The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the Durbin Crossing Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The sole issue is whether the Petition to establish the District meets the applicable factors set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Pioneer Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
Conclusions On Tuesday, October 11, 1994, the local public hearing in this proceeding was held before the Honorable Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was held in Room 290, City Commission Chambers, City of Daytona Beach City Hall, 301 South Ridgewood Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the petition of Indigo Development Inc. ("Petitioner") to establish the Indigo Community Development District ("District"). This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code. Statement of the Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. Appearances Appearances on behalf of the Petitioner were entered by: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Preliminary Statement The Petitioner filed the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District with the Secretary of the Commission on August 2, 1994. On August 1, 1994, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the petition and exhibits, together with a filing fee, to Frank Gummey, City Attorney for the City of Daytona Beach. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the petition and exhibits, along with a filing fee to Volusia County. A copy of the petition, including its attached exhibits, was received into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A. On August 10, 1994, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. The Commission published a notice of receipt of petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the notice of receipt of petition was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit B. By order of the undersigned, the local public hearing was scheduled in Daytona Beach, Florida, for Tuesday, October 11, 1994. The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code, and provided additional individual notice to others as provided in Rule 42-1.011(1)(b). Copies of return receipts from certified mailing of notices were received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit E. The Petitioner also filed the prepared testimony of four witnesses, together with attached exhibits, on October 4, 1994. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a local government has the option to hold a public hearing within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City Commission of the City of Daytona Beach ("City") held a public hearing on the petition on August 17, 1994, and adopted Resolution No. 94-412 supporting establishment of the District. The County Council of Volusia County also expressed support for the establishment of the District, adopting Resolution 94-230 on September 15, 1994. Certified copies of both resolutions were received into evidence respectively as Petitioner's Exhibits F and G. At the local public hearing on October 11, 1994, the Petitioner presented the testimony of William H. McMunn, President of Indigo Development Inc., and agent of the Petitioner in this proceeding; Fred A. Greene, an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis in public infrastructure design, permitting, cost estimation, and construction administration for special districts; Allen E. Salowe, a development economist and managing principal in the firm of A.E. Salowe & Associates, an expert in planning and economic development and analysis; and Gary R. Walters, President of Gary Walters and Associates, a community planning and management consulting firm providing services in conjunction with Gary L. Moyer, P.A., and an expert in special district operations and management. Their full names and addresses are attached to this report as Exhibit 1. The Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits A-J, which were received into evidence at the hearing. A list of Petitioner's exhibits in this proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2. Neither the City nor Volusia County presented any witnesses or exhibits. No public comment was received at the hearing. In accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, the record in this matter was left open until October 21, 1994, to allow for the submission of additional written comments or materials. With the exception of a copy of the Petitioner's letter transmitting proof of publication of the notice of hearing to the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, no additional written comments or materials were filed. A transcript of the local public hearing was filed by the Petitioner with the undersigned hearing officer on October 21, 1994. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and Conclusions. At hearing, the Petitioner was given leave to file a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions no later than October 31, 1994. The Petitioner timely filed such Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions. Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district of approximately 2,480 acres located entirely within the City. It would be located generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard (formerly 11th Street), and north of U.S. 92. If established, the District will be an independent special district authorized pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The District will have all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including but not limited to the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. Currently the lands to be included within the District are principally undeveloped. Neighboring lands are also principally undeveloped, although currently existing uses include the City's sewage treatment plant, a municipally-owned stadium and a privately-owned horse farm. In May, 1992, an Application for Development Approval ("ADA") for the Ladies Professional Golf Association Development of Regional Impact ("LPGA DRI") encompassing all of the real property located within the external boundaries of the proposed District was submitted to the City. The ADA requested DRI review and approval of a development consisting of no more than 6,018 residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The ADA, as amended, also included lands east of I-95 which are not included in the proposed District. All lands within the District will be developed as a mixed-use project pursuant to the LPGA DRI Development Order issued August 18, 1993, by the City. The LPGA DRI is a development which is consistent in all respects with the City's duly adopted local comprehensive plan and development regulations. The proposed development plan for the lands within the District contemplates the construction of approximately 4,035 single family dwelling units, 856,999 square feet of commercial space, 321,082 square feet of office space, 238,752 square feet of industrial space, and 1,566 multi family and hotel units in four phases over a 23-year period. There are presently no residents living within the District. There are five parcels within the external boundaries of the proposed District which are excluded from the District. These parcels are: (1) the Ladies Professional Golf Association golf course which is owned by the City, (2) the Phase I Entrance Road which is owned by the City, (3) the road connecting the Phase IIA Entrance Road to the City's maintenance facility, which is owned by the City, (4) a sub-station site which is presently owned by Florida Power & Light Company, and (5) the state sovereignty lands underlying the Tomoka River. These exclusions do not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed district or interfere with the ability of the proposed District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to participate in the acquisition or construction of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, these improvements will be dedicated to the City and the ownership and operation of these improvements will become the responsibility of the City. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. The Petitioner intends for the District to provide maintenance for the seven entrances to the District and certain roadway landscaping, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 interchange. This maintenance may include provision of appropriate landscaping, irrigation and/or mowing services. The Petitioner also intends for the District to construct a street lighting system, the capital costs of which will be borne by the District. Upon completion, portions of this system will be dedicated to the City, and ownership, operation and maintenance of those portions of the system will become the City's responsibility. The remaining portions of the street lighting system will be owned, operated and maintained by the District. The Petitioner also presently intends for the District to construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Once complete, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The Petitioner intends, in addition, for the District to provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals which run roughly east-west through the proposed District. It is intended, after establishment of the District, that the District and the City will enter into interlocal agreements which will further define the relationship between them. The estimated cost in 1993 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $30,656,000 with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2018. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary for a variety of reasons, including final design and permitting criteria, and future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest and general market circumstances. The Petitioner expects that the District will finance such services and improvements through the use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non- ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The City adopted Resolution 94-412 in which it consents to the exercise by the District of special powers, as authorized by Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), and for security as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d). The City, in adopting Resolution 94-412, also found that the District is not inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Additional findings by the City indicate that the land area within the District is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functional, interrelated community, and that the District is the best alternative for timely delivering community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served. The City also determined that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities, and that the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. The City's Resolution 94-412 further recommends that the Commission adopt a rule to establish the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Volusia County adopted Resolution 94-230 which, based upon findings that the proposed District is located wholly within the boundaries of the City and that establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any County facilities or services, expresses County support for the City's recommendation as to the establishment of the District. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was identified for the record as a copy of the petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission. McMunn stated that he had reviewed the contents of the petition and approved its findings, then generally described each of the attachments. Both McMunn and Salowe indicated that Attachment 10, page 3, second paragraph, should read "1993 dollars" and that the same change should be made in Table 2 of that document. McMunn testified further that ownership of the land within the proposed District had not changed since submission of his prefiled direct testimony, which testimony indicated that the Petitioner either owns or has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the District. With the correction to the EIS by McMunn and Salowe, the petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Salowe reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ("Local Comprehensive Plan"). In addition, the City Commission, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the proposed District for consistency with applicable elements or portions of the state and effective local comprehensive plans. The City concluded that the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Planning Council concluded that the proposed District is consistent with its adopted policies and with applicable portions of both state and local comprehensive plans. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition from the standpoint of its programs and responsibilities and the requirements of Section 190.005(e)2-6, Florida Statutes, and, based on this review, stated that the establishment of the District would not be incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, two goals of the State Comprehensive Plan, and policies supporting those goals, apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, two goals and policies supporting those goals apply directly to the District. Goal 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. From a planning perspective, the District will have the fiscal capacity to provide a wide range of services and facilities to a population in a designated growth area lying within the City. Goal 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. From a planning perspective, all District board meetings will be publicly noticed and open to the public, therefore, all citizens may participate. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual public facilities reports with the City which the City may use and rely on in any revisions to the Local Comprehensive Plan. Goal 18, Public Facilities, provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. From an economics perspective, the proposed District will provide designated improvements and services at no cost to the local government. These actions allow local government resources to be focused on the public facilities needs outside of the District and so contribute to the timely, orderly and efficient provision of services to all City residents. Goal 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District would finance and deliver quality public services and facilities at a level demanded by residents and property owners of the District who directly benefit and pay for those services and facilities. Based on the testimony in the record, the proposed District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the Future Land Use Element and Map and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Local Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the District. The Future Land Use Element and supporting policies, seek to achieve a future land use pattern that provides for a sufficient supply of land to meet growth demands and insure that land uses are located in a rational and efficient manner. From a planning perspective, the proposed District would further this goal by means of effective infrastructure planning, public finance, and community-wide maintenance. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies acknowledge the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and require appropriate mechanisms to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate their activities where such activities have a bearing on required levels of service and land planning decisions by the City. From a planning perspective, the District satisfies that need. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to accommodate new development within sound fiscal practices. From an economics perspective, the District furthers that intent because it provides an additional source of public funding and revenue to satisfy the LPGA DRI capital improvements requirements without burdening the borrowing capacity or indebtedness of the City. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district. The Local Comprehensive Plan is mostly silent on the powers of such districts, but it does not prevent a community development district from exercising any of the general or optional powers set forth in Sections 190.011 and 190.012, Florida Statutes. The City concluded the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in this record, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Greene, Salowe and Walters. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 2,480 acres, located entirely within the City, and generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard, and north of U.S. 92. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community which is included in the LPGA DRI Development Order approved August 18, 1993, which Development Order contemplates the possible establishment of such a district. Although five parcels of land within the external boundaries of the proposed District are excluded from the District because they are owned by governmental entities or utilities, their exclusion will not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed District or otherwise interfere with the ability of the District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The proposed development plan for lands within the District is focused largely on construction of single-family residences and selected multi-family residential areas supported both by both neighborhood and community-wide commercial development. Much as in other similarly-sized projects which lie adjacent to I-95 and have been approved as DRIs, the proposed district facilities can be provided in an efficient, functional, and integrated manner. Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the larger whole. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs so as to handle the growth and development of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 2,480 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate roads, drainage, water, sewer, lighting, security, parks and recreation, and other basic facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. With adequate planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance, provision of these facilities and services will contribute to the development of a functional interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. From a planning perspective, the property that comprises this community is compact because all of the property is part of a single project, is close together, and, with the exception of the municipally- owned LPGA golf course, has no barriers segregating one portion of the project from any of the others. Contiguity has to do with whether all parts of the project are touching along a boundary or point. From a planning perspective, the property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The land need not be physically connected in order to be functionally connected, especially when planning specialized governmental systems, facilities and services. However, all parts of the project do need to be spatially imminent so that the facilities and services can be provided in a cost-effective manner and can be properly maintained with minimum difficulty. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. From an economics perspective, the physical configuration of the proposed District is ideal. The area to be included in the District is compact and contiguous. The size and physical configuration of the District allows economical construction of road and lighting improvements, and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation and open space systems in a long- term cost-effective manner. The cost efficient delivery of potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse lines is also enhanced by the compactness and contiguity of the site. The area to be included within the proposed District can be expected to succeed as a functional, interrelated community from a district management perspective because the characteristics of compactness, contiguity and size ensure that the delivery of services and facilities will not be unnecessarily impeded by distance, physical barriers or other spacial problems. The City concluded that the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a single functional interrelated community. From planning, economics, engineering and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or acquisition of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, reuse, and lighting systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated, in whole or in part, to the City and the ownership and operation of the dedicated improvements will become the City's responsibility. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. It is intended that the proposed District will own, operate, and maintain the seven entrances to the District. The District will also provide roadway landscape maintenance, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 Interchange. It is intended in addition that the District will provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals. The proposed District would also construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Upon completion, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated, and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be apportioned between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. It is expected that the District will finance these services and improvements through use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non-ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. Use of non-ad valorem or special assessments and user fees will ensure that the real property benefitting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to establishment of the proposed District were identified. First, the City might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, generally either through a private developer dependent upon commercial loans or through a community-wide property owners' association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative can provide a long-term perspective; whether the alternative is a stable provider; and whether the alternative can secure low-cost long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality. Delivery by the Local General Purpose Government The City is a perpetual entity capable of providing services at sustained levels. It can also provide a relatively low-cost source of financing. There are, however, already substantial demands upon the City's financial and staff resources, the response to which will inevitably be dispersed over an expanding population residing within a very broad geographic area. Delivery by Private Means Private means for delivering community development services and facilities include delivery through a master neighborhood-type property owners' association or by a private developer. Either of these means can satisfy the demand for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, neither can assure a long-term perspective or necessarily qualify as a low-cost source of financing. A property owners' association might satisfy demands for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. They also frequently experience difficulty in collecting maintenance assessments. Consequently, a property owners' association could not effectively plan, finance, construct, operate and maintain the necessary infrastructure. While a private developer might provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders, such financing, if obtainable, is likely to be more expensive than financing through a public entity. Moreover, only a public entity can guarantee long-term maintenance. Delivery by the District The District is an independent special purpose unit of local government designed to focus its attention on providing the best long-term services to its specific benefitted properties and residents. It has limited powers and jurisdiction. The District will be governed by its own board of supervisors and managed by those whose sole purpose is to provide long-term planning, financing, and management of services and facilities. Sources of funding assure that District services and facilities will be adequately managed at sustained levels of quality. From an engineering perspective, the District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. Knowing when, where and how infrastructure will be needed to service a projected population allows for more efficient delivery. The proposed District is better able than the other available alternatives to focus attention on when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a more complete utilization of existing facilities. The LPGA DRI development order acknowledges the possible establishment of the District and further describes and defines the intended services and facilities to be provided by the District. The City has concluded that the proposed District is the best alternative for the timely delivery of community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Establishment of the proposed District and the compatibility of district services and facilities with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities was considered during the LPGA DRI approval process. The services and facilities to be provided by the proposed District, none of which is presently in existence, are required by the LPGA DRI. The land area of the proposed District is isolated in part, and buffered by, major City roadways and by conservation areas. Although there are existing sewer and water trunk lines on the site which are owned and operated by the City, the services and facilities of the proposed District are, from a planning perspective, fully compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local or regional community development services and facilities. Moreover, none of the supplemental services and facilities which have been or later may be authorized by consent of the City following establishment of the District are presently existing on the site or provided to the LPGA International community. From an economics perspective, the proposed District will finance the water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems, as well as certain roadways and street lighting. It will also maintain the entrances, landscaping and signage, as well as portions of the water management system, conservation, recreation, and open space areas in perpetuity. Maintenance of the water management system will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The management and operation of District facilities will be coordinated with the City. The proposed District will not only provide operation and maintenance services not currently available, but the City, developers, builders and residents will all benefit through increased access, traffic flow, safety, and general enhancement of the affected property. The City has concluded that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area for suitability for separate special district governance. They are whether the area is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be the basis for a functional interrelated community, and whether the land area needs, and the owners and residents will benefit from, the community development services and facilities. Considering the first of these criteria from planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, it is clear that the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed systems. As for an evaluation based on the second of the abovementioned criteria, the infrastructure needs of the area within the proposed District are spelled out in the development order issued for the project. All of the proposed District facilities and services are contemplated in the LPGA DRI Development Order and are thus needed for development of the area. The land within the proposed District also needs supplemental services and facilities that can be provided by the District, including, but not limited to, roadway landscaping and maintenance of entrances, open space, recreation and conservation areas. The construction and maintenance of these services and facilities will benefit both owners and residents of lands within the District. The City has concluded that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special district government. From planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A contains the consent of Patricia Lagoni who, as Trustee under Trust No. IDI-3, dated June 7, 1991, and under Trust No. IDI-2, dated June 27, 1989, is the sole owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the proposed District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain the names of five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, to serve on the initial board of supervisors. The five persons designated in the petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Joseph Benedict, III 695 Airport Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Patricia