The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Three Creeks Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue At issue in this hearing was the Petition to Establish the Sarasota National Community Development District filed on January 20, 2006. The Petition, filed by Tuscano, LLC, requested that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“Commission”) adopt a rule to establish a state- chartered uniform community development district, to be called the Sarasota National Development District, on certain property in Sarasota County, Florida. The hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Commission.
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 - - .
Findings Of Fact On August 20, 1975, the Appellant, MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc., developer, filed an Application for Development Approval for Development of Regional Impact (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. A copy of that application as amended was attached as Exhibit "B" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. The Exhibit "B" has two parts, the initial part consisting of the Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and the latter part consisting of addendum one. The submission of the application to the two Regional Planning Councils was necessitated by the fact that the property covered by the application lies in both Alachua and Marion Counties, which counties are within the jurisdictional areas of the North Central Regional Planning Council and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, respectively. Following the preliminary review by the Withlacoochee Planning Council, the Council, by letter of September 25, 1975, notified Marion County, by and through Mr. John Hastings, Zoning Director, Marion County Zoning and Building Department, that the Planning Council was ready to proceed with the formal review of the application and further advising that public hearing dates should be scheduled to comply with the requirements of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes). A copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit "C" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On October 7, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County (hereinafter referred to as "Alachua County") scheduled a public hearing on the application before the County Commission to be held at 4:30 P.M. on December 9, 1975, in the Alachua County Courthouse, Gainesville, Florida. The Appellants were given notice of the public hearing by a copy of the letter of October 8, 1975, from Howard Weston, County Administrator to Alachua County, a copy of that letter appearing as Exhibit "D" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On October 14, 1975, the Appellee scheduled public hearings on the application before the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held at 4:00 P.M. on January 5, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, and before the Board of County Commissioners at 9:00 A.M. on January 21, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida. Notification to the Appellants of these public hearings was given by letter of October 15, 1975 from Ronald H. Miller, Marion County Planner, a copy of that letter being Exhibit "E" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On November 6, 1975, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council prepared, adopted and sent to Alachua County their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "F" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On November 13, 1975, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, meeting in full session, prepared, adopted and sent to Marion County, their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "G" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On December 9, 1975 Alachua County held a public hearing on the Appellants' application and that public hearing was continued on January 6, 1976. On December 24, 1975 the Marion County Planning Department prepared and sent to Marion County their considerations and recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. The recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department were based in part on comments provided by the Marion County Engineer and the Environmental Health Division of the Marion County Health Department. A copy of these considerations and recommendations was attached as Exhibit "H" to the Appellants' petition and is made apart of the record herein. On January 5, 1976, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public Hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on January 12, 1976. At the conclusion of the public hearing, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to the Appellants' application and after having considered the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Appellants' application subject to the conditions previously recommended by the Withlacoochee Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department, and subject to certain other conditions. Copies of the minutes of the special meeting of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 5, 1976 and January 12, 1976 were attached as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" respectively to the Appellants' petition and are made a part of the record herein. On January 6, 1976, Mr. Al Lewis, Director of the Department of Planning, Alachua County, prepared and sent to Alachua County, by and through Mr. Howard Weston, County Administrator, his recommendation regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "K" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On that same date, Alachua County, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to Appellants' application, and after having considered the recommendations of the Alachua County Department of Planning, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, issued a development order approving Appellants' application subject to certain conditions. A copy of said development order was attached as Exhibit "L" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On January 21, 1976, the Appellee, Marion County, held a public hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the record of those hearings have been transcribed and made a part of the record herein. After the January 21, 1976 meeting before the Marion County Board of County Commissioners in which discussion was entered into on the recommendations arising from the Withlacoochee Planning Council meeting on November 13, 1975 and the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department of December 24, 1975, the Appellants in the person of their attorney, Stephen A. Scott, and the architect for the Appellants, David Reaves, submitted two letters dated February 4, 1976, which set forth the position of the Appellants on the aforementioned recommendations of the Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department. Copies of these letters of February 4, 1976 have been filed with the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and are made a part of the record herein. On February 13, 1976 the Marion County Plat Committee prepared and sent to Marion County suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions to the approval of Appellants' application. A copy of these suggested working changes is attached hereto as Exhibit "M" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. In response to the February 13, 1976 Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications applicable to the application dated February 13, 1976, the Appellants' attorney, Stephen A. Scott filed a letter of February 18, 1976. This letter is filed in the case by permission of the Hearing Officer and is made a part of the record herein. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 18, 1976, Marion County adopted a resolution denying approval of Appellants' application. A copy of said resolution was attached as Exhibit "A" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. In the course of the DRI process, not all aspects of the application, Exhibit "B", were disputed by the various planning agencies, the Appellee and the Intervenor. Moreover, Alachua County, Florida has given its approval and any reference to action before that governmental body is for the limited purposes of describing the Marion County, Florida application. Therefore, the discussion of the facts will be in terms of those facts which were disputed and not those facts in support of the application which are not in dispute. The points of contention between the parties are primarily discussed in the Exhibit "B", Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and its addendum; Exhibit "G", the recommendations of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council of November 13, 1975; Exhibit "H", the Marion County Planning Department, Statement of considerations and recommendation; Exhibit "J", the minutes of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Department meeting, January 12, 1976; the letters of February 4, 1976, from the representatives of the Appellant, David Reaves and the Appellants' attorney Stephen A. Scott; Exhibit "M", the Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications, dated February 13, 1976; the discussion of the aforementioned document in the course of the public hearings of January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the Exhibit "A", Resolution and Development Order of the Marion County Board of County Commissioners. The proposed development is a horse ownership oriented community located 12 miles south of Gainesville, Florida and 18 miles north of Ocala, Florida and it encompasses an area of approximately 5 square miles (3200 acres). The statement of market study is found on page 87 of Exhibit "B". This project is located on the border of Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida. One sixth of this area lies within Alachua County and the remaining area in Marion County. The highway system as shown in map "J" of Exhibit "B". The project has five developmental phases as described in the Exhibit "B" and within those developmental phases are planned construction of midrise, townhouse, patiohouse, and single family dwellings for a total population build out in all phases of approximately 8,234 residents. This project also anticipates lodges to be built in the various phases to accommodate additional average yearly population of 1,200 persons. Its estimated that visitors will total 834 at the completion of all phases, for a total of 10,000 plus persons within the development at the end of the final phase. Further discussion of these statistics may be found on page 15 of Exhibit "B". At present the area is primarily agricultural and is zoned as such. Within the immediate vicinity of the project are the towns of Micanopy and Mcintosh and the community of Evinston. These communities together with the population immediately outside these towns would total approximately 2,500 people. Consequently, the area can best be described as rural, as opposed to the suburban nature of the proposed development. The difference in character in the locale as it presently exists and as is proposed by the development plan is the principal point of contention between the appellants on the one side, and the Appellee and Intervenor on the other. It is the suggestion of the Appellants that the project can be developed and carry with it a suburban nature without being inconsistent with or destroying the rural character of the surrounding towns and unincorporated areas. On the other hand the Appellee and Intervenor suggest that to allow this project would destroy the rural lifestyle of the area. The transcript of the proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners, Marion County, Florida held on January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976, and February 18, 1976 developes in detail the opposing points of view on the issue of the compatibility of the development with the present surroundings. Considering the distance between the proposed development and the larger communities in the areas to wit, Gainesville and Ocala, the rural nature of the land at present and the fact that this development would be potentially the third largest community in the Alachua County and Marion County area, the development does not appear to be compatible with its surroundings. The Appellant has proposed a private roads community, and this concept is contrary to the express policy of Marion County, Florida. Prohibition to this form of private roads is set forth in subsection 2A.13 of the Public Works Manual, Marion County, Florida. There is concern by the Appellee on the question of access of the public through the private road system, in that it would create a necessity the public to go around the entire development. However, at present there are public roads serving the area and it is not contemplated that future public roads will go through the project. The Appellee is also concerned with maintenance of speed limits on private property and resubdivision of the parcel of land in the future where private roads have been allowed. The restriction against private roads has been waived in Marion County in the past and could be waived in this instance if a private road network or a combination of private and public road network were built in the development. The Appellee would require that the network be built to Marion County Specifications, and the Appellant agrees. There are proposed to be built two bridges. One bridge across Interstate-75 incident to the last phase of the project and other bridge across SE-10, County Line Road. The Appellee would require conceptual approval of these matters by the permitting agencies going into the project, and the bridges would be constructed at the developers' expense prior to the development phase effected by the bridges. Other roads affected by the project are State Road 320 and Hickman Road which are in the southern part of the project. If these roads were utilized, access for emergency, police, fire and other needs of similar nature would have to be worked out. In connection with the question of access, the developer had initially proposed that the project be a gated community with private security patrols within the community. In view of the considerable debate in the course of the proceedings about this technique of a gated community and private