construction of a homesite. It does not appear that any lot owner was permitted to clear more than forty percent of his lot. As indicated above, no permits from the Commission or the U.S.F.W.S. were necessary in order to clear the lots and commence building on the thirty- eight lots in Section 1. Likewise, the Commission determined that the habitat quality in the area of Plat 17 was sufficiently low that a permit would not be required for development on that Plat. However, the Intervenors were aware of the presence of endangered and threatened species in this area. Around the time that the Vested Rights Determination was obtained, the Intervenors entered into discussions with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission in an attempt to obtain an overall permit for Plat 17, 18 and 19 with respect to endangered and threatened species. During these negotiations, the Intervenors received permission from the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to proceed with development in Plat 17 even before a permit was issued. The Commission determined that the Intervenors could proceed with the development of Plat 17 without obtaining a permit because of the relatively low habitat value of most of the parcel and the apparent absence of any endangered species in this area. As part of the negotiations regarding this authorization, the Intervenors agreed to seek a permit with respect to the remaining one hundred and nine lots in the subdivision. The negotiations were prompted, at least in part, by an agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (which provides water to the area) that established certain requirements before water connections could be made to new residential property in North Key Largo. This agreement requires that, before water connections can be made to an area inhabited by endangered or threatened species of wildlife, a permit must be obtained by the U.S.F.W.S. During the negotiations, the U.S.F.W.S. indicated to the Intervenors its desire to address the conflict between the endangered species on North Key Largo and development interests in "one big conflict rather than having to handle it land owner by land owner." The Commission agreed with this approach feeling it could better protect the subject species through required mitigation by the developer which would probably not be possible or practical when dealing with individual lot owners. Although the Intervenors questioned the legality of the requirements imposed as a result of the agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, the Intervenors decided to try and work with both the federal and state agencies and attempt to meet their concerns rather than engage them in a legal battle over their authority to impose mitigation requirements on new developments. A permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission is not necessary for the Intervenors to sell the lots in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors sought permits from the Commission and the U.S.F.W.S. in a good faith attempt to cooperate with the agencies responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act and to eliminate obstacles to the clearing and development of the lots by individual lot purchasers. The U.S.F.W.S. has developed specific rules and procedures for protecting the habitat of endangered species and issuing "incidental take" permits for activities that may impact on the species or their habitat. The Commission has not adopted any rules that specifically protect the habitat of endangered species other than a prohibition against molesting or harming their nests. Similarly, the Commission has no specific rules regarding "incidental take" permits. The Intervenors filed an application with the U.S.F.W.S. on March 13, 1989 seeking a permit for covering all of Plats 17, 18 and 19. Attached as exhibits to the application were copies of the pleadings from the proceedings whereby Intervenors received their Vested Rights Determination, a summary of a proposed revegetation project to be undertaken in connection with the permit; the Harbor Course Subdivision construction plans together with construction details; a report prepared by Dr. Earl Rich regarding North Key Largo endangered rodent preservation measures; a report by Dr. Jack Stout setting forth the results of woodrat and cotton mice trapping in the subject area; and an aerial photograph of the subject area. The application sought a "permit for the incidental taking of endangered species in connection with completion of development of a residential subdivision and related site improvements surrounding an existing golf course. The area to be cleared may include habitat for the Key Largo woodrat, cotton mice, or Schaus' swallowtail butterfly." A permit has not been issued by the U.S.F.W.S. with respect to Plat 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors' application for a permit has been transmitted to the Commission. It is not clear how the application filed with U.S.F.W.S. came before the Commission for consideration. The Commission has no direct agreement with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regarding water connections. The Commission's authority for asserting jurisdiction over the development is not based on any existing rules or statutes regarding "incidental take" permits. The U.S.F.W.S. has apparently agreed to defer to the Commission with respect to the issuance of a permit for the Harbor Course South development. The U.S.F.W.S. has been kept abreast of the negotiations and terms of the Proposed Permit and has suggested various changes during the negotiation process in an effort to coordinate the conditions of the two permits. By letter dated July 24, 1989, the Commission set forth conditions for the issuance of a permit to the Intervenors which would authorize them to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, and to take Eastern Indigo snakes, "incidental to land clearing operations and building construction of single family and cluster homes" on Plat 17, 18 and 19. The permit does not authorize the killing of woodrats, cotton mice or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies. The Commission stated that the permit was being issued pursuant to Rules 39-27.002(1) and 39- 27.