Lagoni 131 Muirfield Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Gary Moothart 3 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 William H. McMunn 3 South Ravinsfield Lane Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Bruce W. Teeters 10 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to propose a name for the District. The petition proposes the name "Indigo Community Development District." Section 190.005(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes, requires that the petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petition's Composite Exhibit A shows the location of those facilities within the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A provides such a timetable and estimate. Section 190.005(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. The petition provides that information. Section 190.005(1)(a)8, Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include an economic impact statement ("EIS") which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The petition contains an EIS. It meets all requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement The EIS assumes it is socially desirable to use the least expensive and least intrusive method to deliver a given public improvement and to provide beneficial maintenance. An entity that is directly accountable to its users for costs and delivery of benefits is more likely to achieve the desired result. The District is such an entity. The District is a limited and highly specialized unit of local government. It is a special purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned new communities. Its economic benefits exceed its economic cost to all affected parties. The Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds or other forms of long-term indebtedness for capital to provide planned public infrastructure. The indebtedness will be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The EIS contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District . Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to rule adoption should be more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by the Petitioner. Benefits to the City will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the District except for those it chooses to accept. The Petitioner incurred substantial costs in seeking establishment of the District and will be required to provide technical assistance to the District after establishment. The Petitioner will pay substantial sums in non- ad valorem assessments on real property within the District. Benefits to the Petitioner include access to public bond financing for certain improvements and a long-term stable source of capital, which will benefit the Petitioner's development project. In addition, consistently high levels of quality should be maintained. Consumers will pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities; however, the District's facilities would be required even in the absence of the District itself. The cost would have to be recovered in some other way. Generally, district financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities. The EIS concludes that the benefits from the District would outweigh the costs to each affected person or class of persons. Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee to the local general purpose government. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Volusia County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the Daytona Beach News Journal for four consecutive weeks, on Tuesdays, beginning September 13, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires the Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were submitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer at the local public hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit J and are a part of the record. Copies of the proofs of publication were furnished to the Secretary of the Commission as required on October 18, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires the Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notice was mailed as required by the rule. Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses, with the consent of the local general-purpose government. Section 190.012(2)(d) provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to security. On August 17, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-412, the City consented to the District's exercise of powers necessary to finance, plan, establish, acquire, own, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, extend, equip, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and for security uses as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Conclusions Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that: This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Volusia County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes. All portions of the petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law. All statements contained within the petition as corrected and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1994 COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Frank Gummey Office of the City Attorney City of Daytona Beach City Hall, Suite 220 Daytona Beach, FL 32095 EXHIBIT 1 PETITIONER'S WITNESSES AT HEARING William H. McMunn Indigo Development Inc. 149C South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred A. Greene Gee & Jenson Engineers, Architects, and Planners One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Allen E. Salowe A.E. Salowe and Associates 1334 Plantation Oaks Drive, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters and Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, FL 32174 EXHIBIT 2 LIST OF PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Number Description Composite Petition to Establish the Indigo Exhibit A Community Development District Notice Published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994 Letter from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to David Coburn Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to David Coburn Return Receipts from certified mailing of Copies of Notices of Local Public Hearing to Persons Specified in Rule 42-1.011(b), F.A.C. City of Daytona Beach Resolution 94-12, adopted August 17, 1994, recommending that the Indigo Community Development District be established in accordance with the petition of Indigo Development Inc. Resolution of County Council of Volusia County, Florida, adopted September 15, 1994, supporting establishment of proposed Indigo Community Development District LPGA DRI Development Order August 18, 1993 Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for the Initial Board of Supervisors Copies of Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing, Published in the Daytona Beach News Journal on September 13, 20, 27 and October 4, 1994 CHAPTER 42_-1 EXHIBIT 3 TEXT OF PROPOSED RULE INDIGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42_-1.001 Creation. 42-1.002 Boundary. 42-1.003 Supervisors. 42_-1.001 Creation. The Indigo Community Development District is hereby created. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: A portion of Sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, all being in Township 15 South, Range 32 East, Volusia County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: As a Point of Reference, commence at a concrete monument marking the West one-quarter corner of said Section 9, being also the East one-quarter corner of said Section 8; thence run North 00 degrees 46'29" West, along the West line of said Section 9, being also the East line of said Section 8, a distance of 55.73 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of- way line of the 125-foot wide right-of-way of Eleventh Street, as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (F.D.O.T.) Right-of-Way Map, Section 79507-2602, sheet 11, revision dated October 29, 1974, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, said point also lying in a curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 85.25 feet (85.22 feet per F.D.O.T. map), or through a central angle of 6507'49" (65 degrees 06'15" per F.D.O.T. map), having a chord distance of 80.73 feet and a chord bearing of North 31 degrees 47'25" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 17'40" East per F.D.O.T. map), along said Southerly right-of-way line, a distance of 1250.13 feet to a point therein; thence, departing said Southerly right-of-way line of Eleventh Street, run Southerly and Easterly, along a curve, concave Easterly, and having a radius of 397.81 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 268.87 feet, or through a central angle of 38 degrees 43'28", having a chord distance of 263.78 feet and a chord bearing of South 44 degrees 06'11" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 24 degrees 44'27" East a distance of 230.27 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 17'04" East a distance of 192.82 feet to the Point of Tangency of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 4703.96 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 07'28"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 338.61 feet, having a chord distance of 338.53 feet and a chord bearing of South 19 degrees 03'59" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1638.51 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 20'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 352.80 feet, having a chord distance of 352.12 feet and a chord bearing of South 27 degrees 17'49" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 471.84 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 