The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 843, 845 (as amended by Ordinance No. 847), 846, 847, 851, 853, and 854 are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in the Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Groves Holdings, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company. Groves Holdings, LLC operates a real estate management and investment business in the County that manages the leasing, entitlement, and disposition of lands owned by its related subsidiaries Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies wholly owned by Groves Holdings, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, owns 2,800 acres of citrus grove. Groves 14, LLC, owns 1,700 acres of land being developed as a residential community and equestrian club known as Hobe Sound Polo Club. The land owned by Groves 12, LLC, is located in the rural area of the County, approximately one mile from the closest boundary of an urban service district. The land being developed by Groves 14, LLC, is also located in the rural area. Groves 14, LLC, also owns 450 acres not being developed that are located partially within the rural area and partially within an urban service district The Groves submitted written comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Donna Melzer and Eliza Ackerly each owns real property in and resides in Martin County. Melzer and Ackerly each submitted comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit Florida corporation incorporated in 1997 for the purposes of conserving the natural resources of Martin County, and maintaining and improving the quality of life for residents of the County. Its members include individuals and corporate and non-corporate entities. A substantial number of its members reside, own property, or operate a business in Martin County. MCCA engages primarily in lobbying, public advocacy, and litigation in Martin County regarding the CGMP. MCCA conducts membership meetings, sends a newsletter to members and others, and sometimes hosts meetings open to the general public. MCCA is also involved in environmental preservation activities in Martin County, including educational meetings, field trips, and lobbying for public purchase of lands for conservation. No evidence was presented to show that MCCA owns property in the County, maintains an office in the County, or holds a business or occupational license. MCCA submitted comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments, on behalf of its members, during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Hereafter, MCCA, Donna Melzer, and Eliza Ackerly will be referred to collectively as MCCA. The Plan Amendments Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, requires each local government to conduct an evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan every seven years and to prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”). Martin County initiated its second evaluation and appraisal process in 2007, culminating in the adoption of an EAR in July 2008. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires a local government to adopt comprehensive plan amendments based on the recommendations in the EAR in a single amendment cycle within 18 months after adopting the EAR. The County’s proposed EAR-based amendments were sent to the Department in September 2009. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (“ORC”) Report the next month. After considering and responding to the ORC Report, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 842 through 856 on December 16, 2009, amending all the elements of the CGMP. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and determined that a new “Essential Services Nodes” policy of the FLUE adopted by Ordinance No. 845 was not in compliance. The Department determined that all of the other amendments adopted by Martin County were in compliance. The County adopted Ordinance No. 857, which rescinded the Essential Services Nodes policy to which the Department had objected. The decision to rescind the policy was made unilaterally by the County. The rescission was not pursuant to a compliance agreement with the Department. Based on the County’s rescission of the Essential Services Nodes policy, the Department determined that Ordinance No. 845, as amended by Ordinance No. 857, was in compliance. All of the Plan Amendments are text amendments. The Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) is not changed. Urban Service Districts The CGMP establishes urban service districts (USDs) in the County. There is an Eastern USD and an Indiantown USD. These USDs are subdivided into a primary USD and a secondary USD. About 87 percent of the County’s population resides east of the Florida Turnpike in the Eastern USDs. The Indiantown USDs, which are west of the Florida Turnpike, are separated from the Eastern USDs by more than 20 miles of mostly agricultural lands. The primary purpose of the USDs is to prevent urban sprawl by directing growth to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available or are programmed to be available at appropriate levels of service. The provision of urban public facilities and services is generally limited to USDs. The term “public urban facilities and services” is defined in the CGMP as “regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network.” Under FLUE Policy 4.7A.2, urban development, including commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and urban residential land uses may only be located within the Primary USDs. FLUE Policy 4.7B.1 permits low density residential use (half-acre lots or greater) in the Secondary USD. No urban or suburban uses and no utility services such as water and sewer may extend outside the USD boundaries. Most of the lands outside the Primary and Secondary USDs are designated Agricultural, but there are also lands designated Public Conservation and Public Utilities. MCCA’s Issues Section 1.10 Chapter 1 of the CGMP is entitled “Preamble” and addresses general topics such as the legal status of the CGMP, the continuing evaluation of the CGMP, and amending the CGMP. The Preamble contains no goals, objectives, or policies. MCCA objects to a sentence in Section 1.10 of the Preamble, adopted by Ordinance No. 843, which states, “This Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall supersede the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and all related amendments.” MCCA contends that this sentence will create problems and confusion if some of the Plan Amendments are determined to be in compliance, but other amendments are determined to be not in compliance. There is no confusion. The reference to “This Plan” in Section 1.10 is reasonably interpreted to refer to the entire CGMP, as amended by the latest EAR-based amendments that are either already in effect or will become effective following the conclusion of these consolidated cases.2/ Chapter 2 Definitions MCCA objects to several definitions added in Chapter 2 of the CGMP, but the evidence presented does not show an internal consistency or other "in compliance" issue. FLUE Goal 4.7 MCCA objects to the changes in FLUE Goal 4.4G, which would be re-designated Goal 4.7. Existing Goal 4.4G states: 4.4G Goal (encourage urban development in urban service areas) Martin County shall regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Growth Management Plan. (italics in original) New Goal 4.7 states: Goal 4.7. To regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Plan. (italics in original) MCCA contends that the removal of the word “shall” in the new goal “removes the mandatory restriction.” The County did not intend to make a substantive change to Goal 4.4G. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of the goal. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.12A.2 MCCA’s major objection to Ordinance No. 845 is with new FLUE Policy 4.12A.2. Most of the objections raised by MCCA to other changes in the CGMP are directly related to MCCA's objection to Policy 4.12A.2. MCCA contends that this new policy, which allows “small-scale service establishments” outside the USDs, fails to include reasonable controls on commercial development and will adversely affect agricultural uses and the quality of life of rural residents.3/ Policy 4.12A.2 states: 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 and agricultural uses. (italics in original) Martin County contends that this policy is not a substantive change because nearly the same wording already exists as Section 4.6.D.4 in a part of the FLUE entitled “Implementation Strategies,” and the section was merely re- located and re-designated as Policy 4.12A.2. Section 4.6.D.4 provides: Development outside the urban services district shall be restricted to low intensive development in order to promote cost-effective practices in the delivery of public services. Outside Urban Service Districts development options shall be restricted to low intensity uses including agriculture and agricultural ranchettes, not exceeding one unit per 5 gross acres, and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses as provided by section 6.4.A.5.e., Housing Service Zones in the Housing Element. (italics in original) The reference in this policy to Housing Service Zones is an error. Sometime in the past, the County deleted provisions in the CGMP regarding Housing Service Zones, but overlooked this particular reference. Comparing Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2, the significant changes appear to be that Section 4.6.D.4 is transformed from a “strategy” to a “policy,” and the new policy no longer ties small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. However, the determination of whether a substantive change was made in the replacement of Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2 also requires consideration of Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which states: Martin County shall provide reasonable and equitable options for development outside of Primary Urban Service Districts, including agriculture and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. Policy 4.4.G.1.e is already designated as a policy and it does not tie small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. Therefore, although Section 4.6.D.4 differs from new Policy 4.12A.2, there is no substantive difference between new Policy 4.12A.2 and existing Policy 4.4.G.1.e. MCCA asserts that Policy 4.12A.2 and Policy 4.4.G.1.e differ substantively because the former does not have the “agricultural land use designation limits on uses allowed” that are in Policy 4.4.G.1.e. However, as shown above, both policies allow for small-scale service establishments that support rural uses as well as agricultural uses. In support of its arguments about small-scale service establishments, MCCA also points to existing FLUE Policy 4.4.G.1.b (re-designated Policy 4.7A.2) and “implementation strategy” 4.6.D.3 (to be deleted) which require commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. The policy and implementation strategy that restrict commercial uses to the Primary USDs co- exist in the CGMP with Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which allows small- scale service establishments outside the Primary USDs. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles these policies and strategies, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. MCCA refers to the County planning staff's report associated with another proposed plan amendment known as "Becker B-4" in support of MCCA's argument that the amendments at issue in the present case have substantively changed the FLUE with regard to small-scale service establishments. However, none of MCCA's allegations regarding the relevance of the Becker B-4 staff report are borne out. If the Becker B-4 amendment is adopted by the County, it will be subject to its own "in compliance" review. In summary, when all relevant provisions of the CGMP are taken into account, the changes made by Ordinance No. 845 that are related to small-scale service establishments are not substantive changes to the CGMP. MCCA’s claims of internal inconsistency that are based on MCCA’s objections to new Policy 4.12A.2 must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the County did not demonstrate a need for more commercial uses outside the USDs (based on the allowance for small-scale service establishments) must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the allowance for small-scale service establishments constitutes a failure of the County to discourage urban sprawl must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.5F.4 MCCA objects to the changes to Policy 4.5F.4, which allows planned unit developments (PUDs) designed to preserve open space, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural land uses. These PUDs can be located in areas currently designated Agricultural and can include residential lots greater than two acres in size if certain criteria are met. MCCA contends that this policy is inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, which restricts residential densities in agricultural areas to 20-acre residential lots. The allowance in Policy 4.5F.4 for PUDs with residential lots smaller than 20 acres already exists. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles Policies 4.5F.4 and 4.13A.1, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. Furthermore, a PUD created under Objective 4.5F requires a plan amendment. It appears that one of the purposes of this requirement is to re-designate any agricultural lands to a residential future land use designation.4/ FLUE Objective 4.7A MCCA objects to the removal of the word “shall” from existing FLUE Objective 4.4.G.1 (which would be re-designated as Objective 4.7A). MCCA argues that the existing objective prohibits commercial uses outside the Primary USDs and that the removal of the word “shall” will allow commercial uses outside the USDs. However, the objective does not prohibit commercial uses outside the Primary USDs. The objective states that the County “shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development” in the Primary USDs. To concentrate a land use in one location does not mean to prohibit it elsewhere. It is Policy 4.7A.2 that requires new commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of Objective 4.7A. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.9H.2 MCCA objects to new Policy 4.9H.2, regarding residential PUDs, because the policy indicates that commercial uses can be included in a residential PUD, even if the PUD is located outside the Primary USDs. Policy 4.7A.2 requires all new commercial development to be located in the Primary USDs. Objective 4.5F and its associated policies allow for residential PUDs in agricultural areas outside the USDs, but do not indicate that the PUDs in agricultural areas can include commercial uses. Policy 4.9H.2 conflicts with Policy 4.7A.2 and with Objective 4.5F and its associated policies FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) MCCA objects to new Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d), which allows one “accessory dwelling unit” on a residential lot. Accessory units cannot be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit and are not counted as separate units for purposes of density calculations. MCCA's argument regarding accessory dwelling units assumes that the new policy allows accessory units in the rural areas of the County, outside the Primary USDs. However, Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) appears under the heading "General policies for all urban Residential development." The term "urban" is not defined in the CGMP, but there are several FLUE policies that direct urban residential densities to the Primary USDs, such as Policies 4.7A.2 and 4.7A.3. Objective 4.7A directs densities greater than two units per acre to the Primary USDs, which indicates that densities greater than two units per acre are urban densities. In order to maintain internal consistency, accessory units would have to be confined to areas of the FLUM designated for urban residential density. See FLUE Objective 4.13A.7. The County's proposal to not count accessory uses for density purposes was shown to be a professionally acceptable planning practice. Accessory units are similar to residential additions, converted garages, and other changes that can add bedrooms and residents on a residential lot, but which traditionally have been disregarded when calculating density. FLUE Policy 4.13A.8.(5) MCCA contends that changes made to Policy 4.13A.8.(5), regarding Expressway Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers ("Expressway Centers"), combined with the proposed deletion of Section 4.6.D.3 of the "Implementation Strategies," allows for more commercial development without data and analysis to support the need for additional commercial development. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) creates Expressway Centers at three large Interstate 95 interchange locations in the County as a special land use designation to accommodate the unique needs of people traveling through the County. Section 4.6.D.3 (which ordinance No. 845 would delete) allows a waiver for Expressway Centers from the general requirements applicable to the USDs if an applicant for a waiver meets certain criteria. MCCA contends that the waiver process weighs "the traveling public’s needs against the value of the urban boundary." That is not an accurate description of the waiver process, because none of the criteria mentions the urban boundary. MCCA contends that the waiver process has been replaced with a "market need test" in Policy 4.13A.8.(5) without supporting data and analysis and that the change encourages urban sprawl. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) requires a market feasibility analysis to show that "the uses proposed are warranted by the traveling public they are intended to serve." MCCA presented no evidence on the County's past applications of Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the demonstration required for a waiver under Section 4.6.D.3 is substantively different and more protective than the demonstration required to establish an Expressway Center under Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the creation of Expressway Centers or the specific amendments to Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5) will lead to more commercial uses outside the Primary USDs, so as to encourage urban sprawl. State Comprehensive Plan MMCA failed to present evidence or argument to demonstrate that any of the Plan Amendments is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Other Issues MCCA raised other issues in its petitions for which it did not present evidence at the final hearing. With regard to all the issues raised by MCCA that are not specifically addressed above, MCCA failed to prove an inconsistency. The Groves' Issues The Groves’ principal objection to the Plan Amendments is with the County’s methodology for determining the need for residential dwelling units, which is based in large part on the a residential capacity analysis (RCA) set forth in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, adopted by Ordinance No. 845. The Groves contend that the RCA overestimates the capacity or supply of dwelling units on vacant lands that can be used to meet projected population growth. Because need is derived from a comparison of supply and demand, the Groves contend that the RCA’s overestimation of supply will always cause the County to underestimate the need for additional dwelling units. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 provides: The County shall consider the following factors in its residential capacity analysis: The current peak population, based on the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium population, shall be used to demonstrate the unit need in the fifteen year planning period; A market factor of 125 percent shall be applied to the unit need; The Eastern Urban Service District and the Indiantown Urban Service District shall be considered separately; Maximum density shall be calculated for Future Land Use categories in which residential development is allowed; Wetland acreage shall be subtracted from the vacant, undeveloped acreage; Because some land will be taken up by non-residential uses such as roads and utilities, a reduction of 8.5 percent shall be calculated to account for such uses. In the past, Martin County used a similar methodology for determining residential need, but it was not a part of the CGMP. New FLUE Policy 4.1D.3 requires that a new RCA be performed every two years. The RCA is to be used to evaluate future plan amendments and future changes to USD policies. The Groves did not dispute the County’s calculation of residential demand, the number of dwelling units needed to serve the projected population through the planning period 2010 to 2025. As stated in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, demand is based on mid- range population projections from the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is then adjusted by a 125 percent market factor. A market factor is a multiplier that is applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 requires that the Eastern USDs and the Indiantown USDs be considered separately. This requirement is based on an historical pattern of higher population growth east of the Florida Turnpike and the expectation that the pattern will continue into the foreseeable future. The County projected an increase of 17,598 new residents in the Eastern USDs and an increase of 754 in the Indiantown USDs by 2025. When these figures are divided by average persons per household (2.21), the result is a demand for 7,963 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 341 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. Applying the market factor of 125 percent results in a demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs, and 426 units in the Indiantown USDs for the 2010-2025 planning period. To calculate the residential supply of dwelling units that can be developed on existing vacant lands, FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 directs that the calculation begin by determining the maximum density allowed under each future land use category of the vacant lands. In the following discussion, the maximum density allowed under a future land use designation will be referred to as the “theoretical” maximum density. It is the general practice of the Department to require local governments to use theoretical maximum densities in a need analysis unless there are policies in the comprehensive plan preventing landowners from attaining the theoretical maximum densities. However, like the Department's general practice to accept a market factor no greater than 125 percent, these are not requirements explicitly stated in Department rules from which the Department never deviates. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 incorporates two limiting factors that prevent the attainment of theoretical maximum densities: (1) wetlands and (2) roads rights-of-way and utility easements. Development is generally prohibited in wetlands. However, landowners whose lands contain wetlands can transfer half of the “lost” density associated with the wetland acreage to the uplands. Therefore, in calculating the acreage of vacant lands that are available for residential development, the RCA subtracts half the wetland acreage. The County also reduces the total vacant land acreage by 8.5 percent to account for the loss of developable acreage due to the presence of road rights-of-way and utility easements within which development is prohibited. After reducing the total acres of vacant lands in the USDs to account for wetlands and for rights-of-way and utilities, the County determined that there is a supply or vacant land capacity of 5,790 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 5,335 units in the Indiantown USDs. The County then adjusted these numbers to account for approved residential developments that have not yet been constructed. This adjustment resulted in final calculation of the existing supply in the Eastern USDs of 9,339 dwelling units and an existing supply in the Indiantown USDs of 6,686 dwelling units. The Groves' Critique of the RCA The Groves argue that the RCA overestimates supply by failing to account for other policies of the CGMP that restrict development and prevent a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 9.1G.4 requires the preservation of a wetland buffer around a wetland. There was conflicting evidence about whether the County credits the landowner for the acreage set aside as a wetland buffer. The Groves contend that no credit is given and cites Table 4-2 of the FLUE, which indicates that wetland buffer acreage is not subtracted to arrive at the total available acreage that can be developed. The Groves also point to the testimony of a County planner, who stated that the County intended to subtract buffer acreage from vacant land acreage, but ultimately did not do so "based on adamant public comment." However, the County's planning director, Nicki Van Vonno, stated that "[Y]ou do get the full density off of the buffer land." It would be logical for the County to not subtract wetland buffer acreage when calculating residential capacity if the landowner is getting full credit for the buffer acreage. Therefore, it is found that the County allows a full transfer of the density associated with wetland buffer acreage to the uplands. COSE Policy 9.1G.5 requires that 25 percent of upland native habitat on a site be preserved. The landowner is allowed to transfer density from these native upland habitat areas to the unaffected areas of the property. Nevertheless, the Groves contends that COSE Policy 9.1G.5 impairs the ability of landowners to attain the theoretical maximum density. The CGMP also requires a portion of the site be set aside for sufficient water retention and treatment. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by water retention and treatment areas. The County had proposed to reduce the theoretical maximum density by 15 percent to account for "surface water management and required preservation,” but abandoned the idea when the Department objected to it as not adequately supported by data and analysis. The evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to establish that the requirements of the CGMP associated with surface water management and preservation reduces the theoretical maximum density of residential lands by 15 percent. The County has a mixed-use land use category called Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). The County allows only a third of a COR parcel to be developed for residential uses and this practice reduces the theoretical maximum density of COR lands. However, the RCA assumes 100 percent of the COR acreage is available for residential use. The County attempted to justify this discrepancy by pointing out that the limitation of residential uses on COR lands is not incorporated into the CGMP. However, it is an undisputed fact (datum) that the County's practice reduces residential capacity on COR lands. The RCA fails to account for this fact. If the RCA accounted for the limitation of residential development on COR lands, the supply of dwelling units in the Eastern USDs would be reduced by 733 units. FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(a) establishes a 40-foot height limit countywide which sometimes prevents a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by building height restrictions. FLUE Policies 4.1F.1 through 4.1F.3 require transitional density zones when land is developed at a higher density than adjacent lands. FLUE Policy 4.1F.2 establishes a zone (or “tier”) abutting the adjacent land, equal to the depth of an existing adjacent residential lot in which development is restricted, to the same density and compatible structure types (e.g., height) as on the adjacent property. The RCA does not account for any loss of density due to the tier policies. Although the landowner is allowed to transfer density to the unaffected portion of the property in the case of some development restrictions imposed by the CGMP, there is not always sufficient acreage remaining to make full use of the transferred density. The Groves' expert witness, Rick Warner, reviewed residential development projects that had been approved or built during the past 15 years in the Eastern USDs and compared the actual number of approved or built units to the theoretical maximum density allowed by the applicable land use designation for the property at the time of approval. Warner determined that, on average, the projects attained only about 45 percent of the theoretical maximum density. The Groves presented the testimony of Morris Crady, who testified that, of the 14 development projects in the County that he was involved in, CGMP policies caused the projects to be developed at 1,285 units fewer than (about 41 percent of) the maximum theoretical density. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 9,339 dwelling units, indicates a deficit of 615 dwelling units. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 426 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 6,686 dwelling units, indicates a surplus of 6,260 dwelling units. The County decided to make no changes to the FLUM because it believes the projected population can be accommodated with existing land use designations. The Groves argue that, because the RCA overestimates supply, the deficit in the Eastern USDs is actually substantially larger.5/ For example, taking into account the County's policy regarding limiting residential uses on COR lands, the deficit would be 1,348 units in the Eastern USDs. The deficit would be enlarged by the effects of the other factors discussed above that reduce a landowner's ability to attain the theoretical maximum density. The County contends that there is additional residential capacity outside the USDs that should be considered. The County also points to the large surplus of available dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. The County asserts that there is excess supply to meet the need when all the available dwelling units in the County are considered. These other considerations, however, are not a part of the RCA and, therefore, are in conflict with the RCA. Acres vs. Dwelling Units The Groves assert that County's determination of residential does not identify the amount of land needed for each category of land use as required by law, but, instead, expresses need solely in terms of total dwelling units. The Department has accepted residential need analyses expressed in dwelling units. Dwelling units can be converted into acreages, but only if one is told what density to apply. A local government must determine how many dwelling units it wants in each land use category in order to convert a need expressed in total dwelling units into a need expressed in acreages. Martin County believes that it has a sufficient supply of dwelling units to meet the projected population through the planning period. Apparently, the County is also satisfied with the existing size and distribution of future land use categories as depicted on the FLUM. The existing vacant land acreages for each land use category, set forth in the CGMP, represents the amount of land in each land use category that the County believes is needed to meet the projected population. However, there is an imbalance in the various types of residential land uses in the Eastern USDs. For example, there are only 13 acres of high density residential land and 57 acres of medium density residential land remaining in the Eastern USDs. In contrast, there are 2,950 acres of rural residential lands. The County has acknowledged that its past emphasis on low-height and low-density has contributed to a lack of affordable housing. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council noted that the small amount of vacant land in the County available for medium and high residential development contributes to the lack of affordable housing in the County. The Plan Amendments include policies which are designed to address the imbalances in land uses and the lack of affordable housing. These policies include permitting accessory dwelling units for urban residential development; allowing a 10 du/ac density bonus and an affordable housing density bonus in Medium Density Residential developments; reducing the criteria for an affordable housing density bonus in High Density Residential developments; and reviewing residential capacity in the Indiantown USDs. Commercial Need There is no state-wide standard for the amount of commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation, or agricultural lands that a local government must identify in its comprehensive plan in order to accommodate its projected population. The County acknowledges that there is a deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs, but no changes in the FLUM are proposed as part of these EAR-based amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments are “in compliance,” except for the following policies adopted by Martin County Ordinance No. 845, which the Department should determine are not "in compliance": FLUE Policy 4.1D.4; and FLUE Policy 4.9H.2. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether that portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER known as LU-97-02 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Janet Bollum (Bollum) and Glenn and Mary Brewer (the Brewers), who are property owners within or near the City of Deland, contend that a portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by Respondent, City of Deland (City), is not in compliance. The portion of the amendment under challenge, known as Plan Amendment LU-97-02, changes the land use on 39.56 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Marcia Berman, Trustee (Berman), to Highway Commercial. The property is currently under contract to be sold to Intervenor, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. (Wal-Mart), who intends to construct a Wal-Mart super store on a part of the site. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments. Until 1997, the Berman property was located in the unincorporated area of Volusia County (County). Prior to 1994, it carried an Urban Medium Intensity land use designation. That year, the County redesignated the property as Industrial. In 1997, the City annexed the Berman property and revised its Future Land Use Map the following year to change the land use to Highway Commercial. This change was accomplished through the plan amendment under challenge. On May 1, 1998, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Portions of Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. More specifically, it found that the new land use designation would "generate traffic which causes the projected operating conditions of roadways to fall below adopted level of service standards and exacerbates projected roadway deficiencies." The Department also found that the amendment was "not supported by or based on, and does not react in an appropriate way to, the best available data and analyses." In making these findings, the Department relied in part upon a traffic study prepared by "TEI" in 1998 which reflected that the City's traffic system did not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new land use. The Department determination triggered this action. On May 27, 1998, Petitioners, and 82 other property owners, filed a paper styled "Petition for Administrative Hearing and Petition to Intervene" challenging the change of land use on the Berman property in numerous respects. The paper was treated as a petition to intervene and was later granted. After the case was temporarily abated in August 1998 pending efforts to settle the matter, in January 1999, a new traffic study was prepared for the City by Ghyabi, Lassiter & Associates (GLA study), which determined that the existing and planned City transportation network could accommodate the impacts from the development allowed under the amendment. All parties except Petitioners then executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in February and March 2000, which resolved all issues originally raised by the Department. Thereafter, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. As required by Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), the parties were realigned consistent with their respective positions. Through an Amended Petition filed by Petitioners on July 19, 2000, all original Petitioners except Bollum and the Brewers have been dismissed, and the factual issues in this case narrowed to two: (a) whether the recent traffic studies "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)"; and (b) whether the "plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent." Standing of the Parties Bollum owns property, resides within, and owns and operates a business within the City. She also submitted written and oral comments to the City while the amendment was being adopted. The parties have stipulated that she is an affected person and thus has standing to participate. The Brewers own property and reside in an unincorporated area of the County in the immediate vicinity of the proposed plan amendment. They also reside within what is known as the "Greater Deland Area," as defined by Chapter 73-441, Laws of Florida. However, they do not own property, reside within, or own and operate a business within the corporate limits of the City, and thus they lack standing to participate. The parties have stipulated that Intervenors Berman and Wal-Mart have standing to participate in this proceeding. The Amendment The Berman property lies on the eastern side of U.S. Highway 17 just north of the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92, approximately three miles north of the City's central business district. The land is currently undeveloped. Prior to being annexed by the City, the property was located within the unicorporated area of the County, just north of the City limits. The earliest County land use designation was Urban Medium Intensity, a primarily residential land use classification which also allowed some commercial development, including small neighborhood shopping centers. In 1993, the County began a comprehensive examination of land use and zoning restrictions in the vicinity of the Berman property. In May 1994, it redesignated the Berman property from Urban Medium Intensity to Industrial. This use allowed not only industrial development, but also some commercial development. Before the Berman property was annexed by the City, it was depicted on the City's Urban Reserve Area Map (map). That map established advisory designations for unincorporated County land abutting the City, and was meant to be a guide for City land use decisions when property was annexed. The property was designated on the map as approximately one-half Commercial and one-half Industrial. In 1997, the Berman property was annexed by the City. Because the City was then required to place a land use designation on the property, on May 16, 1998, it adopted Amendment 98-1ER, which redesignated the property from Volusia County Industrial to City Highway Commercial. The new mixed-use designation allows "a wide range of retail and service and office uses," as well as up to twenty percent residential land uses, including multi-family manufactured housing developments. Thus, the Highway Commercial land use designation is meant to accommodate major shopping centers like the one proposed by Wal-Mart. Transportation issue In their Amended Petition, Petitioners allege that accepting as fact the "most recent traffic studies," those studies still "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)." The "most recent traffic studies" are the GLA study, and it shows that the existing and planned City transportation network can accommodate the traffic impacts arising from development allowed under the plan amendment. Some of the transportation impacts from the expected development on the Berman property will affect roadways within an area of the City that was formally designated in May 1992 as a Special Transportation Area (STA) or road segments with specialized level of service (LOS) standards. The STA includes the central business district and certain outlying areas essentially bounded by Minnesota Avenue, Amelia Avenue, the rear property lines of properties along the north side of New York Avenue (State Road 44), South Hill Avenue, Beresford Avenue, Boundary Avenue, and Clara Avenue, which extend to approximately one mile from the Berman property. None of the roadways within the STA are on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. Rule 9J-5.0055(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the City adopt LOS standards on roadways within its planning jurisdiction (which are not on the Florida Intrastate Highway System), including the disputed portion of U.S. Highways 17 and 92. The applicable LOS standards and STA provisions are found in Policies 3.1.7 and 3.1.10, respectively, of the Transportation Circulation Element of the plan. They read as follows: 3.1.7 For those roadways listed in Policy 3.1.6 [which include U.S. Highways 17 and 92], the City of Deland may permit development to occur until the peak hour traffic volumes exceed a 20% increase over the peak traffic counts published in the FDOT's 1989 Traffic Data Report. 3.1.10 As a result of FDOT's approval of the STA designation for US 17/92 (Woodland Boulevard), from Beresford Avenue to Michigan Avenue, and SR 44 (New York Avenue), from SR 15A to Hill Avenue, the following maximum LOS and/or traffic volumes shall be permitted. ROADWAY SEGMENT US 17/92, from Beresford to Michigan = 22,028 SR 44, from SR 15A to US 17/92 = LOS E SR 44, from US 17/92 to Hill = LOS E *The proposed maximum traffic volume is compatible with the maximum LOS for this section of roadway, as stated in Policy 3.1.7. These two policies have been found to be in compliance and are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. Although the STA is identified as a specific area, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates that development from outside of this area will impact the STA. As noted above, however, the undisputed GLA study demonstrates that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause these adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. The STA was approved in May 1992, or prior to the enactment of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes (1993), which allows certain exceptions from the otherwise blanket requirement to adopt and enforce a transportation LOS standard for roadways. Two planning tools made available to local governments by Section 163.3180(5), Florida Statutes (1993), are a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, both of which allow exceptions to transportation concurrency requirements. The practical effect of a TCEA is to allow development to proceed without having to comply with transportation concurrency. Petitioners essentially contend that the STA created by the City for the central business district and certain outlying areas is "the substantial equivalent of a TCEA," and thus it should be treated as one for purposes of this proceeding. They go on to argue that while the City may grant an exception to concurrency requirements for transportation facilities for projects located within a TCEA, those benefits cannot be extended to any other area, including the Berman property. Based on this premise, Petitioners conclude that without the benefit of the TCEA exception, the anticipated traffic from the new development on the Berman property will cause a "continuation of a [LOS] failure on the constrained segments of US 17/92 and on the unconstrained segment from SR44 to Wisconsin Avenue," in violation of the law. Petitioners' contention is based on an erroneous assumption. The evidence shows that the City has never adopted a TCEA. Neither has the STA "transformed" into a TCEA, as Petitioners suggest. Moreover, as noted above, the undisputed GLA study shows rather clearly that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause the adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. Petitioners further contend that the plan amendment is somehow inconsistent with the transportation exception requirements in Section 163.3180(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000). However, these provisions apply to developments "which pose only special part-time demands on the transportation system[,]" that is, "one that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during the calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volumes." The evidence shows that the Highway Commercial land use category is not designed for such developments and, in fact, encourages far more intense uses. Is There a Need for Additional Commercial Land? Petitioners next contend that "the plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent and not resolved by the Compliance Agreement." In the immediate vicinity of the Berman property, near the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92 north of the City, "there is an emerging trend of 'regional-type' commercial developments." This area is already partially developed with commercial uses, and it has additional areas depicted for future commercial and industrial use. There are no other parcels in the City, especially in this area, of a sufficient size to accommodate this type of regional commercial development. There are numerous ways to project the raw, numerical need for commercial land in the City. The City's Comprehensive Plan, its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the GLA study all contain statements regarding projected population and employment, each portraying a slightly different result. In fact, Petitioners' own expert criticized the numbers used in these documents as being unreliable and suspect. The need calculus basically involves projecting population over a ten-year planning period and then allocating commercial, residential, and other land uses in an amount to match that projection. For the reasons set forth below, this process is imprecise, and it must be tempered by other factors. First, the planner must project population over the ten-year planning timeframe. Any mistake in this projection will skew the numbers. Second, employment ratios used in the calculus can change from year to year, especially in a smaller community. Also, other planning objectives are inherently subject to change year by year. Given this imprecision and changing market demands, it is appropriate for professional planners to overallocate land uses. An excess allocation of twenty-five percent (or an allocation factor of one hundred and twenty-five percent) is recognized by professional planners as being appropriate. The evidence supports a finding that this amount is reasonable under the circumstances present here. There are numerous professionally acceptable ways in which to allocate land uses. The City has not adopted a particular methodology in its Comprehensive Plan. The specifics of the plan amendment and the City's Comprehensive Plan make application of a strict numerical calculus even more difficult. The prior designation of the property was Industrial, which is not a pure industrial category, but actually allowed up to thirty percent of commercial uses. The amendment here simply changes the land use from Industrial, with some commercial uses allowed, to a mixed-use Highway Commercial designation. As noted earlier, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates regional commercial uses in the area of the Berman property. Finally, the parcel is relatively small (less than 40 acres) and is embedded within an urban area. Given the uncertainty of a numerical calculation of commercial need in the City, the size and location of the property, the property's inclusion in an urban area, and the surrounding commercial land uses, the evidence supports a finding that either Industrial or Commercial would be an appropriate land use for the property. The evidence further supports a finding that the need question is not a compliance issue here and does not support a finding that the plan amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by the City of Deland by Ordinance Number 98-07 on March 16, 1998, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Allen Watts, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 F. Alex Ford, Jr., Esquire Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld, Sherman & Ford, P.A. Post Office Box 48 Deland, Florida 32721-0048 Mark A. Zimmerman, Esquire James, Zimmerman, Paul & Huddleston Post Office Drawer 2087 Deland, Florida 32721-2087 David L. Powell, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Margaret E. Bowles, Esquire Margaret E. Bowles, P.A. 205 South Hoover Street Suite 402 Tampa, Florida 33609 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, 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, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 2nd day of May, 2003.