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. (The July 24, 1989 letter setting forth the conditions for the permit will be referred to as the "Proposed Permit.") The Proposed Permit states that the permit will inure to the benefit of the Intervenors and their "successors in title or their agents." In other words, purchasers of lots from the Intervenors would be covered by the Permit and no additional permit would be necessary to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, or to take the Eastern Indigo snakes incidental to the development of their lots. The terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit were prepared after several meetings and discussions between Commission personnel, the Intervenors' expert biologist Dr. Stout and the developers themselves. The Proposed Permit requires both on-site mitigation and off-site mitigation. The on-site mitigation requires the permanent dedication in the form of a conservation eastment of 5.94 acres in Tract E of Harbor Course South, Section 3 ( Ocean Reef Plat 18) to provide perpetual protection for the habitat for the species listed in the Proposed Permit. The exact provisions of this conservation easement are not speficified in the Proposed Permit and were not established in this proceeding. The Permit also requires specific habitat enhancement of Tract E by planting torchwood seedlings as a means to attract Schaus' swallowtail butterflies in the area of an old service road on Tract E, revegetation in accordance with specific planting instructions of another road that bisects Tract E and the placement of ten piles of rocks and logs of at least four cubic yards each in the old roadway. A ten thousand dollar surety bond or letter of credit is required to ensure compliance with the planting and debris placement provisions within three years of the date of the issuance of the permit. The Intervenors had intended to subdivide Tract E into ten additional lots to be sold as homesites. While Petitioner contends that the development of lots in Tract E may have been prohibited because of the high quality hammock on some of these lots, the evidence established that most, if not all, of the lots in Tract E will be sold and developed as individual homesites if the area is not set aside as a conservation area pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Permit. The establishment of a conservation area in Tract E will help preserve a continuous habitat area for the endangered species. Tract E is adjacent to a large track of property that has been or is in the process of being acquired by the state for conservation purposes. By requiring the Intervenors to provide rubble and debris piles and revegetation on Tract E, the Proposed Permit will further enhance the quality of the habitat in this area. The Proposed Permit requires the existing dirt road which currently cuts through Tract E to be closed and revegetated. There is no requirement that the fill installed for the road bed be removed. While Petitioners contend that such a condition is necessary for the development of this tract into high quality habitat for the endangered species, the natural regeneration of the hammock will be enhanced by the revegetation plan and this area will ultimately develop into high quality habitat. Planting torchwood in the area of Tract E, which is close to the golf course and areas that will be developed, may actually harm the survival potential of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. The butterflies are extremely susceptible to chemical insecticides. Planting torchwood in areas where insecticides will be used may create an attractive nuisance to the butterflies. Therefore, the requirement for planting should be moved to an off-site area that is remote from the development to guard against this problem. The area of the old service road should be revegetated pursuant to a schedule similar to the one used for the other revegetation area. Off-site mitigation is to be provided through the enhancement of hammock succession on five, one acre segments of the right-of-way of Old State Road 905 or an alternative similar site approved by the Commission with an area of enhancement to equal five acres. The amount of off-site mitigation was baseed upon a calculation of the amount of road surface in Harbor Course South. The Proposed Permit requires the old road bed and asphalt to be removed and the road restored to original grade. The enhancement of the site is to be accomplished by planting tropical hardwood vegetation from a specified vegetation list, adherence to specific planting instructions governing phase of planting, survival rate and watering conditions, placement of twenty rock and debris piles, (each four cubic yards in volume), removal of exotic plant species semi-annually for a five year period and removal of weedy species of trees and shrubs in an area within a radius of three feet around each planted tree over a similar time period. Four lots in Plat 18 are to be set aside as an assurance against failure to complete the planting or failure to provide an alternative site. A surety bond or letter of credit in the amount of $50,000.00 is also required to ensure compliance with the planting requirements. Old State Road 905 is currently owned by the Florida Department of Transportation. There are plans to convey this right-of-way to Monroe County which in turn plans to abandon the road, remove the road bed and asphalt, and cooperate with the restoration. Thus, it appears that Monroe County may assume responsibility for removing the asphalt road along Old State Road 905. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenor to ensure that this removal is accomplished. Old State Road 905 is utilized by some utility companies to service their utility lines. At this point, it is not clear whether the utility easements will preclude the revegetation required by the Proposed Permit from becoming effective. The Proposed Permit provides adequate procedures for selecting alternative sites in the event that Old State Road 905 can not be effectively used for a mitigation area. With respect to both the on-site and off-site mitigation, the revegatation requirements in the Proposed Permit are reasonably related to the Commission's goal of enhancing the long term survival of woodrats and cotton mice on North Key Largo. While the diversity of the flora in a natural hammock is greater than that called for in the proposed mitigation, the revegetation will accelerate the development of the mitigation areas into high quality habitat for the endangered species. While a hardwood hammock has a natural capability to regenerate on its own, the regeneration can be enhanced by planting trees in a scarified area. The revegetation required pursuant to the Proposed Permit will be placed mainly in corridors replacing old road ways. This placement will hasten the redevelopment of these areas into high quality habitat. The Intervenors are required to ensure a two year, seventy five percent survival rate for trees planted. Any trees that die are to be replaced by the species with the highest survival rate. The evidence established that the most effective way to enhance the revegetation process is to plant those species of trees that are slow to seed or that are relatively rare. It is not clear whether the planting schedule and sucession procedures attached to the Proposed Permit have taken this fact into consideration. While the diversity of species detailed in the attachments to the Proposed Permit could be reallocated between species to further enhance the revegetation process, the proposed schedules are adequate except for the requirement of planting torchwood on Tract E. Torchwood is an important habitat and food source for Schaus' swallowtail butterflies and should not be placed in an area where chemical insect control efforts are likely. As indicated above, the Proposed Permit requires a survival rate of 75% for the planted trees within two years of the initial planting. The Intervenors are also required to inspect the revegetation sites semi-annually for five years and to remove invasive exotic plants. In addition, Intervenors are required to remove weeding trees, shrubs and vines within a radius of 3 feet around each planted tree for a period of five years. Semiannual reports must be filed with the Commission for the first five years after planting to advise as to the presence of such species. There are no enforcement mechanisms in the Proposed Permit to ensure that the monotoring and removal of exotic species requirements will be completed. The bond requirements of the Proposed Permit only apply to the plantings and installation of debris piles. The requirement for removal of exotic species will help ensure that those exotic species cannot invade the mitigation sites and prevent or retard the natural hammock regeneration process. This requirement will enhance the development of a high quality hammock which will hopefully provide habitat for the endangered species. It is important that an enforcement mechanism be provided in the permit with respect to this requirement. The State Department of Natural Resources has a program for the removal of exotic plants from state lands. DNR is currently preparing a major management plan for North Key Largo and DNR employees are currently involved in removing exotic species from the right-of-way of Old State Road 905. The requirements of the Proposed Permit will augment the on-going efforts of DNR and free-up resources to focus on the removal of exotic species in neighboring areas. The Proposed Permit does not impose qualifications on the individuals who will be responsible for removing the exotic species. The permit should require the Intervenors to retain qualified people to identify the exotic species. The spacing, watering and survival rate aspects of the revegetation plan were based, in part, upon the experiences with revegetation at a previous mitigation site (the Budd Post site discussed below) and represent a reasonable effort for enhancing the revegetation of the hammock. While there is no requirement that the planted trees survive longer than two years after the initial planting, the 75% survival requirement during the first two years provides reasonable assurance that the revegetation will be done properly and with a high probability of success. General Condition 1 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Commission will review the Permit periodically and "may initiate enforcement or revocation action for any violation of the Permit Conditions by the Permittee, its agents, its employees, or representatives." There is no provision for enforcement or revocation of the permit for violations of the permit conditions by purchasers of lots or other third parties who obtain title to the property from the