19'26"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 225.02 feet, having a chord distance of 222.89 feet and a chord bearing of South 47 degrees 07'39" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 27654.59 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 08'14"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 548.95 feet, having a chord distance of 548.94 feet and a chord bearing of South 60 degrees 13'14" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 817.82 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 47'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 282.59 feet, having a chord distance of 281.19 feet and a chord bearing of South 49 degrees 45'10" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 689.52 feet and a central angle of 30 degrees 16'48"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 364.40 feet, having a chord distance of 360.18 feet and a chord bearing of South 24 degrees 42'50" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 44977.15 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 54'22"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 711.30 feet, having a chord distance of 711.29 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 01'37" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 85351.12 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 15'35"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 386.86 feet, having a chord distance of 386.86 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 21'01" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2145.74 feet and a central angle of 09 degrees 15'55"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 346.99 feet, having a chord distance of 346.61 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees51'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 881.18 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 38'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 332.89 feet, having a chord distance of 330.91 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 18'29" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 634.07 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 08'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 267.11 feet, having a chord distance of 265.14 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 03'44'' East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 7337.11 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 02'20"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 261.10 feet, having a chord distance of 261.08 feet and a chord bearing of South 18 degrees 00'48" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 75 degrees 29'28" East a distance of 61.32 feet; thence run South 45 degrees 02'04" East a distance of 70.58 feet; thence run South 55 degrees 22'59" East a distance of 74.58 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 54'44" East a distance of 123.51 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 27'15" East a distance of 110.00 feet; thence run South 25 degrees 20'31" East a distance of 199.03 feet; thence run South 61 degrees 52'08" West a distance of 217.66 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 39'56" East a distance of 456.10 feet; thence run North 70 degrees 19'19" East a distance of 249.84 feet; thence run South 07 degrees 17'17" East a distance of 254.15 feet; thence run South 01 degrees 10'43" East a distance of 246.45 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 04'00" West a distance of 57.51 feet; thence run South 27 degrees 37'10" West a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run South 29 degrees 24'23" West a distance of 101.59 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 22'25" West a distance of 56.54 feet; thence run South 23 degrees 10'06" West a distance of 116.83 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Easterly, said curve having a radius of 2566.72 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 16'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 191.29 feet, having a chord distance of 191.24 feet and a chord bearing of South 02 degrees 24'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 3397.22 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 20'40"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 850.52 feet, having a chord distance of 848.30 feet and a chord bearing of South 11 degrees 42'37" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1230.00 feet and a central angle of 25 degrees 00'33"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 536.88 feet, having a chord distance of 532.63 feet and a chord bearing of South 31 degrees 23'13" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1009.14 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 59'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 228.88 feet, having a chord distance of 228.39 feet and a chord bearing of South 50 degrees 23'21" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 56 degrees 53'12" East a distance of 101.20 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 405.47 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 07'57"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 376.01 feet, having a chord distance of 362.68 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 19'14" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 834.58 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 48'32"; thence run Southerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 390.50 feet, having a chord distance of 386.95 feet and a chord bearing of South 09 degrees 39'01" West to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 540.74 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 48'25"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 507.81 feet, having a chord distance of 489.36 feet and a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 50'55" East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 7495.84 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 38'23"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 345.34 feet, having a chord distance of 345.31 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 25'57" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 623.80 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 41'49"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 301.55 feet, having a chord distance of 298.62 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees 15'51" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2412.56 feet and a central angle of 07 degrees 28'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 315.03 feet, having a chord distance of 314.81 feet and a chord bearing of South 04 degrees 09'23" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1127.49 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 57'01"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 215.48 feet, having a chord distance of 215.16 feet and a chord bearing of South 13 degrees 22'20" East, to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 31'09" West a distance of 635.44 feet; thence run South 12 degrees 13'30" East a distance of 98.61 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 03'21" East a distance of 72.06 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 09'45" East a distance of 11.25 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 05'17" East a distance of 60.81 feet; thence run South 18 degrees 02'24" East a distance of 72.04 feet; thence run South 19 degrees 05'10" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 20 degrees 02'54" East a distance of 71.99 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 05'34" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 22 degrees 53'29" East a distance of 108.95 feet; thence run South 04 degrees 10'49" West a distance of 45.54 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Northeasterly, said curve having a radius of 4147.11 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 38'03"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 45.90 feet, having a chord distance of 45.90 feet and a chord bearing of South 23 degrees 57'44" East to a point; thence run South 73 degrees 04'08" West a distance of 247.53 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 69.97 feet; thence continue South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 1234.58 feet; thence run South 67 degrees 37'05" West a distance of 94.86 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of-way line of a 50-foot wide State of Florida Outfall Ditch Easement, as described in deed from Tomoka Land Company, dated June 16, 1941, and recorded in Deed Book 291, Page 272, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 81 degrees 20'55" West (North 81 degrees 23'36" West per deed), along the Southerly line of said Outfall Ditch Easement, a distance of 800 feet, more or less, to a point in the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River, a distance of 8100 feet, more or less, to a point lying 5 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the Northerly right-of-way line of the 240-foot wide right-of-way of State Road #600 (U.S. Highway #92), as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Map, Section 7906, revision dated July 12, 1940; thence run South 51 degrees 01'34" West (South 50 degrees 51'45" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 5455 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 5 feet Northeasterly of the Easterly right- of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence, running parallel to and 5 feet Northerly or Easterly from the right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street run the following courses and distances: South 74 