The Issue Whether the small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of St. Petersburg's (the City) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), adopted by Ordinance 739-L (Ordinance) on August 13, 2020, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2020).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Property Petitioner, PGSP, is a membership organization, with 118 members. It is registered with the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation located in St. Petersburg, Florida. PGSP's stated mission is to promote healthy urban development throughout St. Petersburg; it was formed to promote development and growth compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It works with the City and residents to ensure new development is cohesive with existing and planned environmental and infrastructural demands. Respondent, City of St. Petersburg, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The subject property is located at 635 64th Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida (Property). It is owned by Grace Connection of Tampa Bay, Inc., operating as Grace Connection Church (Church). The Church was the applicant for the Amendment at issue but is not a party to this action. The Property is triangular in shape with a total of 4.66 acres. To the north and west, the Property is bounded by Bear Creek, a natural water feature. To the east, the Property is bounded by 64th Street South, a "Collector, City Road." To the south, the Property is bounded by an undeveloped 40-foot right-of-way. A portion of the Property that abuts Bear Creek is located in a Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).3 Respondent has not sought changes to the portion of the Property that is within the CHHA. 3 The Property is also within the projected storm surge in Hurricane Evacuation Level "D," which is a Pinellas County emergency management designation, and not a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Property is currently categorized for Neighborhood Suburban (NS-1) zoning (which is separate from its Future Land Use Category). A substantial number of PGSP members live within the City, in close proximity to the Property and allege they will be adversely affected by the concomitant impacts of increased densities in the community as addressed in these proceedings. The Ordinance The Church's application sought to amend the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. The application divided the non-portion of the CHHA into three portions and sought to make the following changes to the Future Land Use categories: A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 4.33 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM); A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.21 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN); AND A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.04 ACRES), FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM). On August 13, 2020, the City Council had a public hearing on the Church's appeal of the denial of its application by the Planning Commission. At this hearing, PGSP members submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City. At the August 13 meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance. This had the effect of adopting the Amendment and changing the Future Land Use categories to the Property. The Ordinance instituted a small-scale amendment to the FLUM, as defined by section 163.3187(2). Maximum Density Petitioner argues the Ordinance is not "in compliance," as defined in sections 163.3184(1)(b) and 163.3187(4). Specifically, PGSP attacks the Amendment because it does not (1) direct "population concentrations" away from areas designated as a CCHA; (2) provide for compatible land use transitions; and (3) preserve the existing character of the surrounding areas. Each of these claims are either partially or wholly dependent on the increased maximum density for the Property after the Amendment. As such, the threshold issue of density must be addressed. This dispute involves the 4.37 acre that are changed from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional land use categories to Residential Medium (RM) made up of approximately 4.33 acres from Institutional to RM and approximately 0.04 acres from RU to RM. The "Institutional" designation allows a density of 12 dwelling units per acre but limits residential use as an accessory to the primary institutional use, which in this case is a church.4 The Church submitted the application for the FLUM amendment because it ultimately seeks to sell the Property for multi-family housing development, which would not be a proper use in an area designated "Institutional." The Future Land Use categories for the area to the north and east of the Property are RU, which have a density of 7.5 units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.2. This area is primarily made up of single-family homes. The southern boundary of the property is also the municipal border between St. Petersburg and an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. This area is governed by the Pinellas County FLUM and Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent property to the south is a mobile home park development which has a residential density of 20.4 units per acre. 4 Pursuant to section 16.10.020.2 of the City's Code, Institutional uses include, "government buildings and grounds, and cemeteries, hospitals, houses of worship and schools." In between the RU and RM categories is a category labeled "Residential Low Medium" (RLM). The RLM category allows low to moderately intensive residential development with a density not to exceed ten dwelling units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.3. As stated above, the Ordinance would categorize the portion of the Property at issue as RM. The RM category allows medium density residential development and has a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, with a possible maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre with the qualification of a density bonus. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.4. PGSP argues the density of the areas designated as RM by the Ordinance will have a maximum possible density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The City argues the maximum density is calculated using the actual density that can be built in the RM areas. As explained below, the practical allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a Workforce Housing Bonus of six, or 21 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner relies on a "Missing Middle Housing" density bonus allowable in Neighborhood Traditional Mixed Residential (NTM) zoning category. This bonus allows up to 30 units per acre as an incentive to develop housing that is lacking in the area. While NTM is an available zoning category for RM, the Plan specifically states that 30 dwelling units per acre is only "permitted in accordance with the Land Development Regulations [LDRs]." Per the LDRs, the NTM designation could not be placed over this parcel because the designation is used as a transitional zoning category in St. Petersburg's traditional neighborhoods. While PGSP's planning expert considered the neighborhood surrounding the Property to be traditional, he admitted his opinion was not based on standards in the Comprehensive Plan or LDR definitions regarding what is considered a traditional or suburban neighborhood. In contrast, Derek Kilborn, a manager in the City's Planning Department, testified about the different characteristics of traditional versus suburban neighborhoods and opined that the neighborhood surrounding the Property is "suburban" according to the terms in the Comprehensive Plan. This determination is bolstered by the existing zoning of the surrounding neighborhood being largely NS-1. The City established it would be impossible for the Property to qualify for the Missing Middle Housing bonus, because the parcel at issue is not in the NTM zoning category. Rather, as explained by Mr. Kilborn's testimony and based on the LDRs and the Comprehensive Code, the RM category only allows a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The Church has not applied to rezone the Property. The Planning Department's director testified, however, that if the Church had applied for a rezoning for the Property to NTM, the maximum number of dwelling units would be less than the numbers asserted by Petitioner due to the requirements for spacing, alleyways, and height restrictions required in NTM zones. The Property is eligible for a Workforce Housing density bonus. This bonus would increase the maximum density by six dwelling units for workforce housing. The City's final density calculation incorporated the Workforce Housing bonus and determined the maximum density for the RM portion of the Property to be 21 dwelling units per acre. PSGP did not prove beyond fair debate that the actual density of 21 units per acre is an erroneous calculation or contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Objective CM 10B and Policy CM 10.65 Comprehensive Plan Objective CM 10B states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element. The phrase "Population concentrations" is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The only policy referring to "directing" related to Objective CM 10B is Policy CM 10.6, which states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas by not locating water line extensions in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that which is necessary to service planned zoning densities as identified on the Future Land Use Map. The remaining policies related to this Objective involve the placement of transportation and infrastructure, expenditures for flood control, and the operation of roads in a CHHA; none of these issues were raised in these proceedings. In fact, other than the reference to placement of water line extensions in Policy CM 10.6, there is no provision establishing standards for what would constitute direction away from a CHHA. The only area on the Property designated a CHHA is near Bear Creek.6 The Ordinance does not increase density in any part of the CHHA portion of the Property. PGSP's planning expert, Charles Gauthier, equated a population concentration as an area with high density. He argued the Ordinance 5 "CM" means Coastal Management in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Mr. Kilborn testified that in reviewing the property for compliance with the Plan related to CHHA, there was no study or analysis provided to the City by Petitioner or others showing flooding or hazard impacts for the non-CHHA portion of the Property. violated Policy 10.6 because it increased the density of the area on the Property adjacent to the CHHA. At one point, Mr. Gauthier seemed to say this policy encourages higher density future land use categories only in the "central core or spine of the City." Mr. Gauthier maintained the increase in density on the non-CHHA portion of the Property frustrated this policy because only land in the central part of St. Petersburg should experience density increases. PGSP's reasoning would imply any increase in density near any CHHA and not near the "central core" would violate Policy CM 10.6. Elizabeth Abernethy, Director of the Planning Department, testified that "population concentrations" as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan are not simply increases in density. Rather, the City core had a concentration of high-density categories yielding approximate 80 to 120 dwelling units per acre; she would not characterize 15 or even 30 units per acre as a "high density" much less a "population concentration." Although she concurred that there are "population concentrations" in St. Petersburg centered in its urban core, she disagreed with Petitioner's expert that increased density on the Property created a "population concentration" near the CHHA or Bear Creek area. There was no competent evidence as to where any water line extensions would be located if the Property's Future Land Use Category were to change from RU and Industrial to RM. The City's interpretation of "population concentration" as used in CM 10.6 is reasonable, and therefore, the City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance with CM 10.6 is fairly debatable. Consistency with LU 3.47 Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.4 states: The Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators. 7 "LU" refers to Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner focuses on compatible land use transition as only a function of density. PGSP argues a parcel categorized as RM (15 unity density) cannot abut an RU (7.5 unit density) categorized parcel because it violates Policy LU 3.4. Rather, it argues the RLM (10 unit density) category should have been used instead. It claims the City "leap-frogged" categories instead of using a "one step" up or down approach. PGSP's expert admits that a direct step down between plan categories is not explicitly required under the Comprehensive Plan language but argues other language related to "limited variation" required the single step. The plain language of Policy LU 3.4, however, simply requires an "orderly land use arrangement." It does not explicitly or implicitly state that the City must use a "step up" approach when determining the appropriate Future Land Use category. Furthermore, PGSP relied on its density calculation of 30 dwelling units per acre to argue that with the surrounding adjacent land density of 7.5 units per acre, there would be a 400% increase in planned residential density. As stated above, the maximum possible density under the Amendment is 21 dwelling units per acre. Moreover, the City points out that that the mobile home park to the south of the Property has an actual density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the transition from 20 to 21 is an orderly land use arrangement as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. The FLUM also does not reflect a perfect one up or down transition pattern throughout St. Petersburg. Rather, it shows areas categorized RM abutting areas categorized RU and RLM. In fact, there is an area designated RM which abuts RU parcels within 800 feet of the Property. The City presented adequate evidence establishing the change from Institutional to a residential category fits with surrounding residential use. Moreover, it established that natural and physical barriers on the Property, including creeks and right of ways, provide transition as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. PGSP does not explain why these barriers are inadequate. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.4. Consistency with Objective Policy LU 3.6 Policy LU 3.6 states: Land use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated. PGSP argues the increase in density as a result of the change in categories from RU to RM is inconsistent with the "character" of the surrounding neighborhood, which is made up of single-family homes. Again, PGSP's argument relies heavily on the density calculation of 30 units per acre. As stated above, this density is only available with a change to the underlying zoning to NTM, which was not sought by the Church in its application. The maximum density applicable to the RM portions of the Property is 21 dwelling units per acre. As stated above, the City established there are other instances of RM abutting RU in the same neighborhood, approximately 800 feet from the Property. Ms. Abernathy testified that, based on the City's historic development pattern, RM is the appropriate transitional category next to RU on a major street (such as 64th Street South) under the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Abernethy further testified that residential single-family use adjoining either residential multi-family or commercial uses in the City is a "very common development pattern." Therefore, the RM designation is not inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Moreover, the RM designation provides for a primary residential use, which the Institutional designation does not. Although PGSP focused solely on density as the grounds for evaluating the "established character of the neighborhood," the City established that several other considerations go into its analysis related to Policy LU 3.6. Beyond looking at existing and proposed densities of the Future Land Use categories, City staff considers the occurrences and relationships between the uses of the property (i.e., residential versus institutional; or residential versus residential) and the existence of similar patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the surrounding areas included other areas designated RM and the mobile home park. Determination of the character of the neighborhood was also based on a study of the existing road network and the potential impacts on traffic due to the Amendment. The street classification of 64th Street South as a Future Major was a key consideration in determining whether the changes in the Property were consistent with the character of the surrounding area because that street is the Property's frontage and only access point. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Data and Analysis PGSP also claims the City did not rely on relevant and appropriate data and analysis in adopting the Ordinance and Amendment. PGSP, however, did not conduct or provide the City with any studies.8 Daniel Porter, PGSP's expert in real estate, did not provide a comparative market analysis of the neighborhood or any other industry- recognized report. He proffered only opinion testimony based on email responses from four nearby residents, only one of which alluded to any issues with selling a home in the area. 8 PGSP retained Mr. Gauthier for this administrative proceeding; he did not testify or prepare a report to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Petitioner's members presented no opposing reports or studies beyond lay opinion testimony during the public hearing. Mr. Gauthier testified that in calculating his density and formulating his opinions, he used the City's map set and GIS data from the City's website.9 In contrast, the City relied on several data sources in reaching its conclusions regarding compliance in the Staff Report, in the presentations at the City Council meeting, and at the final hearing. These sources include the Comprehensive Plan and maps; LDRs; GIS aerials and maps; application materials; a narrative from the property owner; plat records; the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules; and an outside Traffic Impact Statement by a traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. In addition to the Kimley-Horn report, Tom Whalen, the City's transportation planning expert, performed an analysis related to 64th Street South, which was included in the Staff Report. He also testified at the final hearing regarding his sources for that data, including a City-conducted traffic count, use of the Florida Department of Transportation's level of service tables, and the Forward Pinellas Countywide Rules. At the final hearing, the City also presented demonstrative exhibits in the form of enlarged maps illustrating the surrounding neighborhood, the Property, and similar development patterns of RM and RU designations across the City. Regarding the density calculation, the City introduced and explained the reasons and sources supporting its maximum density figure of 21 dwelling units per acre. This included the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules, the Comprehensive Plan, and LDRs.10 The City established the Ordinance and Amendment are based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the character of the land. 9 "GIS" is Geographic Information Systems. 10 Moreover, Mr. Kilborn explained that exact density calculations would be finalized during the site plan review process, which involves further surveys and engineering measurements. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and/or that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Ultimate Findings PGSP did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City has provided a preponderance of the evidence, which is both competent and substantial, which supports the findings in the Staff Report and the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining the City of St. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 739-L, is "in compliance" as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Jacqueline Kovilaritch, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Florida One 4th Street North, 10th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 Michael J. Dema, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Sarah M. Hayter, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Heather Judd, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments CPA 10-4 and CPA 10-5 adopted by Martin County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 on August 10, 2010, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State and has the responsibility of administering its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It adopted the two amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners all reside or operate a business in the County, and they submitted oral or written comments to the County during the adoption process. Intervenors are limited liability corporations owned by King Ranch Florida Operations, LLC, an agricultural operation with offices in Florida and Texas. Intervenors own the subject property, which is more commonly known as Sunrise Groves. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that Intervenors are affected persons. The Plan Amendments The amendments concern a 1,717-acre parcel of land located immediately west of, and adjacent to, Interstate 95 (I-95) in the northern part of the County. Southwest Martin Highway (also known as County Highway 714), which runs in an east-west direction, is situated on the south side of the parcel, while the site is separated by a canal on its northern boundary from the City of Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County. Aerial photographs reflect that undeveloped land lies to the west of the property. See Intervenors' Exhibit 18. At least four large and very urban Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) have been approved in Port St. Lucie, immediately north of the parcel, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the parcel. From the mid-1960's until the mid-2000's, the parcel was an active orange grove. Due to damage from citrus canker and "greening," which is an incurable, aggressive, and deadly virus affecting citrus plants, the parcel has become a literal wasteland of dead orange trees. The property is now desolate and unprofitable and cannot be converted to any other profitable or feasible agriculture use. Around the same time that the citrus grove was being destroyed, the County commissioned Urbanomics, Inc., and Leak- Goforth Company, LLC, to perform an economic study to determine how the County could better compete in the Florida market. In November 2006, the results of that study were released. See Intervenors' Ex. 11. The study indicated that the County should be pursuing various types of industrial development, with a focus on recruiting firms and institutions with 50 to 100 or more employees, or those that have capabilities and are on pace to reach this minimum employment threshold in three to five years. The study also concluded that in order to accommodate the types of industries that the County would need to pursue, it would need more space designated for industrial use. Based upon the study, the County has adopted policies in the Economic Element of the Plan regarding future economic development in the County. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 15. On September 30, 2009, Intervenors applied to the County for a new land use designation to be added to the Plan, allowing industrial uses to be combined with commercial and agricultural uses on their parcel of land. See Intervenors' Ex. 2. Intervenors also applied for a change in the land use category on their property from Agricultural to the new land use category. The re-designated parcel would become a "freestanding urban service district," which requires that the property be served by water and sewer services from a regional supplier rather than individual wells, septic tanks, or on-site package treatment plants. It would be one of two freestanding urban service districts (USDs) in the County.1 When Intervenors initially applied to the County for the amendments, the proposed future land use category was titled "I-95 Agricultural Technology & Employment Center." As the amendment evolved in subsequent months, however, a decision was made to shorten the name to something less cumbersome, which ultimately became "AgTEC," an acronym for Agriculture and Targeted Employment Center. As proposed, the AgTEC designation was significantly different from other land use designations in the Plan in a number of ways. AgTEC is a "site-specific" land use designation, tailored for a specific parcel of property, the 1,717 acres owned by Intervenors. It allows for agricultural uses to continue indefinitely on 817 acres of the parcel, if a viable agricultural use can be found in the future. It also permits new uses on a maximum of 900 acres of the parcel, but limited to certain "Primary Targeted Employment" uses and others which are ancillary to them. Residential is not an allowable use. Finally, it imposes a strict requirement that all future development of the parcel must be subject to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. On April 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved the application and voted to transmit Amendments 10-4 and 10-5 to the Department. On June 25, 2010, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report recommending that the two amendments not be adopted unless additional data were supplied and certain revisions made. See Petitioners' Ex. 4B, pp. 26-47. The Department's objections related to urban sprawl, a failure to demonstrate need, transportation deficiencies, lack of access to public facilities, and a failure to preserve agricultural lands. On July 17, 2010, Intervenors submitted a response to the ORC report, which included an update to the original application addressing the Department's concerns. They also provided additional data and analysis concerning the structure of the County's economy; location quotient data (ratios by type of economic activity in the region), which were consistent with a report submitted by Dr. Nicholson, an economist employed by Intervenors; and environmental information. On August 10, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted the FLUM amendment as Ordinance No. 881 and a revised version of the text amendment as Ordinance No. 882. See Joint Ex. 4 and 5. On October 6, 2010, the Department issued its notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance. See Joint Ex. 6. On October 7, 2010, the Department published notice of its intent to find the amendments in compliance in The Stuart News. Petitioners then timely filed their Petition, as later amended. Ordinance No. 881 refers in its title to a parcel of land known as "Sunrise Groves," which is described in the main body of the ordinance as 1,717 acres of land located west of I-95 and north of Southwest Martin Highway. The site is also defined by legal description attached as Exhibit A to that ordinance. See Joint Ex. 4, pp. 4 and 5. The title indicates that the land designation on the FLUM is being changed from Agricultural to AgTEC. Ordinance No. 882 also refers in its title to a parcel of land as "Sunrise Groves," and that a new site-specific land use category, AgTEC, is being created for that parcel. The text amendments, which are attached as Exhibit A, provide further site-specific indicators of where the new land use designation applies. See Joint Ex. 5, pp. 5-17. They describe an area that is 1,717 acres in size, state that AgTEC uses may be no closer than 300 feet from any existing residential use, and require provision of the right-of-way for a multi-lane arterial north-south roadway "connecting Martin Highway [in Martin County] to Becker Road [in adjoining St. Lucie County], providing the opportunity for a regional parallel reliever road to I-95 . . . ." Id. at pp. 6 and 7. This roadway (an extension of Village Parkway) is specifically depicted on a conceptual map showing the general location where it is to be built. See Joint Ex. 5, AgTEC Long Range Transp. Map. Petitioners contend that the text amendment does not clearly identify the location of the property or Intervenors' parcel as the subject of the amendments, partly because the ordinance title and conceptual map will not become a part of the Plan. However, Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 clearly refer to the same specific parcel of land intended for designation as "AgTEC" and subject to the requirements of the AgTEC future land use category. When reading the two ordinances, a reasonable person would not be confused as to which property designated for the new land use category applies. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that no other parcel of land within the County could be similarly designated as "AgTEC," absent an amendment to the AgTEC future land use category in the Plan. Petitioners' Objections As narrowed by their stipulation and the withdrawal of certain issues at hearing, Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions within the Plan; that the amendments encourage urban sprawl; that the amendments impermissibly convert land designated for agricultural purposes to other uses; that the text amendment is based upon the Plan that was in effect prior to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments that became effective in January 2011, thereby creating internal inconsistencies; that there is no demonstrated need for the amendments; that the amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis; and that the amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for implementation. A contention that the text amendment includes unauthorized self-amending language is not addressed in Petitioners' proposed recommended order and is presumed to be abandoned. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other FLUE provisions in numerous respects. Some of these consistency arguments are based on the fact that the text amendments in Ordinance No. 882 use the numbering system for the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUE that was in effect when Ordinance No. 882 was adopted on August 10, 2010, rather than the new numbering system that became effective on January 3, 2011.2 As described in Endnote 2, infra, the new numbering system was adopted by the County during the months- long process of amending the Plan during the EAR process. The new text added to the Plan during that time-frame will simply be re-numbered by the Municipal Code Corporation, which publishes the codified version of the Plan, to conform to the new numbering system. This is consistent with the publisher's authority under Part 6 of Ordinance No. 882, which states in relevant part: "CODIFICATION. The word 'ordinance' may be changed to 'article[,]' 'section[,]' or other word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered." Joint Ex. 5, p. 3. This codification provision is found in every ordinance adopting a text amendment. By way of example, the content in section 4.4.g.1.n(3) in Ordinance No. 882 (on page 17 of Joint Exhibit 5) will be recodified in new policy 4.7A.14, which replaces the old section. Except for the new number, the content of both provisions is the same. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4, p. 50. There was no evidence that the new EAR- based amendments create an inconsistency with these amendments. Petitioners also contend that an internal inconsistency in the Plan arises due to two references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance No. 882 (on pages 7 and 11), and a single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 (on page 2). They also argue that the "I-95 AgTEC" category lacks "meaningful and predictable standards for implementation" as a land use designation if it is distinct from the "AgTEC" category. However, they failed to present any evidence that Intervenors or the County intended to create two different future land use categories. The evidence supports a finding that both references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance 882 were merely "vestigial" references (i.e., references made during an early stage of the amendment process) to the initial title proposed for the land use category when Intervenors first applied to the County. The evidence shows that the County staff simply missed the two references when it conducted an electronic "find and replace" search intended to convert all references in the ordinance to "AgTEC" before presenting the final draft to the Board for adoption. Except for these two references to "I-95 AgTEC," the ordinance consistently uses the "AgTEC" title for the land use designations. Both references are merely scrivener's errors. The single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is simply a misspelling of the proper title of the new future land use category to be applied to the property. The simultaneous adoption of the two ordinances, the application for both ordinances by the same applicant, and the obvious similarity between the correct spelling and the misspelling support a finding that the use of "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is also a scrivener's error. Historically, after securing Board approval, the staff has been authorized to correct errors in the FLUM without a formal amendment; however, the County Growth Management Director could not recall a situation where a scrivener's error in a text amendment had occurred and was unsure as to how that type of error would be corrected. More than likely, these scrivener's errors will be corrected by another plan amendment. In any event, these non-substantive, minor scrivener's errors do not render the amendments not in compliance. Petitioners further contend that the amendments are inconsistent with the County's stated policy of preserving agricultural lands. See Joint Ex. 1, FLUE policy 4.12A.1. However, the amendments preserve almost one-half of the land (817 acres) for agricultural purposes even though the entire parcel is now unproductive. Petitioners also argue that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 4.13A.1.(2)(a) and (b), which provide that the conversion of agricultural land to another land use may be done only when it does not affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands, and only when it is a "logical and timely extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area." As noted above, there are four approved DRIs immediately north of the parcel in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie, including a large regional mall on the parcel's northern boundary. The new land use is a logical extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area. Also, there is no evidence that the new land use will affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands. To the contrary, the evidence shows that any adjacent agricultural areas to the west are protected by a requirement that 75 percent of the common open space be along the western border. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the cited policies. Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with a series of FLUE policies that, in general terms: (a) require the availability of services and facilities before expanded urban development may be approved (FLUE policies 4.1B.2., 4.1B.3., and 4.13A.1.(b)); (b) prohibit any regional utility from serving customers outside the Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD) (FLUE policies 4.7A.2.-4., 4.7A.10., 4.7B.8.(6)-(7), and 4.7B.9.); and (c) prohibit urban development outside the PUSD (FLUE policy 4.13A.9.). Although couched differently, the essence of the argument is that the amendments allow development in an area that is not presently within any PUSD or SUSD, thereby creating an issue of internal inconsistency with other provisions of the Plan. The existing Plan establishes two main types of "urban service districts" in the County: a PUSD and a SUSD. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4. There is an "eastern" PUSD that includes most of the unincorporated coastal area of the County, surrounding the Cities of Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park. Adjacent to the eastern PUSD is a much smaller eastern SUSD. See Joint Ex. 3. Several miles west of the boundaries of the eastern PUSD and SUSD there is a smaller "Indiantown" PUSD that consists of the unincorporated inland area of the County known by that name, and an adjacent Indiantown SUSD. Id. The County's purpose for having USDs is to "regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in the Plan." Joint Ex. 1, FLUE Goal 4.7. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is generally limited by the Plan to the land inside the County's USDs. The term "public urban facilities and services" is defined as "[r]egional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 2, § 2.2(127). The Plan also contains numerous provisions that establish a broad prohibition against all industrial uses and most commercial uses on land outside the County's USDs. The Plan expressly provides for the creation of so- called "Freestanding Urban Service Districts" within the County. See Joint Ex. 1. Ordinance No. 882 includes an amendment to FLUE section 4.4.M.1.h.(5) to establish that land designated as AgTEC shall be a freestanding USD. See Joint Ex. 5, p. 8. It also amends FLUE section 4.4.g.1.n.(3) to include land designated AgTEC as one of several enumerated "exceptions to the general prohibitions on development outside of the [PUSD]." Id. at p. 17. This means that the amendment creates its own exception from restrictions in the Plan that might otherwise apply to development outside the PUSD. Therefore, the prohibitions against a regional utility serving a customer outside the PUSD and SUSD, or expanding urban development outside a PUSD, do not apply. As noted above, these amended section numbers will be renumbered in the codification process to conform to the numbering in the new EAR-based amendments. However, the content remains the same. See Finding of Fact 18, supra. Petitioners presented no evidence that the freestanding USD for the AgTEC-designated land would lack the urban public facilities and services that would be necessary under the Plan. Utility services do not have to be physically available at the property boundary before a change in land use can be approved; they must only be planned or programmed. To be programmed, the services may be identified in the capital improvement element of the Plan or appear in a DRI approval. According to Mr. Dulin, County Senior Planner, the utility services for the parcel appear in "one or a number of the [DRIs] approved in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie." This type of arrangement for services is not unusual, as the County now provides services to some areas in St. Lucie County, while Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County provide services to certain areas in the County. The evidence shows that Port St. Lucie has the capacity to meet the requirements of the development, and that those services will be paid for by the developer, and not the County. At the amendment stage, the lack of a formal written agreement between the developer and Port St. Lucie is of no concern, as one is not required until the Intervenors seek a development order from the County. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the FLUE. Urban Sprawl Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 "primary indicators" of urban sprawl to be considered in the review of plan amendments to determine whether the presence of multiple indicators "collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(5)(d). Petitioners' expert, Charles G. Pattison, contends that, with the exception of four indicators (1, 4, 11, and 13), all other indicators are triggered by the changes effectuated through the amendments being challenged. However, indicator 3 was not raised in the Amended Petition or stipulation. Therefore, only the remaining eight indicators will be addressed. See Heartland Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Dep't of Community Affairs, Case No. 94-2095GM (Fla. DOAH Oct. 15, 1996), modified in part, Case No. DCA-96-FOI-GM (Fla. DCA Nov. 25, 1996), 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63. Indicator 2 requires a determination as to whether the amendments promote, allow, or designate "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. As noted above, large and very urban DRIs have been approved in neighboring Port St. Lucie just north of Intervenors' property, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the property. Also, some of the infrastructure for these developments has been constructed immediately north of Intervenors' parcel, to which the infrastructure on Intervenors' parcel is required to connect. It is unreasonable to ignore this development simply because it lies within an adjacent local government, rather than viewing the existing and approved development in the area as a whole. A more reasonable approach is to consider the existing urban areas immediately to the north of the parcel. Indicator 5 requires an analysis to determine whether the amendments fail to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)5. Because the parcel is bordered on the east by I-95 and on the north by DRIs in Port St. Lucie, the only areas of concern affected by this indicator would be to the south or west of the parcel. Petitioners failed to prove, however, that the AgTEC requirements for buffers on the east and south boundaries and required open space on the western border of the site constitute inadequate protection for any adjacent agricultural areas or activities within the meaning of the rule. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)6.-8. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve a proposed use. As noted above, the provider of water and sewer services to Intervenors' parcel (Port St. Lucie) has ample capacity to meet its projected needs and the capability of doing so from adequately sized lines located within a quarter of a mile from the parcel. Also, there is no credible evidence that there will be a lack of transportation infrastructure to meet the demand expected to be placed on the parcel. Indicator 9 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments fail "to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Through the use of setbacks, buffers, and other site design criteria, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments create a sufficiently clear separation between the industrial/commercial uses that would be allowed and any rural uses to the south and west of the site. Petitioners did not identify any adjacent rural uses that would require such separation. Indicator 10 requires that the amendments do not discourage or inhibit infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. While Petitioners pointed out that there are other parcels in the County currently designated for industrial use, those parcels are either too small or too scattered to attract the types of industrial development desired by the County, which are described in the Economic Element of the Plan. Further, there was no evidence that the other smaller and scattered parcels would be adversely affected by the large-scale development envisioned on the AgTEC land. Finally, indicator 12 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments result "in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(g)12. The evidence shows that the AgTEC requirements for new transportation infrastructure, coupled with the existing access from two adjacent interchanges on I-95, provide ample accessibility for the parcel and other related land uses. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that none of the primary indicators of urban sprawl at issue are triggered by the amendments. Other Issues Petitioners assert that Intervenors failed to demonstrate a need for commercial or industrial land outside the USDs. They also contend that the economic study performed by Dr. Nicholson failed to consider other vacant parcels of land designated for industrial use, including large amounts of acreage in Palm City and Indiantown. However, Dr. Nicholson established that of the 2,590 acres of available industrial land in the County, the vast majority of these sites are small, less than five acres in size, and are inadequate. He also established that the County lacks any well-planned, amenity- oriented industrial, office, or business parks, which would be the type of development contemplated on Intervenors' parcel. It is fairly debatable that the needs analysis submitted by Intervenors is adequate to support the amendments. Although raised as an issue, there was no evidence that the amendments are internally inconsistent with any provisions within the Economic Element of the Plan. All other contentions not specifically addressed herein have been considered and rejected. Improper Purpose Because they did not substantially change the outcome of the Department's determination that the amendments are in compliance, Petitioners are non-prevailing adverse parties. See § 120.595(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat. Therefore, it is necessary to make a determination as to whether Petitioners participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose," as that term is defined in section 120.595(1)(e)1. Petitioners generally alleged that the amendments were internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in numerous respects, that they encouraged urban sprawl, that they contain substantive errors that cannot be corrected in this proceeding, and that there is no needs analysis to support the amendments. Each of these contentions was ultimately found to be without merit, and contrary evidence on these issues submitted by the County and Intervenors was credited. However, when taken as a whole, the record does not support a finding that Petitioners participated in this proceeding "primarily" to harass the applicants, increase the cost of litigation, or cause them unnecessary delay. The Amended Petition was not frivolous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether it should be determined that the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, was in compliance with Chapter 163, Fla. Stat. (1993), as of the adoption of the County Ordinance 94-1 on March 2, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Adoption History Highlands County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1991. The Department of Community Affairs (the DCA or Department) took the position that the initial comprehensive plan was not in compliance. On September 15, 1993, the County adopted an amended comprehensive plan. (County Exhibit 6) The DCA took the position that the amended comprehensive plan, in particular its natural resources element, did not adequately protect areas of important plant and animal habitat from agricultural land uses. (County Exhibit 8). Highlands County adopted remedial amendments on March 2, 1994. (County Exhibit 9) On March 16, 1994, DCA published a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan and Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendments in compliance. (County Exhibit 13) The Petition for Administrative Hearing by Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. (HEC) was filed on or about April 6, 1994. The HEC Petition was signed by Kris Delaney, as its president. The parties' Prehearing Stipulation filed on October 17, 1994, eliminated several of the issues initially raised in the HEC Petition. The Lake Wales Ridge Highlands County is special because of the presence of a feature known as the Lake Wales Ridge, which is only between five and 14 miles wide but stretches for about 100 miles in a north-south orientation through the County. Most of the Ridge is contained within Highlands County, but smaller portions extend into neighboring counties. The Lake Wales Ridge had its beginnings when the sea covered much of what is now the Florida peninsula. A paleo beach and dune system was formed at the edge between the sea and the Ridge. When the waters receded, it left behind a ridge of relatively high ground characterized by generally coarse sands. These sands, which began as beach sand, have been weathered for millions of years, rendering them very sterile and low in nutrients. Water passes very quickly through these sands, making the soil and environment resemble those occurring in much drier places. Although created through the same processes, the Ridge contains many different unique and specialized habitats. Because of these habitats, the Ridge is a national "hot spot" for endemism. This means that many different species of organisms occur in this relatively small area; many of these species occur exclusively or primarily on the Ridge. At least two dozen plant species are found exclusively or primarily on the Ridge, and it is believed that many species have yet to be discovered. In more recent times, the high and dry Ridge also has attracted a disproportionate share of the residential, commercial and agricultural development in the County. Development pressures have conflicted with the habitat needs for the survival of many of the plant and animal species that occurred on the Ridge. Urban and citrus development tend to obliterate habitat; they also compete for available water supply. In addition, as the Ridge has developed, the natural fires that served an important role in maintaining the special habitats of the Ridge were suppressed. More recently, although man has come to understand the importance of fire to these habitats and the species that thrive in them, the increasing presence of man's development has made fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. With more and more development, the habitats of the Ridge with their many endemic plant and animal species have come under increasing pressure. The most widespread kind of natural habitat on the Ridge is called scrub. Scrub consists mainly of scrub oak and shrubs adapted to dry, low nutrient conditions. Scrub contains a disproportionate share of the threatened and endangered plant and animal species on the Ridge. These include the Florida scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the sand skink, the scrub lizard and the Florida mouse. Natural scrub habitat is rapidly disappearing from the Ridge. By 1981, about 64 percent of the scrub on the southern Ridge had been severely altered. Along the central Ridge, losses were even greater--about 74 percent. By 1991, losses were estimated to be approximately 70 to 90 percent. Sandhill is the rarest natural community in the County. It is the historic high pineland community dominated by long leaf pines. (A vegetative community known as southern sandhill is not dominated by long leaf pines and is not true sandhill; it actually is a type of scrub.) Only about one percent of the original true sandhill still existed as of March, 1994. Although altered by fragmentation and fire suppression, the remaining sandhill still supports several important endemic plant and animal species, such as the gopher tortoise, Sherman's fox squirrel, and a plant called the clasping warea. A type of natural habitat unique to Highlands County portion of the Ridge is cutthroat seep. Cutthroat seeps occur where groundwater near and at surface elevation flows rapidly through areas usually adjacent to true wetlands, keeping the area wet but not ponded. These areas are dominated by cutthoat grasses, which require periodic burning to maintain their dominance. Drainage related to development lowers the water table and otherwise interrupts the needed lateral flow of water, allowing the invasion of woody species. In addition, development makes fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. The most effective protection of cutthroat seep requires preservation of relatively large parcels, approximately ten acres or more. Smaller parcels are harder to fire manage. In addition, smaller parcels could be subjected to inadvertent hydrologic interruption from nearby development. There are about 18 plant species that occur only on the Ridge. Forty plant species occur only in Florida scrub and occur on the Ridge. Twenty-two plants on the Ridge are federally listed as either endangered or threatened. The Florida scrub jay is a federally listed endangered species that occurs only in peninsular Florida. The scrub jay also serves as an indicator species--management for scrub jay habitat will meet the habitat requirements of most other species that occur in scrub habitat. Scrub jays require the presence of scrub oak, as well as bare ground and low growing scrub. Periodic fire is necessary to maintain this mix. Scrub jays are very territorial. The tend to stay on one specific site. Scrub jays are monogamous, pairing to breed for life. Juveniles help feed and protect younger birds before dispersing to find a territory of their own. Dispersal distance typically is less than a mile. Each family group occupies a relatively large area--approximately 25 acres. Large sites are necessary to maintain a viable scrub jay population. Population viability models indicate that 150-200 individuals are needed for a population to persist for 200 years. Using this standard, fewer than ten potentially secure populations of scrub jay exist. It is believed that as much as 750 acres of scrub oak may be required to give a such a population a 90 percent chance of survival for 100 years. Development destroys scrub jay habitat. In addition, nearby development not only makes fire management difficult, if not impossible, it increases scrub jay mortality from feral cats and dogs and from motor vehicles. In the Base Documents supporting the Highlands County Plan, as amended, the County recognized the unique and sensitive natural resource represented by the Lake Wales Ridge. The Base Documents acknowledged that, before the comprehensive plan was adopted, the County did not have a "formal mechanism to examine the effects of proposed development and agricultural uses on natural vegetation and wildlife." The Base Documents also acknowledged that the Ridge required "more stringent controls and greater incentives for resource protection." Conservation, Use, and Protection of Natural Resources Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 3 providing that the County shall protect and acquire native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida and shall restrict activities known to adversely affect the endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Under that Objective, Highlands County has adopted a number of Policies. Highlands County's approach to conservation, use, and protection of natural resources under Objective 3 and its policies is to identify, evaluate, and protect natural resources on a site-by-site basis. (County Exhibit 6, Pages NRE-10 through NRE-25, inclusive, and County Exhibit 9) The review procedures prepared by Petitioner's representative, Kris Delaney, for the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) also used a site-by-site approach. (Petitioner Exhibit 56) Kris Delaney is the immediate past president of HEC and was described by Petitioner's counsel as its main representative. Highlands County's approach to evaluation of natural resources also is comparable to the review processes adopted by federal statute and state law for the protection of threatened and endangered species. Site specific evaluation was necessary due to the variety of protected species needs, site conditions, and legal constraints. Under Policy 3.1, A., Highlands County has adopted a number of source documents to identify endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern. Under Policy 3.1, B., Highlands County has adopted a number of documents as guidelines for establishing mitigation, on-site protection, and remedial actions for the protection of habitats and listed species in the County's land development regulations. Under Policy 3.2, Highlands County adopted a Conservation Overlay Map series to be used as a general indicator for the presence of xeric uplands, wetlands, cutthroat seeps, historical and archeological resources, cones of influence for potable wells, and aquifer recharge areas. (See Findings 52-59, infra, for a detailed description and explanation of these maps.) Whenever a particular site is in an area where one of those resource categories is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map series or are otherwise known to occur, Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element requires the applicant to submit to the Highlands County Planning Department a preliminary field investigation report prepared by a County-approved professional, firm, government agency, or institution. If that field investigation determines that any of those resources actually exist on the site, an Environmental Impact Report is required of the applicant. Those Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) must also be prepared by a County approved-professional, firm, agency, or institution. Policy 3.3, E., specifies the content of the EIR: (1) maps and a description of natural vegetative communities occurring on the proposed development site in terms of their habitat functions and significance; (2) maps and a description of the aforementioned natural resource categories which may be impacted by the proposed development; (3) an assessment of the potential impacts which would be sustained by a natural resource as a result of the proposed development; (4) an evaluation of water quality inputs and outputs; recommendations for appropriate mitigation and on-site protection measures; recommended land maintenance and management procedures to assure the continued viability or function of the natural resource after development; and a list of agencies which may have permit requirements pertaining to the proposed development. Under Policy 3.3, F., the application package and the EIR are transmitted for review and comment to the agencies listed in the Environmental Impact Report as having permit requirements and to the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee. Responsive comments and recommendations which are received are forwarded to the County employee or board having decision-making authority concerning the applicable permit and included in the County records pertaining to the project. Under Policy 3.3, G., after receiving the application packet, the EIR, and the comments and recommendations from other permitting agencies and the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, the County evaluates and determines the permit conditions required to: (1) protect and preserve the water quality or natural functions of flood plains and drainage ways, potable water wells, and wetlands; (2) protect and preserve the function of native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida or the habitats of endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern; (3) preserve and protect historical and archeological resources; (4) establish measures to protect life and property from flood hazard; and (5) establish land maintenance and management procedures for the natural resource to assure its continued viability or function after development. Policy 3.3, G., further requires that the County's final development order must be conditioned upon adequate avoidance, preservation, mitigation, or remedial actions for the protection of the aforementioned resources and must be consistent with the wetlands, flood plain, aquifer recharge, water quality, and cultural resource protection measures set forth within the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It also requires the County to require that the necessary state and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for the project's final development order. In determining the appropriate conditions for the County's final development order, Policy 3.3, B., states that avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the first choice for protecting the resource. Acquisition, conservation easements or dedications, and site design methods (including clustering development to the portion of the site where the resource does not exist or, if that is not possible, to the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site), are among the methods allowed to accomplish that purpose. Appropriate buffers between the development and the resource are also required. Policy 3.3, C., also provides that a mitigation fee may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners for small, isolated tracts containing less significant habitat and that the mitigation fees collected would be used to fund off-site mitigation in order that preservation of equal or greater habitat type, function, and quantity can be achieved. This is consistent with the "Review Procedure for Special Habits: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC which provides that "[L]ocal government may wish to establish procedural relationship with such agencies and, based on locally determined criteria, a minimum parcel size requiring review." Similarly, Policy 3.4 provides an environmental mitigation fee alternative for construction of single-family residences on preexisting lots of records to the extent consistent with state and federal regulations. These mitigation fee provisions are consistent with existing state and federal programs for protection of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern (Petitioner Exhibit 53, Pages 58 through 60; Petitioner Exhibit 56, Page 25, Level III, G.1 (cont.); and Petitioner Exhibit 78, Page 16) Policy 3.15 identifies several mitigation options which are consistent with those found in the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC. Policy 3.5, A., requires the County to institute an ongoing program to define, identify, and conserve its native vegetative communities and the habitats of endangered or threatened species and species of special concern and states that the conservation program must include the following implementation measures: (1) acquisition of lands using public funds and grants; (2) lease of land; (3) tax abatement; (4) land swaps and transfers of title; (5) establishment of conservation or open space easements; (6) density bonuses for cluster development; (7) density bonuses for development that preserves habitat and avoids impact on endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (8) density transfers for conservation set-asides to buildable portions of sites; and (9) mitigation fees and mitigation fee credits. Under Policy 3.5, B., the County has established as the top priority of its conservation program working with public and private agencies to acquire and preserve in their natural state: (1) scrub or sand hill habitats (xeric uplands); (2) endemic populations of endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (3) wetlands, cutthroat grass seeps, and estuaries; (4) important aquifer recharge areas; and (5) unique scenic or natural resources. In Policy 3.6, the County specifically references the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC as the model for its development review process for coordination with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Policy 3.6(g) specifically provides for coordination with local, state, and federal agencies concerning native vegetative communities or habitat areas spanning more than one local jurisdiction. Policy 3.7 establishes funding sources for the County's conservation trust fund and requires that the fund be used exclusively for the acquisition of the priorities listed in Policy 3.5, B., or the enhancement of other publicly- owned conservation-valued lands, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. To discourage clearing of land prior to environmental review, the County adopted Policy 3.13, which requires property owners to obtain a County land clearing permit prior to land clearing. Issuance of the land clearing permit is conditioned upon completion of the environmental review process adopted in Policy 3.3. If property is cleared without a County land clearing permit, no development orders may be issued for that site for a period of three years after such clearing. Under Policy 3.13, C., of the Plan, as amended, no land clearing permit is required for "any agricultural activity not requiring a Highlands County land development order conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide agricultural operation" on property "designated by the Future Land Use Map as either General or Urban Agriculture . . .." Under the policy, such operations are "encouraged to implement a Soil and Water Conservation District approved conservation plan, including the use of Best Management Practices, as applicable to the specific area being cleared, and [to secure all other permits required by State and federal agencies exercising jurisdiction over the natural resources referred to in Policy 3.2 and found on said property]." [Emphasis added.] In addition, Policy 3.9 of the Natural Resources Element provides for encouraging agricultural uses which are compatible with wildlife protection and water quality outputs, implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices. Highlands County also has adopted many other policies in the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of the Natural Resources Element for the protection of natural resources, including: Policy 3.8, providing for the removal and control of exotic plant species; Policy 3.10, requiring the County to incorporate the protection and conservation measures adopted under the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] into all County surface water management plans, public works projects and infrastructure improvement plans; Policy 3.11, encouraging the expansion of wildlife/greenbelt corridors; Policy 3.12, encouraging the creation of parks for the protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources; Policy 3.14, requiring setbacks from environmentally sensitive land; Policy 3.16, providing for transfers of density and density bonuses to encourage preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and listed species through the use of planned unit developments; Policies 3.17 through 3.19, providing for the appointment, functions and responsibilities of the Highlands County Natural Resource Advisory Committee; Policy 3.20, providing for the adoption of a five-year acreage target for acquisition of natural resource lands; and Policy 3.21, providing for a buffer around Highlands Hammock State Park, publicly-owned conservation lands, and conservation lands being considered for acquisition with public funds. Wetlands Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Wetlands Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 4 providing for the protection of wetlands systems and their ecological functions to ensure their long term, economic, environmental, and recreational value and to encourage restoration of wetlands systems to a functional condition. Under Objective 4 of the Natural Resources Element, Highlands County has adopted a number of policies to protect wetlands systems. Policy 4.1 provides for the protection of ecological functions of wetlands systems by the County through actions such as supporting the restoration of wetlands systems, protecting the natural functions and hydrology of wetlands systems by buffering against incompatible land uses and mitigating development impacts, providing for clustering and open space buffering, intergovernmental