Intervenors. This enforcement mechanism will become essentially obsolete if and when the Intervenors transfer their interests in the property. General Condition 2 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Permit is valid "only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits." This provision is meaningless since there are no "specific processing operations applied for" and there have been no approved drawings or exhibits other than the planting schedules which are part of the revegetation aspect of the mitigation requirements. There are certain provisions of the Proposed Permit which are vague and/or ambiguous. Special Conditions 4(b) indicates that the requirements of Specific Condition 3(j) are applicable to the restoration of Tract E. Special Condition 3(j) requires the placement of twenty debris piles. However, Specific Condition 4(c) only requires a placement of ten such piles in Tract E. This ambiguity should be clarified. Special Condition 4(d) indicates that there are utility lines in the revegetation area which will have to be maintained. Under this provision, the applicant is allowed to maintain, using hand tools only, a clear path of up to eight feet wide over each utility line. It is not clear from the evidence presented how many utility lines are involved and whether a separate eight foot area can be cleared for each utility line. If several separate utility lines are involved, this provision could effectively prevent the regeneration of the area into high quality hammock habitat. Free ranging domestic pets, especially cats, are a significant threat to the endangered species. One of the conditions imposed by the Proposed Permit would prohibit free ranging pets within the subdivision pursuant to a subdivision covenant to run with the land. The specific wording of such a covenant has not been provided. The Proposed Permit does not provide for any enforcement mechanism with respect to this covenant. Some enforcement mechanism must be provided in order for this condition to provide any effective protection for the endangered species. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenors to hold four lots from sale until the off-site mitigation requirements have been met. If the planting is not accomplished within a five year period, the Intervenors are required to include these four lots as part of the conservation easement in Tract E. The lots being withheld for sale have an average market value in excess of $120,000 per lot. Thus, this requirement places a major incentive on the Intervenors to comply with the terms of the Proposed Permit. However, it is not clear whether this enforcement mechanism can be applied to the provisions of the Proposed Permit regarding the removal of exotic species. The Proposed Permit does not allow the Intervenors to kill any member of the endangered species. The Proposed Permit does allow the "incidental taking" of the threatened species (Eastern Indigo snake). The term "incidental taking" is interpreted by the Comimssion to include the killing of a member of the threatened species which is incidental to the conduct of otherwise lawful activities. The Commission contends that it has the jurisdiction to issue such an "incidental take" permit for an endangered species under appropriate conditions and mitigation requirements. The Commission did not believe an incidental take permit was necessary with respect to the endangered species on this site because the Commission felt that the habitat quality was relatively low and the likelihood of encountering a member of the species at the site was also low. The evidence established that there is a possibility that some members of the endangered species, i.e., woodrats and cotton mice, will be killed during the development and building of the subdivision. While this possibility is speculative, the chances of such a killing can be minimized by incorporating further protections in the permit. The evidence did not indicate any likelihood that East Indigo snakes or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies will be killed incidental to land clearing and/or development of Harbor Course South. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a habitat conservation plan ("H.C.P.") before it will issue an incidental take permit. A habitat conservation plan committee was established by the Governor in 1985 to prepare an H.C.P. for the North Key Largo area. The goal of the Committee is to designate areas which would be suitable for development and areas which may be necessary for conservation. A Draft Habitat Conservation Plan has been prepared, but it has not yet been officially approved. Harbor Course South is outside the study area of the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and therefore is not proposed as a conservation area. The framework and structure of the Proposed Permit reflects the Commission's desire to apply a comprehensive permitting approach to the Harbor Course South development rather than rely upon a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction with each individual lot purchaser at the time clearing or development activities are sought. The evidence established that there is insufficient indicia of woodrat or cotton mouse presence on a number of the lots in Harbor Course South. Thus, if a lot-by-lot approach was used, the Commission would not have the authority under its current rules to require a number of the individual lot owners to obtain a permit before land clearing. Without question, further fragmentation of the hammock will reduce the quality of the habitat for the endangered species. If a lot-by-lot permitting process is utilized, the owners of the lots that do not show any