degrees 43'02" West (South 74 degrees 38'29" West per F.D.O.T. map), a distance of 388.29 feet; thence run North 75 degrees 52'42" West (North 75 degrees 57'15" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 745.26 feet; thence run North 61 degrees 40'39" West (North 61 degrees 45'12" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 588.04 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 33'17" West to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street (at this point the right-of-way of Eleventh Street becomes 200 feet wide); thence run North 39 degrees 03'42" West (North 39 degrees 08'15" West, 4016.04 feet, per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 4015.80 feet to a point therein, said point lying in a curve, concave Northerly, and having a radius of 1841.75 feet; thence run Northerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 864.15 feet, or through a central angle of 26 degrees 53'00", having a chord distance of 886.25 feet and a chord bearing of North 25 degrees 37'12" West to the Point of Cusp of a curve, concave Southerly, and having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 170.88 feet, or through a central angle of 97 degrees 54'24", having a chord distance of 150.83 feet and a chord bearing of South 61 degrees 12'48" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2177.89 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 25'48"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 396.46 feet, having a chord distance of 395.91 feet and a chord bearing of North 64 degrees 37'06" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 699.34 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 47'06"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 204.87 feet, having a chord distance of 204.14 feet and a chord bearing of North 51 degrees 00'40" East to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2039.93 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 56'00"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 709.70 feet, having a chord distance of 706.13 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 39'07" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1357.26 feet and a central angle of 22 degrees 20'20"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 529.18 feet, having a chord distance of 525.83 feet and a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 51'17" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 45 degrees 01'27" East a distance of 357.30 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 36'05"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 44.04 feet, having a chord distance of 44.04 feet and a chord bearing of North 43 degrees 43'24" East to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 39'13" East a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run North 39 degrees 50'12" East a distance of 2033.09 feet to a point in the Southerly line of the City of Daytona Beach Sewage Treatment Plant, as described in Official Records Book 1875, Page 1551, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 89 degrees 33'20" East (North 89 degrees 33'15" East per deed), a distance of 294.14 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence run North 00 degrees 37'30" West (North 00 degrees 37'36" West, 1947.42 feet per deed) a distance of 1947.54 feet to the Northeast corner of said parcel, said point also lying in the Southerly line of a 50-foot wide City of Daytona Beach Easement as described in Official Records Book 1478, Page 598, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run South 70 degrees 42'56" West (South 70 degrees 43'27" West, 862.55 feet, per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 70 degrees 37'55" West per Easement deed) along the Northerly line of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the Southerly line of said Easement, a distance of 862.59 feet; thence run South 89 degrees 33'29" West (South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.16 feet per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.93 feet per Easement deed) a distance of 1183.22 feet to the Northwest corner of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the end of said Easement, said point also lying in the East line of the City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, as described in Official Records Book 92, Page 687, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 00 degrees 34'23" West, along the East line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence run South 89 degrees 33'09" West, along the North line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, being also the North line of Section 29, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, a distance of 1281.00 feet to an intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence run North 00 degrees 06'57" West (North 00 degrees 11'30" West per F.D.O.T. map), along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 11083.14 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1809.86 feet and a central angle of 64 degrees 28'16"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 2036.39 feet, having a chord distance of 1930.65 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 07'11" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 16'30" East per F.D.O.T. map), along the Southerly line of said Eleventh Street, a distance of 1553.03 feet; thence run North 89 degrees 13'54" East a distance of 67.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the State of Florida Sovereignty Lands of the Tomoka River, the L.P.G.A. Golf Course, as described in Official Records Book 3799, Page 1647, the L.P.G.A- Entrance Road, Phase I (now known as Champions Drive), as described in Official Records Book 3713, Page 1288, and a portion of Section 33, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, deeded from Patricia Lagoni, as Trustee, to Florida Power & Light Company, as described in Official Records Book 3783, Page 2241, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and the City of Daytona Beach Maintenance Building Access Road, said parcel also being subject to Florida Power & Light Company Easements as described in Official Records Book 170, Pages 347-349, Official Records Book 511, Pages 86-88, and Official Records Book 1335, Page 500, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and also being subject to any other easements of record, said parcel having a net acreage of 2,480 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History-- New _ - - . 42_-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Joseph Benedict, III; Patricia Lagoni; Gary Moothart; William H. McMunn; Bruce H. Teeters. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New - - .
The Issue The issue in this proceeding was whether the Petition to Establish the Harmony Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed February 2, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Twin City is a Minnesota corporation that registered to do business in Florida on October 24, 2004. During the times material to this proceeding, Twin City was engaged in the roofing business. On July 8, 2004, an investigator employed by the Department stopped at Twin City's office in Jupiter, Florida, because he had observed vehicles parked around the office that had signs indicating that the company engaged in roofing work. He arrived at the office early, and waited about 15 minutes, when individuals began arriving in the office parking lot. Most of the individuals wore shirts that carried the name "Twin City Roofing." When he consulted the database routinely used by the Department to determine whether businesses operating in Florida had workers' compensation insurance coverage as required by Florida law, the Department's investigator found no record that Twin City had obtained a Florida policy providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Twin City did, however, have workers' compensation insurance coverage through the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan, which issued a Standard Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Policy covering Twin City only under the Workers' Compensation Law of Minnesota. Pursuant to Section 3.C. of the policy, the policy did not apply in any state other than Minnesota. The Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on July 8, 2004, and personally delivered them to the Twin City office. The Stop Work Order required that Twin City "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Twin City were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Twin City violated the Stop Work Order by continuing to engage in business activities on July 12 and 13, 2005. At the same time he delivered the Stop Work Order and the Order of Penalty Assessment to Twin City's office, the Department's investigator hand-delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Identification of Twin City's employees The Department's investigator questioned a number of the individuals he saw in Twin City's parking lot on the morning of July 8, 2005, and asked if they were employed by Twin City. On the basis of a "Turn Around Report" provided later in the day by Twin City, the Department's investigator verified that, except for Aaron Colborn, Jimmy Benegas, and Jaime Andrade, the individuals he questioned in the parking lot were leased employees and that the leasing company provided these employees with workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by Florida law. Aaron Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were not leased employees, and, based on the admission of Twin City, Aaron Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were employees of Twin City during the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005.3 Jaime Andrade was one of the individuals standing outside the Twin City office on the morning of July 8, 2004. Unlike the other individuals, Mr. Andrade was not wearing a shirt bearing Twin City's name. Mr. Andrade told the investigator that he was a Twin City employee, that he had been employed for only two days, and that he had not yet been paid. His name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided in the Turn Around Report. The Department's investigator included Mr. Andrade as an employee of Twin City based on Mr. Andrade's statements. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that Jaime Andrade was an employee of Twin City during this period. The investigator also spoke with several individuals in the Twin City office during his early-morning visit on July 8, 2004, and during a visit later that morning. The investigator spoke with James Geisen, the president of Twin City, and Jeffrey Willett, Mr. Geisen's stepson, who both identified themselves as Twin City employees. The investigator also observed Karen Geisin, James Geisen's wife, apparently working at a desk in the office, and he assumed that Mrs. Geisen was also an employee of Twin City. Twin City does not dispute that Mr. Geisen and Mr. Willett were employed by Twin City during the time it did business in Florida.4 Mr. Geisen worked in Florida with Twin City for approximately half of the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a salary by Twin City during this period. Mr. Willett worked in Florida with Twin City for approximately half of the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a salary by Twin City during this period. Mr. Geisen and Mr. Willett were, therefore, imputed to be employees of Twin City for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005. Mrs. Geisen often accompanied her husband to Florida during the period extending from October 24, 2005, through July 8, 2005. She sometimes worked for Twin City in Florida, but she did not receive any salary or other remuneration for her services. Based on the admission of Twin City, however, Mrs. Geisen was an employee of Twin City during the period at issue.5 The employees of Twin City for the period at issue, therefore, were James Geisin, Karen Geisin, Jeffrey Willett, Aaron Colborn, and Jimmy Benegas. Penalty assessment for failure to secure workers' compensation coverage. The penalty for failure to secure the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law is 1.5 times the premium that would have been charged for such coverage for each employee. The premium is calculated by applying the approved manual rate for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee to each $100.00 of the gross payroll for each employee. Twin City failed to provide payroll records on which the Department's investigator could base his calculation of the penalty for Twin City's failure to obtain the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law within 45 days of the date of the July 8, 2005, request. Based on his observations and because of the lack of payroll records for Twin City, the Department's investigator included as employees in his calculation the six individuals he observed at Twin City on July 8, 2005, who were not identified as leased employees: James Geisen; Karen Geisen; Jeff Willett; Aaron Colborn; Jimmy Benegas, and Jaime Andrade. Because Twin City failed to provide payroll records from which the Department's investigator could determine the gross payroll for these six individuals, the Department's investigator applied Florida's official statewide average weekly wage to determine the gross payroll to be imputed to each of the six individuals. Florida's official statewide average weekly wage was $626.00 per week for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $651.38 for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. The gross payroll imputed to each of the six employees was, therefore, $9,770.70 from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $26,380.89 from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. In calculating the premium for workers' compensation insurance coverage, the Department's investigator used the risk classifications and definitions of the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") SCOPES Manual. Because Twin City provided no payroll records, the Department's investigator classified all six individuals under the highest- rated classification for Twin City's business operations, which was classification code 5551, the classification code assigned to employees of businesses engaged in roofing activities of all kinds. The approved Florida manual rate assigned to Scopes classification code 5551 was $46.17 per $100.00 of payroll for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $37.58 per $100.00 of payroll for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. The Department's investigator used these figures to calculate the workers' compensation insurance coverage premium for each of Twin City's employees as $4,511.13 for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $9,913.94 for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, for a total premium of $86,550.42. The penalty assessment was calculated by multiplying the total premium by 1.5, for a penalty of $129,825.66. Because the evidence establishes that Twin City had five rather than six employees during the period at issue herein, the penalty calculation must be modified as follows: The total penalty must be reduced by $21,637.61 ($6,766.70 + $14,870.91), for a revised total penalty of $108,188.05 ($129,825.66 - $21,637.61).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Twin City Roofing Construction Specialists, Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation insurance coverage for five of its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; Assessing a penalty against Twin City in the amount of $108,188.05, which is equal to 1.5 times premium based on imputed payroll for these five employees and on the approved manual rate for the classification code 5551 for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes; Finding that Twin City engaged in business operations for two days during the pendency of the Stop Work Order issued July 8, 2005, in violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $2,000.00, against Twin City for engaging in business operations on July 12 and 13, 2005, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 30th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the petition of Debra, Inc., for the establishment of a community development district should be granted or denied. Petitioner contends that it meets all the criteria set out at Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for the formation of such a district and that the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should adopt a rule establishing the community development district requested in the petition. Orange County contends that the economic impact statement offered by Petitioner is inadequate to support the adoption of a rule, and that Petitioner has failed to meet the substantive requirements of the statute.
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd and Beugnot; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 11 through 14, and Orange County Exhibit 13. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 2 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Altman, and Batterson; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 15, 17, 23 and 24, and Orange County Exhibits 1 and 2. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Moses and Batterson; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witness Dowd and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 5 are based upon Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Birnhart, Arthur, Hastings, Denton, and Harris; and upon City of Orlando Exhibit 1. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Moses, Nicholas, Curtis and Fishkind; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16 and 17, and Orange County Exhibit 4. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witness Batterson and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 25. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Starnes and Altman, and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 21 and 26. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Starnes, Altman, Hastings, Denton and Harris; and upon Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibit 31 and Orange County Exhibits 18, 19 and 20. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Starnes, Altman, Batterson and Beugnot; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 11 through 14, 23 and 24, and Orange County Exhibit 1. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Fishkind, Currie, Hastings and Harris; and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 4 and Orange County Exhibits 7 through 15 and 18. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 9, 28 and 30, and Orange County Exhibit 1. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Starnes, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 11 and 12, and Orange County Exhibit 1. The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16 and 17. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. Appendix II STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny Top Flight's development application approved by the Board on July 26, 2004. That decision approved a Flexible Development application to permit a reduction on the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet (to pavement) and an increase of building height from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) in association with the construction of 62 multi-family residential (attached) units at 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 2003, Top Flight filed a Flexible Development Application for Level Two approval of a comprehensive infill for redevelopment of properties located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive and just north of Sunset Pointe Road in Clearwater, Florida. A Comfort Suites motel is just north of the property, while a Chevron gasoline station sits on the south side. The property is located within the Tourist zoning district, which allows condominiums as a permitted use. The project, as originally proposed, involved the construction of a seventy-seven unit, seven-story (including covered parking), luxury condominium on a 2.572-acre tract of land now occupied by 32 motel units and 9 rental apartments with ancillary structures, which the developer intends to raze. The original application requested a deviation from the requirement in the Code that structures in the Tourist zoning district not exceed 35 feet in height. Under flexible development standards for that zoning district, however, a structure may be built to a maximum height of between 35 and 100 feet. (Although the City staff is authorized to approve requests for a deviation up to a maximum height of 50 feet without a hearing, Top Flight was requesting a flexible deviation to allow the building to be constructed an additional 25 feet, or to a height of 75 feet. This was still less than the 100 feet allowed under flexible development standards.) On December 24, 2003, Top Flight filed a second application which amended its earlier application by seeking a reduction of the front yard setback on Sunnydale Drive from 25 feet to 17 feet to allow the placement of balcony support columns within the setbacks. Without a deviation, the Code requires a minimum 25-foot front yard setback. The second application continued to seek a deviation in height standards to 75 feet. Because of staff concerns, on February 5, 2004, Top Flight filed a third Flexible Development application for the purpose of amending its earlier applications. The matter was placed on the agenda for the March 16, 2004, meeting of the Board. At the meeting on March 16, 2004, the City's staff recommended that certain changes in the design of the building be made. In order to make these suggested changes, Top Flight requested that the matter be continued to a later date. That request was granted, and the matter was placed on the agenda for the April 20, 2004, meeting. At the April 20, 2004, meeting, Board members again expressed concern over the height of the building, the lack of stair stepping, and the bulk, density, and height. Because of these concerns, Top Flight requested, and was granted, a 90-day continuance to address these concerns. Appellant, who was present at that meeting, did not object to this request. The matter was then placed on the agenda for May 18, 2004, but because of a notice problem, it was continued to the July 20, 2004, meeting. During the April 20, 2004, meeting, the Board allowed Top Flight's architect, Mr. Aude, and a City Planner III, Mr. Reynolds, to make their presentations prior to asking if any persons wished party status. (Section 4-206.D.3.b. provides that, as a preliminary matter, the chair of the Board shall "inquire of those attending the hearing if there is any person who wishes to seek party status.") Mr. Reynolds was not sworn, even though Section 4-206.D.3.d requires that all "witnesses shall be sworn." After the presentations by Mr. Aude and Mr. Reynolds, Appellant was given party status. Therefore, Appellant could not cross-examine the two witnesses immediately after they testified. However, Appellant did not request the right to examine those witnesses nor did she lodge an objection to the procedure followed by the Board. Also, assuming that Mr. Aude and Mr. Reynolds were treated as experts by the Board, there is no indication that either witness submitted a resume at the hearing. (Section 4-206.D.5.a. requires that "[a]ny expert witness testifying shall submit a resume for the record before or during the public hearing.") However, no objection to this error in procedure was made by any person, including Appellant. Based on the concerns of staff and Board members at the April 20, 2004, meeting, and to accommodate objections lodged by nearby residents, Top Flight modified its site plan by reducing the height of the building from 75 to 59 feet (which in turn reduced the height of the building from six stories over parking to four) and increasing the number of parking spaces. Other changes during the lengthy review process included decreasing the side (rather than the front) setback from a minimum of 10 feet to 5.85 feet and preserving two large oak trees on the property. The proposed height was significantly less than the maximum allowed height in the Tourist district (100 feet), and the proposed density of 59 units was also considerably less than the maximum allowed density on the property (30 units per acre, or a total of 77 on the 2.57-acre tract). The application, as amended, was presented in this form at the July 20 meeting. Documents supporting the various changes were filed by Mr. Aude in February, March, April, May, and June 2004, and are a part of the record. At the hearing on July 20, 2004, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Aude again testified in support of the application, as amended. The staff report prepared by Mr. Reynolds was made a part of the record. (Section 4-206.G provides that the record shall consist of, among other things, "all applications, exhibits and papers submitted in any proceeding.") The report found that "all applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and the flexibility criteria for attached units (Section 2-803.B) have been met." The Board accepted this evidence as the most persuasive on the issue. The Board further accepted the testimony of Mr. Aude, and a determination in the staff report, that the project would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. In doing so, it implicitly rejected the testimony of Appellant, and other individuals, that the height of the building was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Finally, the Board accepted Mr. Reynolds' recommendation that the application should be approved, subject to eighteen conditions. The vote was 4-2 for approval. During the July 20, 2004, meeting, Mr. Reynolds was cross-examined by another party, Mr. Falk. Although given the right to do so, Appellant did not question the witness. All parties, including Appellant, were given the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Aude, but none sought to do so. The parties were also given the opportunity to ask questions of Top Flight's counsel, who gave argument (but not evidence) on behalf of his client. Although members of the public, and Appellant, were limited in the amount of time allowed for statements to three minutes, all persons who gave testimony or made statements that day, including Appellees, were urged by the chair to limit their remarks. Finally, Top Flight's counsel was allowed to make a closing argument at the meeting, at which time he used a demonstrative exhibit (a "chart" containing the names of area residents who supported the project), which was shown to Board members. (The same information can be found in the City files, which are a part of this record and contain correspondence from numerous area residents, some supporting, and others opposing, the project.) Although Appellant was not shown a copy of the document, the record does not show that she objected to the use of a demonstrative exhibit, or that she requested to see a copy. Mr. J. B. Johnson was appointed to the Board sometime after the April 20, 2004, meeting. At the July 20, 2004, meeting, he made the following statement concerning Top Flight's application: I can't speak for everybody here. Some people have lived here a short period of time. In view of every word that I have heard, every word that I have read, and I've been keeping up with this for several months because several months ago I had telephone calls from your area. I don't know how you could satisfy everybody. It's impossible, but I do know this, this is a great project. One that would be good for the City. One for the area, good for the area and I will support this. Appellant has not cited to any evidence showing that Mr. Johnson did not review the record of the prior meetings or the application file before he cast his vote. Further, Appellant did not object to Mr. Johnson's participation. On July 26, 2004, the Board entered its DO memorializing the action taken on July 20, 2004, which approved Top Flight's application. In the DO, the Board made the following findings/conclusions supporting its decision: The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-803.B The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. The decision also included 18 Conditions of Approval and a requirement that an application for a building permit be made no later than July 20, 2005. On August 3, 2004, Appellant filed her Appeal Application seeking a review of the Board's decision. The Appeal Application set out two relevant grounds (without any further specificity): that the Board's decision was not supported by the evidence, and that the Board departed from the essential requirements of the law. On August 19, 2004, the City referred the Appeal Application to DOAH. The specific grounds were not disclosed until Appellant presented oral argument and filed her Proposed Final Order.1