cooperation, and the acquisition of wetlands systems, including cutthroat grass seeps. In Policy 4.2, Highlands County adopted definitions for wetlands and cutthroat seeps which are required to be mapped according to Policies 3.2 and 4.3. In Policies 4.4 through 4.7, the County provided for the adoption of land development regulations which: encourage the restoration of wetlands systems; provide that development orders in cutthroat seeps be conditioned upon the issuance of wetlands permits by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts, as their jurisdictions apply, as a condition of approval of the project's final development order or land clearing permit; prevent the net loss or alteration of wetlands on a County-wide basis; and require conservation easements and delineation on final plats for wetland and cutthroat grass seep areas used for mitigation purposes. State and Federal Protections State and federal permitting processes protect threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in Highlands County. See Conclusions 125-130 and 140-147, infra. The review processes required to obtain the state and federal permits pertaining to threatened and endangered species require site-specific review, comparable to obtaining environmental clearance from the County under Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element. In view of the diversity of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern and their habitat needs, variations in quantity and quality of resources existing on site, and statutory and constitutional property rights protection, the County has chosen not to establish fixed set asides for every resource under every circumstance on a County-wide basis. By including in its permitting process notification to federal and state agencies having permitting responsibilities, Highlands County will be providing valuable assistance to state and federal environmental protection by bringing those agencies in at an early stage of the review process. Moreover, the County's requirements that the necessary federal, state, and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for a project's final development order will assist those federal and state agencies in enforcing environmental permits in Highlands County. Measuring Success of Protection Measures Extensive work by federal and state agencies has been devoted to identifying and studying threatened and endangered species, both plant and animal. Threatened and endangered species and the habitats necessary for their survival exist throughout the State of Florida. Listed species found in Highlands County are also found in other areas of the State of Florida. The amount and land-cover types of conservation areas have been extensively studied for the entire State of Florida. The percentage of conservation lands in Highlands County (9.4 percent) exceeds the statewide median for the portion of conservation lands within individual counties (8.6 percent). The land cover types for the entire State of Florida have been identified and quantified by location and number of acres and the amounts of those habitats in conservation lands have also been determined. Likewise, for every county, the land cover types have been located, identified, mapped, and acreage determined for "natural" upland cover types, "natural" wetland cover types, and "disturbed" cover types. The "natural" upland cover type category includes coastal strand, dry prairie, pine lands, sand pine scrub, sand hill, xeric oak scrub, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammocks and forest, and tropical hard wood hammocks. "Natural" wetland cover types include coastal salt marshes, fresh water marsh and wet prairie, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, bay swamp, shrub swamp, mangrove swamp, and bottomland hardwood forest. "Disturbed" cover types include grass land and agriculture, shrub and bush land, exotic plant communities and barren and urban land. Open water areas were also identified, located, mapped, and the acreage areas determined. The amounts of land in each of those land cover categories has been tabulated by county and for the State as a whole. The amount of land in each of those categories located in conservation lands has also been tabulated for each county and for the State as a whole. The tabulation for land cover types for Highlands County and the amount of conservation lands for each cover type are as follows: "Natural" upland cover types - coastal strand (0/0), dry prairie (427/112), pine lands (167/41), sand pine scrub (14/3), sand hill (0/0), xeric scrub oak (112/12), mixed hardwood-pine forest (4/0), hardwood hammocks and forests (46/5), tropical hardwood hammocks (0/0); "Natural" wetland cover types - coastal salt marshes (0/0), freshwater marsh and wet prairie (129/34), cypress swamp (21/8), mixed hardwood swamp (41/5), bay swamp (17/0), shrub swamp (21/5), mangrove swamp (0/0), bottomland hardwood forest (0/0); Open water (202/1); and "Disturbed" cover types - grass land and agriculture (1086/15), shrub and brush land (271/18), exotic plant communities (0/0), barren and urban land (307/11) Within the parenthesis above, the first number represents the total area in square kilometers and the second number represents the conservation lands in that category, also in square kilometers. There are approximately 247 acres per square kilometer. For Highlands County, these identified land cover types cover 2,866 square kilometers of which, 270.8 square kilometers are conservation lands. In addition to mapping those important habitat areas in each county in the State of Florida, the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in those habitat areas have also been identified. Those habitat areas and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern which they support have been specifically identified and mapped for Highlands County. Since the land cover types in Highlands County have been identified, located, mapped, and quantified and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, both plant and animal, supported by those land cover types have been identified, Highlands County has the ability to objectively measure the success of its adopted Goals, Policies, and Objectives in protecting natural resources. Data and Analysis and Maps Eugene Engman, AICP, a planner/economist, was the principal author of the conservation element and Base Documents of supporting data and analysis for the County's 1991 Plan. The Base Documents indicate extensive analysis of the County's natural resources, including: surface waters; floodplains; mineral deposits; areas with erosion problems; and fisheries, wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. The Conservation Overlay Maps The Base Documents also contain a "methodology for conservation designation," that applies to areas identified as areas of outstanding natural resources and to areas containing special habitat (high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge). With respect to the latter, it was not Engman's intention to map all vegetative communities on and near the Ridge; oak hammock and palm hammock, for example, was not mapped. It also was not Engman's intention to map the entire County. Engman did not believe that mapping of high quality scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest was required, but he mapped them at no charge to the County to enable the County to better protect endangered species and other resources on and near the Ridge where most the special habitat and most development coincided. Following the methodology, Engman and his colleagues prepared the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40. They consisted of 27 USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) quadrangle maps, two with acetate overlays. The quad maps themselves show some resources indicated by a separate legend available from the SCS. In addition, Engman and his colleagues indicated the location of scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest through use of an additional legend they wrote on the quad maps. Some legends applied to more than one quad map. In addition to the SCS quad maps themselves, Engman and his colleagues used the Soil Survey field notes of Lew Carter of the SCS, 1985 infrared aerial photographs, and local knowledge of the Dr. James Layne of the Archbold Research Station, Lew Carter of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mike Sawyer of the Florida Division of Forestry, and County sources. The Base Documents also contains a Generalized Soils Map which references as its source "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989." The Base Documents also contained two maps at the scale of one inch equals three miles--one mapping outstanding natural resources, and the other mapping special habitat. These two maps were then combined into a third map at the scale of one inch equals five miles. This third map was designated the Conservation Overlay Map in the Base Documents. Each quarter section (160 acres) of the County that contained any of the identified resources depicted on the Resource Base Maps was depicted as "Conservation" on the Conservation Overlay Map. The Conservation Overlay Map advised that: "This map is for comprehensive planning purposes only. Specific locations are identifiable on the Resource Base Maps located in the Office of the County Planning Director." No duplicates or copies of the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40-- were made before the final hearing in this case. They were available to the public during the development of the 1991 Plan, and they were forwarded to the County Planning Department when Engman's work was finished. There, they remained available for use by the County Planning Department in implementing the Plan, and remained available for public inspection, except for a period of approximately one year when they were misplaced and could not be located. FLU-54, the Conservation Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Map series, is the same map that is contained in the Base Documents as the Conservation Overlay Map. The Future Land Use Map Series In addition to FLU-54, the Future Land Use Map Series in the adopted plan, as amended through 1993, contained a Future Land Use Map Set of three large maps--a one inch equals two miles base map, and two one inch equals one/half mile maps--together with several letter-size maps at one inch equals five miles (one is at one inch equals four miles), which are FLU-55 through FLU- 62. The adopted plan, as amended through 1994, contained the same text as the plan as amended through 1993, along with an updated Future Land Use Map Set of six large color sheets. The base map is at a scale of one inch equals two miles and is a colorized version of the base map contained in the 1993 version of the plan; the other five maps are color insets from the base map at a scale of one inch equals one quarter mile. The rest of the Future Land Use Map Series is the same as in the Plan as amended through 1993. In addition to the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, the future land use map series included: a Generalized Soils Map which identifies its source as "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989"; Highland's County Peat Deposits, whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Wetlands 600, whose legend identifies "wetlands" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Floodplains, whose legend identifies "floodplains" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Water and Canal Map 500, whose legend identifies "generalized interim well protection zones (cones of influence) for potable water supply wells" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc., Highlands County Building and Zoning Department and DER," and which is dated December, 1990; Future Traffic Circulation Map State Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands County Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Dept. (9/88) and FDOT (11/90)"; and Modified Community Parks which depicts existing and proposed parks and "existing urban land use" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. April, 1990". FLU-55, the Generalized Soils Map, was prepared using the 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey. Major field work for the USDA/SCS Soil Survey was completed in 1986. It is the same map as the Generalized Soils Map contained in the Base Documents. FLU-57 maps wetland features which are not depicted on either the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) or the Conservation Overlay Map. The 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey was used to identify wetlands on FLU-57. HEC's Contentions HEC contended that the maps in the Plan, as amended, were deficient. It became apparent during the course of the final hearing that HEC considered the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map in the Plan, as amended, to be the only map pertinent to the designation of conservation lands. HEC contended that FLU-54 is too small, not clear and legible enough, and inadequate for its purposes. It appeared that HEC learned of the existence of the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) during the final hearing. HEC contended that the Resource Base Maps were deficient because they were not based on the appropriate and best available data. As a result, HEC contended, the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map "missed" some significant resources. Kris Delaney quickly reviewed the Resource Base Maps during the course of the final hearing and testified that on the Frostproof, Lake Arbuckle, Sebring, and Fort Kissimmee quad sheets some "significant areas of native vegetation were not shown on the mylar overlays." Delaney's observations regarding the five allegedly-inaccurate mylar quad map overlays were made with reference to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey and what he believed was a wetland symbol on the underlying quad map. But it is not clear that Delaney understood the legend to the Resource Base Maps. Furthermore, he was not offered as an expert in photogrammetry, geography, or surveying, and the specifics of his personal knowledge of the areas in dispute were not made clear. Another HEC witness, Dr. Menges, testified to his opinion that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. He testified that, to map native vegetative communities on a species-specific basis, Steve Christman's 1988 report for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission would provide the best available data. (He also mentioned data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, but it was not clear that those data were not used or how available those data were.) However, it was not clear from the evidence that the Christman report was not used as a data source. In addition, Menges conceded that "the primary source for the distribution of (native vegetative) communities" (in Highlands County) would be the "Soil Conservation Service Survey map," and it is clear that the County's consultants used this data source, together with other soil survey information and aerial photography, as was appropriate. It should not be surprising that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. As previously, stated, the effort was limited to high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge. There was no intention to map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. Regardless of the alleged deficiencies with the Resource Base Maps and the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, HEC did not take into account all of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series in contending that the mapping was deficient. HEC did not recognize that Policy 3.2 provides for the use of the "adopted Conservation Overlap Map series contained in the Future Land Use Element" as the "general indicator" for the resources described in the policy. The Future Land Use Map series includes not only FLU-54 and the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) but also: FLU-55 (the Generalized Soils Map), FLU-57 (the Wetlands 600 map), FLU-58 (the Floodplains map), and FLU-59 (the Water and Canals Map 500). HEC also did not recognize that the environmental clearance procedures under Policies 3.3 and 3.13 are triggered not only if the presence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map (which includes not only FLU-54, but also the Resource Base Maps), but also if they are known to occur by reference to any of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series, or are otherwise known to occur. The references acknowledged by the County in Policy 3.1 can serve as the source of knowledge of where the resources described in Policy 3.2 occur. It is not beyond debate that these sources of information, taken together, are adequate for purposes of indicating the existence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 and triggering environmental clearance review under Policy 3.3. HEC did not establish beyond debate that the County did not use appropriate or the best available data, that the County did not apply the data in a professional manner, or that the Plan, as amended, did not react to the data in an appropriate way. Future Land Use Element Residential Land Use Density In Agricultural Land Use Categories HEC presented no credible testimony or evidence to substantiate its allegation that the land use densities for agriculture and urban agriculture encourage "urban sprawl" or are not supported by adequate data. No expert testimony in land use planning was offered, although HEC had identified such potential experts on its witness list. The Base Documents stated that agricultural density was at 1 unit/acre prior to the adoption of the Plan and recommended that the density be decreased to 1 unit/10 acres. The draft of the Base Documents recommended a density of 1 unit/ 5 acres. The Plan established the General Agriculture land use category as the predominant land use for rural areas. It has the lowest development potential of all adopted land use categories. The General Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per ten acres. The Urban Agriculture land use category was established as a transitional zone between urbanized and rural lands. The Urban Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per five acres. (County Exhibit 6, Pages FLU-6 and FLU-7 There was no evidence to prove that lesser densities are required to discourage urban sprawl, to protect natural resources, to protect agricultural lands, or for any other reason. Population Accommodation Data and Analysis HEC did not present any population accommodation analysis. There was no competent evidence presented in this case as to the population accommodated in the year 2000 under either the Plan as amended and adopted on March 2, 1994, or the Plan as amended and adopted on September 15, 1993. HEC pointed to a projection in the Housing Element in the County's Plan indicating a need for 10,075 new housing units to accommodate 16,977 new residents by the year 2000. HEC also pointed to data and analysis indicating that there are approximately 108,000 residential lots in existing subdivisions of 100 lots or more in the County that potentially could be developed to accommodate new housing units. But HEC did not establish that it is realistic to project maximum development in those subdivisions at one unit per lot; nor did HEC establish the extent of vested rights to development in those subdivisions. Protection of Water Quality and Quantity The Base Documents contain extensive data and analysis of County geology and soils, including water supply considerations, and recharge. Aquifer recharge in Highlands County occurs primarily on the Lake Wales Ridge. Contamination of groundwater has been documented from hazardous waste associated with landfills, agricultural use of the pesticides EDB (ethylene dibromide) and Bromicil, and leaking underground storage tanks. Of these, only the agricultural pesticide use is documented to have impacted potable water supplies. EDB, the primary source of contamination noted, has not been used since 1983. While the presence of Bromacil is also noted, the number of wells is not mentioned. Moreover, the evidence does not mention a single health- related case. Where EDB contamination has been found, the State of Florida has paid the cost of connecting to public water supplies or installing carbon filters. There is no evidence that stormwater management activities has caused groundwater contamination. Highlands County has adopted a number of objectives and policies in both the Infrastructure Element and the Natural Resources Element of the Plan, as amended, intended to protect potable water wells, conserve potable water resources, and reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. Objective 6 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] of the Infrastructure Element is to ensure public health by protecting the water quality of potable wells. Among the policies adopted to implement that objective is Policy 6.4, adopting stringent restrictions on activities within a 600 feet radius around public potable water wells. Highlands County also adopted Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.3 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] to establish minimum design and construction requirements for all potable water wells to protect and assure delivery of potable water. Highlands County has also adopted a number of other objectives and policies under the Natural Resources Element intended to protect groundwater quality, including: prohibiting the location of hazardous waste treatment facilities in the County; requiring cooperation with the DEP "DRASTIC" program; prohibiting discharges of untreated stormwater and waste material into underground formations; adopting stormwater quality and quantity standards; mapping wellhead protection zones; and encouraging implementation of best management practices for agricultural operations in the County. HEC did not prove beyond fair debate that, taken together, the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan, as amended, do not ensure the protection and conservation of potable water supplies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Highlands County Plan adopted through County Ordinance 91- 1, as amended by County Ordinances 93-16 and 94-1, is "in compliance." DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996.