signs of the presence of woodrats or cotton mice would be able to clear to the maximum extent allowable under the Monroe County development ordinances. Such an approach would not halt the further fragmentation of hammock. By utilizing a comprehensive permit, the Commission can establish uniform standards for development and require stronger mitigative measures to offset the impact of development in the area on the endangered and threatened species. The approach is further justified in view of the Commission's determination that the Harbor Course South property is of only minimal importance as a habitat for the endangered and threatened species. See, Findings of Fact 80-81 below. In sum, land development and land clearing activities are likely to take place on the Harbor Course South property regardless of whether the Proposed Permit is issued. If the Commission utilizes a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction, a large portion of the lots on Harbor Course South would not be required to obtain a permit from the Commission because many of those lots do not have nests or any indication of the presence of the endangered species. Under these circumstances, the Commission would probably not be able to obtain comprehensive mitigation conditions and the habitat for the endangered species would be further fragmented with little or no mitigation. As noted above, the Commission has not adopted any rules setting forth its policies and procedures for issuing an overall blanket permit for the "incidental taking" of endangered species. Similarly, there are no formal guidelines adopted to establish when the Commission has jurisdiction over land- clearing activities. In determining whether to assert jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, the Commission looks for evidence of existing nests or habitat of an endangered species or the probability that a taking, killing or some other molestation will occur to a particular member of the species. In connection with the Proposed Permit, the Commission determined that it had the authority under Rule 39-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to issue permits for clearing and development activities that molest the nests of endangered species. As discussed below, the Commission has issued only one prior permit for land clearing and development activities. That prior permit is was not timely challenged. No rules or standards have been promulgated by the Commission to set forth the mitigative requirements that can be imposed, if any, upon individual lot purchasers. An important factor in the Commission's decision to issue the Proposed Permit in this case was the Commission's determination that the overall quality of the Harbor Course South property as habitat for the endangered species was minimal. In determining that the Harbor Course South property was of minimal importance to the survival of the endangered species, the Commission took into consideration various reports on the sparse density of the population of the endangered species on the subject property. The Commission also took into account what it deemed to be inevitable future development as reflected in the Vested Rights Determination, the fact that the site was not designated for preservation in the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, and the fact that the site was not part of the North Key Largo CARL acquisition project. Finally, the Commission considered that the site was already a highly fragmented tropical hardwood hammock as demonstrated by Landsat Thematic Mapper Classfied Satellite Imagery. The only previous instance in which the Commission has issued a permit to molest or harm the nests or habitat of endangered species pursuant to land clearing or development activities involved another residential sub-division in North Key Largo. In June of 1986, separate permits were issued by the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to the Nichols/Post Hendrix Corporation to destroy nests and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse. (The permit issued by the Commission in connection with this prior project will be referred to as the "Budd Post Permit.") The property covered by the Budd Post Permit is south of Harbor Course South. It lies approximately six miles south of the intersection of Old State Road 905 and Card Sound Road. That property consists of approximately ten acres of high quality hardwood hammock located within the project area of the North Key Largo Hammocks, CARL land acquisition program. Thus, the property was essentially surrounded by high quality tropical hardwood hammock. The Budd Post property is similar to the Harbor Course South property in that both areas run from County Road 905 east to the ocean and both tracts contain habitat suitable for use by endangered species. However, Harbor Course South is a lesser quality habitat than the Budd Post property because it is more highly fragmented and is bordered on the north by the highly developed Ocean Reef property. Overall, there was a significantly greater indication of the presence of the subject endangered species on the Budd Post Property than there is at Harbor Course South. The Budd Post Permit was the first of its kind issued by the Commission and was processed simultaneously and concurrently with the comparable federal permit from the U.S.F.W.S. As a condition to issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission required the permittee to set aside a preservation area, build debris piles to encourage nesting of woodrats and cotton mice and plant vegetation off-site to mitigate the loss of hammock habitat. A condition of the Budd Post Permit required the permittee to trap and