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 in this case is whether the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Town of Pomona Park (Town) through enactment of Ordinance No. 01-7 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact The Town's current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Exhibit H) depicts the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel as fronting on the western shore of Lake Broward and being within a primarily residential land use area that encompasses most of the Town's land area lying west of Lake Broward and northeast of Highway 17. The parcels immediately to the north and south of the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel are in Low Density Residential future land use, which allows densities up to two units per acre; the lake is to the east. The eastern five acres of the 13-acre subject parcel, including the lake frontage, were not included in the amendment; only the western eight acres were changed to Agricultural land use, which allows densities up to one unit per five acres (unless occupied only by the owner's family members, in which case densities up to one unit per acre are allowed). The property owner, Town Council member Barry Fouts, had previously requested to have the entire 13-acre parcel changed to Agricultural land use but withdrew that request. Fouts testified that, in requesting the same change for only eight acres of his parcel, he took into consideration that keeping the request under 10 acres would avoid review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Several parcels near the Fouts parcel, including some of the parcels across the street to the west, are designated for Agricultural future land use. However, those parcels across the street to the west of the subject parcel are actually being used for residential rather than agricultural purposes. The nearest parcel that might be considered to be in actual use for agricultural purposes is a horse farm located approximately one quarter mile to the north. However, the present Town Clerk testified in her capacity as Town zoning officer that a horse farm (or an exotic bird breeding operation) is not to be considered an agricultural use because the animals are not being raised for human consumption. Fouts has voluntarily provided some visual buffering along his property line, but there is no requirement in the Plan Amendment that it be maintained in the future, nor would visual screening be particularly effective in protecting nearby Residential properties against noises and odors produced by some common types of agricultural livestock. The Plan Amendment was not initiated by the Town; rather, it was requested by the subject parcel's owner, Barry Fouts, whose request for a change in land use stated that his purpose was to bring his "established agricultural activities, which include horse and bird breeding" into conformity with "Putnam County [sic] zoning recommendations." Fouts gave no other reasons for wanting the change. The former Town Clerk (and zoning officer) testified that there were no restrictions on keeping any type or number of animals in Residential future land use, that Fouts could engage in horse and bird breeding without changing the future land use or zoning, and that there was no need for the land use change. No survey, study, or analysis of the Plan Amendment is reflected anywhere in the Town's files relating to the Plan Amendment, and it is found that there were none. When the Plan Amendment was presented to the Town Council for consideration, all that the former Town Clerk and present Town Clerk presented to the Town Council was a one-page note prepared by the former Town Clerk relating Fouts' desire to continue with his agricultural activities, including horse and bird breeding. At final hearing (with the assistance of leading questions on cross-examination by the Town's attorney), the present Town Clerk and former Town Clerk testified that, notwithstanding the absence of any written survey, study, or analysis, they made a site visit and recalled reviewing the Plan Amendment in relation to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the FLUM, as well as analyzing and considering the need for more agricultural land use within the Town's municipal boundaries and the desirability of keeping residential development and septic tanks away from the lake, in arriving at a recommendation to approve the land use change. Regardless whether any such analyses actually occurred by the time of adoption of the Plan Amendment, they clearly were presented as part of the evidence at final hearing. The analysis presented at final hearing that the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for more land area to be designated for Agricultural future land use was based on an erroneous reading of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town in 1991. The analysis presumed that, under the plan, 1220.3 acres of agricultural land use was "desired" (compared to less that 600 acres in actual agricultural use in 2001). This presumption was based on parenthetical references to 1220.3 acres next to the word "Agricultural" in two places in the plan. But it is clear from a fair reading of the plan that, in designating Agricultural future land use, the plan transferred all 648.6 acres in the "Vacant or Undeveloped" existing land use category to the Agricultural future land use category "for lack of a better land use designation," in addition to the 571.7 acres of existing agricultural land use, for a total of 1220.3 acres. (Other future land use designations mirrored 1991 existing land use.) There was no intention to indicate a need for 1220 acres of agricultural land use in the Town. To the contrary, the plan projected a need for 170 additional housing units through 2001 and stated that "[m]ost of the Town's . . . agricultural and vacant/undeveloped land is suitable for development." Consistent with that, the evidence showed that in the vicinity of the subject parcel most if not all of the parcels designated for Agricultural land use are actually being used for residential purposes and not for agriculture. If anything, it would seem that in 1991 the Comprehensive Plan anticipated a need to designate more acreage for Residential future land use and less for Agricultural. Even if the Comprehensive Plan reflected a perceived need for 1220 acres of actual agricultural use, 1220 acres already is designated for Agricultural future land use, and no reason was given for designating additional acreage for the category. Finally, this part of the Town's analysis makes no sense in light of the undisputed testimony of the Town Clerk, as zoning officer, that "agricultural use" consists of the raising of plants or animals for human consumption. The evidence was clear that the horses, cows, and exotic birds on the Fouts property are not for human consumption. It was not clear from the evidence what the 15-20 chickens on the Fouts property are used for. The analysis that the Plan Amendment was to protect Lake Broward from septic tanks associated with residential land use also is shallow and faulty. While it is true that allowable development densities are lower in the Agricultural future land use category, the five acres of the Fouts parcel that were nearest the lake were not included in the amendment but remained in Residential future land use. Second, the present Town Clerk testified that there never have been any negative effects on the lake from septic tanks, which are regulated, whereas she had no way of knowing whether the unregulated effects of agricultural runoff might be worse than any effects from septic tanks. Objective A.1.1 provides that the Town "shall coordinate future land uses with . . . adjacent land uses, . . . through implementing the following policies . . ..". In this case, the immediately adjacent land uses are designated on the FLUM as Residential, and most if not all of the nearby parcels that are designated Agricultural are actually being used for residential purposes. But Petitioner did not allege that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with any of the policies listed under Objective A.1.1, and the evidence did not prove any such inconsistencies. Policy A.1.3.2 requires that the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code shall require buffering and separation between land uses of different densities or intensities of use sufficient to ensure compatibility between uses and also requires the elimination of non-conforming land uses. In this case, the Plan Amendment did not provide for separation or buffering between the newly designated Agricultural future land use and the directly adjoining Residential properties, but neither did it have any effect on the Policy requiring the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code to require such buffering and separation. Policy A.1.9.3.C.1 provides in pertinent part: "Residential land use is intended to be used primarily for housing and shall be protected from intrusion by land uses that are incompatible with residential density." The Plan Amendment intrudes a small area of Agricultural future land use into an area that is primarily designated for Residential land use and that is in actuality almost exclusively used for residential purposes. The sounds and smells associated with at least some types of agricultural activity, such as the pasturing and raising of livestock and poultry, are capable of adversely affecting nearby residents and are incompatible with residential land use. Policy A.1.9.3.C.4 provides in pertinent part: "Agricultural land is intended to be used primarily for pasture, grove operations or silviculture with possibly some row crops." In this case, the evidence shows that the primary purpose of the Plan Amendment was to allow the landowner to breed horses and operate an exotic bird breeding facility. The Town Clerk, as zoning officer, has taken the position that those activities do not fit within the definition of agriculture. But the Plan Amendment itself is not inconsistent with this Policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Town's small-scale amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 01-7 is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Padgett, Esquire 3 North Summit Street Crescent City, Florida 32112-2505 Michael W. Woodward, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 323999-0001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Crestview's (City's) small-scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background B & H is a Florida corporation which owns and operates a number of concrete batch plants and a surveying and engineering company known as Integrated Engineering Solutions, LLC. The parties have stipulated that B & H is the owner of property within the City and submitted comments to the City in support of the change in the land use prior to the adoption of the plan amendment. As such, B & H is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. In 2005, B & H purchased a 75.56-acre tract of vacant, undeveloped land in the unincorporated part of Okaloosa County (County), just southwest of the City. The parcel is generally bounded on its northern side by Interstate 10 (I-10) and by a 150-foot wide Gulf Power Company easement on its southern boundary. All of the property carried a County land use designation of RR, which limits development to one residential unit per five acres. See Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 10.1.e. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). After B & H purchased the property, it applied for development approval (including a land use change from RR to an industrial) from the County. In the face of substantial public opposition, and a negative staff recommendation, B & H withdrew its application during a County Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2007. (The County staff noted that the property "is located in the immediate vicinity of . . . a residential subdivision"; that a wide range of industrial uses would be allowed on the property if it was changed to IN; that the requested action would have the effect of "spot zoning"; that there is no shortage of industrial-zoned lands in other areas of the County; and that "the requested action is not compatible with the proximate residential subdivision and does not result in an appropriate transition of uses, densities, and intensities as expressed in [FLUE] Policy 4.4.") Shortly thereafter, B & H filed a petition for voluntary annexation with the City. On August 27, 2007, the City annexed a 9.98-acre parcel of B & H's land lying in the eastern half of the larger parcel. (The remainder of the larger parcel remains in the County.) B & H then filed an application in the form of a small-scale development amendment seeking a change in the land use on the property from RR to IN. Because the size of the parcel was less than 10 acres, the change in land use was accomplished by this type of amendment, which is not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (Department). See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. According to FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.f. in the City's Plan, the IN category is designed to protect lands for production and distribution of goods and for other industrial activities. A wide range of industrial uses and commercial uses are allowed in this category. Specific uses include light and heavy manufacturing, assembly, training facilities, vehicle repair (including body work and painting), packaging, processing, wholesale business and warehousing, truck terminals, borrow pits, asphalt/concrete plants, heavy equipment sales, service and/or rentals, and other uses similar to those listed herein. Residential uses are prohibited except as an accessory to a permitted use. In addition to the application for a change in the FLUM, B & H submitted an application for site plan approval for a concrete batch plant to be located on the southern end of the subject property. This use would be consistent with the IN category. However, until this proceeding is concluded, the site plan will not be reviewed, modified, or approved by the City, and therefore any development provisions incorporated therein are not final. Further, the proposed use (a concrete batch plant) requires the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. On October 8, 2007, a first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 implementing the amendment occurred at the City Council meeting. On October 22, 2007, a public hearing was held before the City Council. The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the amendment. On November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted another public hearing for the first reading of the amendment. On November 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the amendment and adopted Ordinance No. 1370 enacting the amendment. (New zoning on the land will not be imposed until or unless the plan amendment here is found to be in compliance.) Although not subject to review by the Department, the following day the City sent a copy of the adopted Ordinance to the Department. On December 24, 2007, Petitioner, who resides in Antioch Estates, a nearby residential subdivision located within the City, filed her Petition with DOAH. On February 7, 2008, she moved to amend the Petition and authorization to do so was granted by Order dated February 8, 2008. In her Amended Petition, she generally contended that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in several respects; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; the property being reclassified is greater than 10 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment; the City did not analyze the financial feasibility of the amendment; and the City failed to conduct the necessary intergovernmental coordination and review. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner resides within the City and offered comments in opposition to the amendment prior to its adoption. As such, she is an affected person and has standing to challenge the amendment. At the hearing, Petitioner, who is a planner for the City of Destin but resides in Crestview, acknowledged that before she filed her initial Petition, her husband was contacted by a representative of Couch Ready Mix USA (Couch), a non-party who operates a concrete batch plant 0.8 miles southeast of Antioch Estates on Old Antioch Road, and with whom B & H would compete if the application is approved and a new concrete batch plant constructed on the site. However, Petitioner stated that she would have filed a petition even if her husband had not been contacted by Couch. Even so, it is fair to infer from the evidence that funding for Petitioner's counsel and two experts was provided by Couch. The Subject Property The subject property is a 9.98-acre parcel bordered on the north by I-10 and on the east, west, and south by property owned by B & H, all of which is designated RR and zoned Agricultural. Directly to the east of the larger B & H parcel is a 70-foot strip of vacant land owned by Rhett Enzor, a non- party whose land stretches from I-10 southward to the Gulf Power easement. The Enzor property also carries a RR land use designation and Agricultural zoning. Besides the 70-foot strip on the eastern side, Mr. Enzor owns the other property that surrounds the larger parcel to the south and west; however, the extent of that property is not of record. Just to the east-northeast and adjacent to the Enzor property is a residential subdivision (Antioch Estates) comprised of around 125 homes. The subdivision is divided into two sections - the larger section lying north of I-10 and the smaller section located just south of I-10. It is unclear whether the entire subdivision has 125 units, or if the southern portion alone has that number. In any event, Petitioner and members of the public who offered comments at the hearing reside in the southern portion of the subdivision and oppose the application. At its closest point, the western boundary of the subdivision (particularly lots 51-55) appears to be slightly more than 600 feet from the 9.98-acre parcel, but no more than 70 feet or so from the eastern boundary of the larger parcel. The distance to the proposed concrete batch plant, which will lie in the south-southwest end of the subject property, is slightly less than one-quarter mile. An elementary school (Antioch Elementary School) with an enrollment of around 800 students and 100 staff, built sometime after 1996, is located just east of Antioch Estates. A former borrow pit, Blocker Pit, lies south of the subdivision, while an active borrow pit, Garret Pit, lies around one-half mile or so southeast of the subdivision. Antioch Estates is classified by the City as Low Density Residential (LDR), while the school is in the Public Use land use category. Under FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.a., the LDR category "is limited to residential uses, customary accessory uses, recreation uses, churches and places of worship and planned unit developments. Non-profit and civic organizations may be permitted by special exception. This category is intended for single family homes which may be developed with up to six (6) units per gross acre." Antioch Road appears to be a major arterial road running in a northwest-southeast direction (crossing over or under I-10) just east of the elementary school. (Less than a mile southeast of the school, Antioch Road becomes P.J. Adams Parkway.) All vehicles wishing to access the school, Antioch Estates, or the 9.98-parcel (as well as the larger B & H parcel) must do so by turning off of Antioch Road onto Garret Pit Road, a County-maintained road which intersects with Antioch Road just south of I-10. Within a short distance, Garret Pit Road intersects with Whitehurst Lane, a paved road which runs in a northwest direction from Garret Pit Road to the school and eventually makes a loop in the subdivision. At the Whitehurst Lane intersection, Garret Pit Road turns into a dirt road. Vehicles traveling to B & H's property continue south on Garret Pit Road for 300 feet or so until it intersects with Point Center Road, a privately-owned, unplatted and undedicated dirt road which runs directly west from Garrett Pit Road (and roughly parallel to I-10) through the Enzor strip and into the eastern side of the B & H property. From there, it appears that vehicles would turn south for a short distance on Borrow Pit Road (also referred to as Barrow Pit Road on certain map exhibits), another dirt road which eventually turns westward when it reaches the southern boundary of B & H property. The 9.98-acre parcel is around 66 feet north of Borrow Point Road. According to a B & H witness, Point Center Road and Borrow Pit Road are not actually roads, but are more akin to dirt trails which trucks now use to reach the excavating and land fill sites. Finally, Point Center Road passes approximately 140 feet south of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of Antioch Estates. When the subject property was annexed into the City, it retained the County FLUM designation of RR and zoning of Agricultural. The FLUM and zoning designations are retained until a plan amendment and rezoning is approved by the City. Under the County's Plan, residential uses in RR must not exceed one unit per five acres. There is currently an inactive borrow pit (covering around six acres) on the southern part of the 9.98-acre parcel, which extends westward into the larger parcel. B & H says it has no intention of resuming this operation. A small storage facility with "manholes," "pipe," and other "equipment" sits on the southwestern corner of the property, while a small wetlands area of less than an acre occupies the northwestern corner. To the west of the subject parcel on the northwestern corner of the larger parcel is an active, permitted 7.5-acre Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill. There is some ambiguity in the testimony over the actual size of the landfill; however, in DEP's letter of intent dated March 17, 2006, which transferred Permit No. 0002800-002-SO from the original owner (Point Center, Inc.) to B & H, it stated that B & H is authorized to operate a 7.5-acre disposal unit until March 17, 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit B. Although the useful life of the existing C & D landfill will eventually run out, at the hearing B & H's Project Manager stated that the company has an application pending with DEP to expand the landfill. The status of that matter is unknown. Expansion of a non-conforming land use, however, may be problematic. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. Besides the active C & D landfill, B & H is also periodically retrieving fill dirt from the larger parcel for site work operations, using up to 30 dump trucks for this work. According to a witness, the larger parcel still has around 3,000,000 cubic yards of usable dirt. Whether B & H is authorized to conduct borrow pit operations on the larger parcel is not of record. More than likely, once the landfill is used up (or no later than March 2010 when the permit expires unless it is renewed), the non-conforming use will have run its course, and the RR designation will apply to all future activities on the larger parcel. Although the entire B & H parcel was classified as RR, the borrow pit and C & D landfill are non-conforming uses under the County's Plan, presumably having been in existence before the County's Plan was adopted. A non-conforming use is one where the actual use of the property is not consistent with the future land use of the comprehensive plan or not consistent with the zoning of the property. There are very strict parameters as to whether or not you can change or modify a non-conforming use. Normally, changes to non-conforming uses are not allowed. A non-conforming use can not be expanded. B & H has acknowledged that it intends to seek annexation of the entire larger parcel into the City. With the exception of the C & D landfill, it is also planning to request a FLUM amendment from RR to IN for the remainder of the larger parcel. Thus, if the instant application is approved, it is fair to say that this action will be the forerunner of an effort to reclassify the entire 75.56 acres (except the 7.5-acre landfill) as industrial property, leaving only the 70-foot strip of Enzor property as a RR buffer between the industrial land and the subdivision. Petitioner's Objections Ten-Acre Maximum Petitioner's first objection is that the amendment does not meet the statutory criteria for a small-scale development amendment because the use involves more than 10 acres. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he proposed amendment [must involve] a use of 10 acres or fewer"). Petitioner argues that parcel size is not the only determinant of what must be included in the amendment, and that any acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use is considered in determining whether the small scale development amendment criteria are met. Petitioner argues that B & H failed to include in the amendment all acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use. It is undisputed that the subject parcel is 9.98 acres, as determined by Kermit George, who sealed the property's survey for B & H, and as confirmed by City employee Teresa Gaillard by using the Autocad software program. Relying primarily upon site plans for the concrete batch plant filed by B & H with the City, however, Petitioner contends that the acreage (.0604 acres) related to a 66-foot driveway which will access the south side of the property from Borrow Pit Road, the acreage (1.607 acres) related to the use of Borrow Pit Road after turning off of Point Center Road, the acreage (.052 acres) for an easement necessary to run a County water line from B & H's southern property line to the smaller parcel, and the 150-foot buffer on the east side of the site (which will be required by the City when or if a concrete batch plant is permitted and built) must be included in the total amount of acreage. Excluding the buffer, Petitioner has calculated this additional land to total 1.7194 acres. Petitioner argues that even if only one of the above items is included, it would cause the size of the amendment to exceed ten acres and lose its status as a small-scale development amendment. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the dirt trail that makes up Borrow Pit Road, as well as the 66-foot trail from Borrow Pit Road to the subject property, are already being used by B & H trucks or other vehicles to access the landfill and borrow pit area. Therefore, this "infrastructure" will be used for other purposes, irrespective of whether development on the 9.98-acre parcel occurs. At the same time, the City's planning expert noted that good planning practices do not require that the land necessary to access a parcel with roads or utilities, and off-site buffering, be included in calculating whether the "use" of the parcel exceeds 10 acres. Except as to the buffering issue, this interpretation of the statutory language is more logical and reasonable than Petitioner's approach and is hereby accepted. Compare Parker v. St. Johns County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2658, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 34 at *12 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2002, DCA Feb. 27, 2003)("[i]t would be unreasonable to construe Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as requiring local governments and applicants to calculate pro rata share impacts of off-site utilities, determine proportionate acreage based on those impacts, and apply those figures to the small scale acreage calculations"). The issue of whether the acreage related to the off- site buffering should be included as a use is not so clear cut. The City Land Development Code (LDC) requires that there be appropriate buffering between industrial and residential land uses. While the pertinent portion of the LDC is not of record, the evidence submitted by B & H and the City shows that an approximate 150-foot buffer will be necessary on the eastern side of the parcel. A City witness testified that the buffering "would normally take place upon the property being developed." However, because the use will occur in an existing borrow pit (which is 20 feet below the surface of the adjacent land), the City concluded that it would be more appropriate to place any required vegetative buffer and fencing off-site on the edge of the larger parcel, also owned by B & H. The buffering is an integral part of the project being placed on the parcel. In other words, the plant cannot be built without the required buffering. Therefore, the land on which the buffer and fence will be placed should be included as an integral part of the property's use. Compare St. George Plantation Owners' Association, Inc. v. Franklin County et al., DOAH Case No. 96- 5124GM, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *18-20 (DOAH Feb. 16, 1997, Admin. Comm. Mar. 25, 1997) where three off-site absorption beds required to serve a wastewater treatment plant were considered an integral part of the facility, thereby increasing the size of the amendment's "use" from 9.6 to 14.6 acres. By adding the acreage for the 150-foot off-site buffer and fencing to the 9.98 acres, the use of the property that is the subject of the amendment clearly involves more than 10 acres and cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment. Data and Analysis Petitioner also objects to the amendment as not being supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Paragraph (2)(a) of the rule requires that "plan amendments . . . shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." 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 the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Id. Petitioner points out that B & H has acknowledged (by way of answers to Requests for Admissions and stipulated facts in its Motion in Limine) that it did not present to the City any studies or data related to noise, traffic, property values, air pollution, or protected natural resources that may be impacted by, or attributable to, a concrete batch plant being placed on the subject property. She also argues that to the extent an analysis was made in the City's staff report (as to infrastructure demands, protection of wetlands and natural resources, traffic, financial feasibility, and compatibility), it was based on incorrect data or was otherwise insufficient. The City's planning consultant prepared the staff report for the City, which summarizes the data and analysis supporting the amendment. See § 1, Joint Exhibit E, which is a six and one-half page staff report. The analysis was performed on the premise that a concrete batch plant would be located on the subject property. The staff report indicates that "[t]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for the development of a concrete batch plant." See page 1, § 1, Joint Exhibit E. The staff report contains in summary form the data and analysis supporting the amendment. Section 1 reflects that the City relied upon (a) FLUM map sheet 7-5, which indicated that all adjacent lands except I-10 on the north side are in the RR land use category while lands in the vicinity are classified as LDR, MDR, Conservation, Public Lands, Industrial, and Commercial; (b) data reflecting that the existing use of land on the subject property is vacant and undeveloped; the larger B & H parcel contains a C & D landfill and is otherwise vacant; adjacent properties include numerous single-family homes and subdivisions, existing and planned multi-family projects, planned commercial uses, and a school; and wetlands are located in the northwest corner of the subject property; (c) data showing that the type of development on the property will be a concrete batch plant; (d) data showing that the amendment will "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems" (potable water, sewer, solid waste, recreation/open space, drainage, and traffic) because it will eliminate potential future demands for residential units that would otherwise be allowed on the RR property; (e) data reflecting that the change in land use is compatible and suitable with adjacent lands because the proposed facility is "not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses," and the adjacent properties are owned by B & H; (f) data showing that the site is generally level with an average elevation of 100 feet; (g) data in the Soil Survey of Okaloosa County, Florida indicating that the soil "is suited for the planned use and development of the subject property"; (h) data reflecting that there is "a small area with wetland soils" in the northwest corner of the property which will not be developed; and (i) data indicating that there are no historic and archeological resources on the property. The consultant also reviewed the current Plan to determine if the plan amendment was consistent with all relevant provisions and concluded that the "amendment is consistent with and furthers the adopted Comprehensive Plan." He added that at the same time the small-scale amendment was being considered, the City was also considering a set of large-scale amendments to its Plan (presumably to the FLUM), and the data and analysis used for those amendments provide further support for the amendment being challenged. However, the nature of the large- scale amendments, and their underlying data and analysis, are not of record or otherwise identified. Finally, the City did not perform a concurrency analysis since it says that the Department no longer requires one at the amendment stage and instead defers that task until the development process begins. Whether the City specifically considered the concerns noted in the County's staff report recommending a denial of the land use change is not clear. However, the staff report discounted the notion that the amendment would encourage urban sprawl (or "spot zoning" in the words of the County staff report) since it promotes urban infill development. In response to a criticism by Petitioner, at hearing the City's consultant utilized further data from City sources, presumably available at the time the amendment was adopted, which indicate that the total available capacity for new customer usage from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the water requirements related to the proposed industrial usage. Without providing specifics, the consultant also opined that if the County is called upon to provide water to the site, as B & H now intends, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. In analyzing the impacts on infrastructure, the City assumed that a change from RR to IN, and the placement of a concrete batch plant on the property, would "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems." The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that when comparing the new traffic that would be generated by potential residential units on the property versus a concrete batch plan, the latter would probably generate an increase of at least 110 vehicle trips per day, most by heavy trucks, which is more than five times the number of trips used in the City's analysis. In contrast, the staff report stated that the projected demands from development of the plant "[i]n theory, [could result in] up to 20 trucks trips per day" but this high a number was "not likely." In this respect, the data being used and analyzed were not correct or were incomplete, and the City's assumptions drawn from that data were flawed. Thus, as to these impacts, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Although the staff report also failed to reflect the increased water usage that would be generated by the concrete batch plant, at hearing the City relied upon available data to show that both the City and County had sufficient capacity to provide water service for the plant. To a certain degree, compatibility and suitability overlap one another. "Compatibility" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." This criterion is used to evaluate whether the proposed industrial land use is compatible with the uses on nearby or adjacent properties. On the other hand, subsection (128) of the rule defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." This criterion requires a determination of whether the industrial land use category is suitable in this particular area, given the existing characteristics of the land. After reviewing and analyzing data on the issue of suitability and compatibility, the City concluded that because B & H owned all the lands around the site (except on the northern boundary which adjoined I-10), "adverse issues [not otherwise identified in the report] associated with compatibility should be minimized." To further support its finding of suitability and compatibility, the report went on to state that the subject property "is not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses." While the data used by the City (such as the FLUM map) were adequate, the City did not react to it in an appropriate manner. The City is correct in concluding that a change to an industrial land use category may be suitable on land where a non-conforming borrow pit already exists. However, because the proposed industrial use is in "relative proximity" to rural residential land on three of its sides, a large residential subdivision that begins no more than 200 yards away, an access road used by numerous heavy trucks which lies only 140 feet south of the subdivision, and a single outlet for all traffic exiting the subdivision, school, and B & H property, it is fair to infer that there will be a direct or indirect negative impact on those adjacent or nearby uses in contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(123). In this respect, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The City's recognition of the wetlands area on the subject property, and its finding in the report that such lands would be protected if development occurs, constitutes sufficient data and analysis and appropriate reaction thereto to satisfy the statute and rule. Petitioner also contends there was no analysis related to the fact that Point Center Road, the private road used to access the parcel, crosses wetlands "at the bottom of the hills," and the wetlands will be impacted by the change. As pointed out at hearing, however, the road has been there "forever," and filling of the adjacent wetlands occurred many years ago, or long before B & H acquired the property. Other than paving the road if the land change is approved, no other "filling" will occur, and the City's assessment of this matter was sufficient. All other contentions by Petitioner regarding the lack of sufficient data and analysis to support the amendment have been considered and rejected. Financial Feasibility Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible." Relying upon this statute, Petitioner contends that the City failed to analyze whether the amendment was financially feasible. According to Petitioner's expert, when a FLUM change is made, a financial feasibility analysis must be made, which requires that the local government make a facility-based analysis to demonstrate whether the local government has sufficient capacity for the change. Specifically, she argues that there is no commitment from the County to provide water, and that the City did not analyze whether the City or County has the capacity to provide sufficient water to serve a concrete batch plant. Although the staff report addresses this issue in summary fashion and without specifics, at hearing the City's planning consultant testified, without contradiction, that the total available capacity from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the potential water requirements of a concrete batch plant on the site. He also opined, without contradiction, that if the County is called upon to provide the water, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. Based upon this analysis of available data, it is found that financial feasibility was adequately addressed by the city. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner next contends that the City did not evaluate and coordinate the amendment with the County, as required by Section 163.3177(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the City's Plan. The statute provides in part that "[c]oordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of . . . the county . . . shall be a major objective of the comprehensive planning process." The two most relevant provisions in the Plan on this subject, both very general in nature, are ICE Goal 13.A., which states that a goal of the Plan is to "[p]rovide coordination of this plan (ordinance) with Okaloosa County, other local governments (as appropriate) and other governmental agencies providing services within the City[,]" and ICE Objective 13.A.1., which provides that the City shall "review, on an annual basis, actions that have taken place to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan of Crestview with the Plans of other units of government and the Okaloosa County School Board." Although the County was given constructive notice of B & H's annexation request through the publication of a notice in a local newspaper on July 7, 2007, there is no evidence that the County was given specific notice that an application for a change in the FLUM had been filed by B & H and was being processed by the City, or that the County was afforded an opportunity to provide input into that process, if it chose to do so. Given the unique circumstances here, coordination is especially important since the subject property is surrounded on three sides by County land designated as RR with Agricultural zoning, the requested change would create a small industrial pocket in the middle of County RR land, and the County staff had just prepared a report recommending denial of the same change before the City annexed the property. While the cited statute, rule, and Plan provisions clearly do not contemplate that adjacent local governments have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments, or that the City is required to accept alternative suggestions proposed by other entities, at a minimum they contemplate that notice of changes be given to adjacent local governments, and that those local governments be afforded the right to offer input, if any, prior to consideration of the amendment. See, e.g., City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 at *34-35 (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Because there was no coordination here, even minimal, the adoption of the plan amendment contravened the cited statute, rule, and ICE Goal 13.A. Internal Consistency Petitioner next argues that, contrary to the requirement in Section 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, that there be "internal consistency" within a plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan in the following respects: quality of life (Legal Element Section 1.04); compatibility (FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c.); school siting (FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.); and wetlands impacts (Conservation Element Goal 11.A and Objective 11.A.2.). Petitioner first contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the stated general intent and purpose of the Plan, which is found in Section 1.04 of the Plan's Legal Element. That Element contains a "whereas" clause, the Plan's title, jurisdiction for adopting the Plan, the City Council's intent in adopting the Plan, and its effective date. The Element indicates that it is intended to implement Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.001, which sets forth the broad purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5. Section 1.04 provides in relevant part that the Plan is intended to "maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City" and to protect and promote the "public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens." This salutary language is so broad and aspirational in nature that the undersigned does not construe it, or other provisions in the Legal Element, as an appropriate basis for finding an amendment not in compliance. Petitioner's argument is accordingly rejected. Petitioner also argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan's requirement that compatibility of adjacent land uses be ensured. FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c. appears to be the only Plan provision specifically dealing with this issue and it provides that the LDC shall contain detailed provisions to "ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses." B & H and the City take the position that during the zoning and development phase of the process (rather than during the plan amendment stage) the LDC would be used to ensure compatibility, as required by the Plan. However, the issue of compatibility was analyzed by the City and presented to the City Council, and the staff report contains an entire section on compatibility and suitability. See Finding of Fact 30, supra; § 1, pages 3-4, Joint Exhibit E. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the plan amendment stage whether the change in land use is compatible with adjacent or nearby properties. As noted earlier, Antioch Estates is a low-density residential subdivision directly to the east of the B & H parcel. At its closest point, the subject property is around 200 yards from the subdivision. The distance from the subdivision to the proposed concrete batch plant is less than a quarter-mile. At the same time, the road over which the heavy trucks will travel to and from the industrial site is no more than 140 feet south of the southern boundary of the subdivision, and the connecting road eventually terminates at an outlet onto Antioch Road shared by traffic from the subdivision and school. Finally, B & H acknowledges that the proposed change here is a precursor to a request for annexation of the larger parcel into the City and a change in the land use on the larger parcel (except for the land fill) to industrial. This would leave the Enzor property (which is only 70 feet wide) as the sole remaining RR buffer with Antioch Estates. Given these considerations, the change in land use will not "[e]nsure compatibility of adjacent land uses," as required by FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.1., which provides that a "proposed school location shall be compatible with existing and projected uses of adjacent property." (Emphasis added). Since the Antioch Elementary School already exists, it appears that this provision has no application. For the same reason, Petitioner's contention that the amendment contravenes Section 1013.36(3), Florida Statutes, is also rejected. That statute requires that a new school should not be sited adjacent to factories or other properties from which noise, odors, or other disturbances would be likely to interfere with the educational program. While compatibility issues with existing schools are relevant when a map change is being made, they can only be considered in the context of Plan provisions which directly apply to those issues. Summary In summary, because the amendment involves a use of more than 10 acres, it does not meet the criteria in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to impacts on infrastructure (traffic) and compatibility; the amendment contravenes the statutory, rule, and Plan requirement that it be coordinated with other local governments; and it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c., which requires compatibility of adjacent uses. All other contentions raised by Petitioner have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small-scale development amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2008.