remove the endangered species during land clearing activities. A similar condition in the Proposed Permit would help reduce the likelihood of any killing of the endangered species. The results of the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit indicate that such a plan can serve to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by providing high quality habitat and accelerating the revegetation of scarified areas. A little more than two years after the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit was implemented, it appears that the efforts are achieving their intended results. Specifically, the plants that were planted as a result of the revegetation plan are flourishing and at least some of the debris piles have been colonized by woodrats. Thus, it appears a viable habitat has been created. There is no definitive method for determining the density of population of woodrats or cotton mice at a given site. In making its jurisdictional determination with respect to the Budd Post property, the Commission looked for the presence of stick nests, (which are widely presumed to be constructed by woodrats) as the primary jurisdictional indicator. Subsequent to the issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission has recognized that stick nests are not the sole indicators of the presence of wood rats and the Commission now considers other factors as well. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a trapping study of woodrats and cotton mice as part of its permit application. The permittee for the Budd Post Permit provided the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission with a "trapping report" prepared by Dr. Stout. The Intervenors also hired Dr. Jack Stout, who is a biologist and professor at the University of Central Florida, and a similar report was prepared for Harbor Course South. The same methodology was used to trap woodrats and cotton mice on both sites. Dr. Stout concluded that the Harbor Course South property had a low density population of woodrats and cotton mice. Dr. Earl Rich, a biologist and ecologist and a former professor at the University of Miami with extensive experience researching woodrat habitat on North Key Largo, also inspected the Harbor Course South property on behalf of the Intervenors. His inspection took place after the date of the Proposed Permit. He determined that the overall quality of the subject property as habitat for the endangered species was low because of the fragmented and uneven quality of the hammock. These qualities are largely attributed to the existing intrastructure and the golf course which winds throughout the subject property. Julie Hovis, a wild life biologist employed by the Commission, performed a site inspection report in connection with the application for the Proposed Permit. While not an expert on the endangered species, she was qualified to identify certain signs of the presence of the species. She found that there was some evidence that woodrats and cotton mice were present on the Harbor Course South property. She noted that the quality of the habitat varies greatly. Her inspection and conclusions were the basis for the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over the subject site. Dr. Steven Humphrey and Dr. Numi Goodyear inspected the area on behalf of the Petitioners to determine the presence and/or density of the endangered species populations. While their studies find more evidence of the presence of wood rats and cotton mice on the subject property than the prior studies had indicated, they also conclude that the property is a mixed quality habitat for the endangered species. While there are some areas that appear to be high quality habitat, these experts recognize the fragmented character of the habitat and the effect of the golf course in disrupting the habitat and producing "islands of vegetation." The Goodyear and Humphrey studies confirm that the densities of the endangered species are lowest in areas where the hammock is highly fragmented. The Goodyear and Humphrey studies do not refute the Commission's conclusion that a significant number of the lots of Harbor Course South do not reflect sufficient indicia of the presence of the endangered species to allow the Commission to assert jurisdiction on all the property if a lot-by-lot permitting process was utilized. The Commission has concluded that the continuing development of Harbor Course South is inevitable. The Commission has also concluded that its authority over clearing of individual homesites is limited. In view of these conclusions, the Commission has attempted to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by imposing certain mitigation requirements on the Intervenors. The evidence has established that, assuming the development of Harbor Course South is inevitable, and the Commission lacks the authority to halt the development of Harbor Course South, the Commission's comprehensive approach to permitting will be more favorable to the survival potential of the endangered species than a lot-by-lot jurisdictional determination would be.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission enter a Final Order setting forth the terms and conditions for an Agreement with the Intervenors for a specific period of time as set forth in Paragraph 30 of Conclusions of Law, whereby permits will be issued for the incidental destruction and/or molestation of the nests and habitat of the subject endangered species in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit as modified in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 32 of the Conclusions of Law above. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of October, 1990.