security patrol, the developer has indicated a willingness to forgo the utilization of perimeter walls or fencing and private security patrols or entrance guards. As mentioned before, the land selected for development is presently zoned agricultural and to achieve the purposes of the project the zoning would have to be changed to a type of residential zoning. As a part of the zoning consideration, the Appellee has asked that the Appellant submit a master plan in conjunction with or as a part of the zoning change. The conditions of the master plan are as set forth in pages 6 - 9 of the December 24, 1975 report which is Exhibit "H". The Appellants' specific response to the question of the master plan as it relates to matters of zoning is found in the February 4, 1976 letter of attorney Stephen A. Scott. In summary, the developer is concerned with the wording of some of the provisions of the December 24, 1975 report, Exhibit "H", and with the repetitious aspects of the master plan, in view of the fact that the questions have been addressed through the DRI. The letter also indicates a reluctance to divulge detailed financial information about the developer. There are certain aspects about the development proposal which contemplate the sponsorship by a homeowners association. Among these aspects are security patrol, fire protection, sewage treatment, recreational facilities, maintenance of recreational facilities, water treatment and service, and eventual health care. These items are in addition to the construction and maintenance of private roads, to include storm drainage. The Appellee has requested that the developer in detail the intricacies of the homeowners association and the method by which it may accomplish the aforementioned goals. Again this discussion is found in pages 6 - 9 of the Exhibit "H". The related matters of health care in the initial 4 stages and long term treatment at the point of final build out must be accomplished by coordination with emergency transportation to the hospitals in the Gainesville and Ocala area. The health care facilities are shown on map "I" to the Exhibit "B". At some point in time, it is the feeling of the Appellants that a fulltime physician will establish a clinic due to the number of persons in the development community, without the need for any subsidy by the developer. Medical evacuation seems to be suggested as a function of the homeowners association, in the latter phases. The appellant and appellee acknowledged that the acreage for a landfill site for solid waste disposal would be off the grounds of the project. This would need to be within a five mile travelling of distance to satisfy the Appellee and to meet the requirements of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. The acreage necessary would be 35 acres. The resolution of the question of location was not resolved between the parties; however, it seems that some plan by which the developer purchased a site either by having that site selected by the Appellee and then purchasing the site or paying a fixed sum of money to the County for such a purpose is indicated. The unresolved issues pertain to the purchase of the equipment necessary and the arrangement for the maintenance of the site location. In the past in Marion County, this type of landfill has been maintained as a part of commercial contracts for collection and disposal of solid waste1 and nothing suggests that this could not be achieved in this instance. The soil description and analysis is found beginning on page 32 of Exhibit "B" and within maps E, F, and G of Exhibit "B". An examination of the report shows that much of the soil is Blichton-Kendrick Association which has slow permeability. Other places are Bayboro-Placid Association which is low wet lands that have interspersed with them really poorly drained deep sands. Within this overall network it is intended that a sewage plant be placed, which treats the sewage and utilizes the activated sludge method with some form of additional treatment for spray irrigation of the remaining effluent. The site location and details of the treatment plan will be approved by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. There are 243 ranches and ranchettes which are intended for septic tank utilization and individual wells for water supply. Discussion of these matters is found on pages 93 through 96 of Exhibit "B". Storm water disposal, in consideration of the 100 year flood elevations are found on pages 97 through 101, and map "G" of Exhibit "B". Some special problems that have occurred in the past pertain to the question of storm water disposal. The Old Field Pond area has had flooding. Flooding has occurred across SE-10 over U.S. 441 and into the adjacent land owner's property. Moreover, the Fire Tower Road which is in the area of SE-10 has flooded and one requirement would be consideration of those property owners who utilize SE-10 as an alternate route to the so called Fire Tower Road in times of flooding. As shown in the map on page 34 of Exhibit "B" there are a number of recharge wells in the active Old Field Pond area. It is the feeling of the Appellee through its staff reports, i.e., the Withlacoochee Planning Council report of November 13, 1975 and the agreement of other staff agencies that these recharge wells should be plugged to avoid the problem of liquid waste going directly back into the Floridian Aquifer, which flows under the property. The developer feels that this should only be done after testing. Discussion was also entered into about the coordination of sewage treatment and water supply needs with the surrounding communities of Mcintosh and Micanopy. The provision for electric power is discussed by letters from the Florida Power Corporation and Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. found on pages 112 and 113 of Exhibit "B". There is concern that due to prior power shortages in the immediate service area, that further service obligations would diminish the quality of the electric service. This indication runs contrary to the comments within the letters of the two utility companies and it has been suggested that greatly increased needs would promote more efficient electric service. This latter argument, does not address the conditions in the early phases of development. A matter of much discussion was the need for schools, fire protection and police protection. If the private security and fire service concept is rejected, there is no indication whether these needs could be met by the Appellee, although tax revenues would be generated to assist in responding to those needs. On the former question of schools, there has been preliminary contact by the developers agent in considering regional schools, since the project lies within two counties, but that contact has been very limited. The question of site location for a school to service this community and surrounding communities and the sharing of the costs of such implementation is also in the preliminary stages. Therefore, matters concerning the school system are yet to be resolved. The project contemplates a number of recreational areas, lodges and stores. The lodges and stores would be open to the public, but the recreational facilities are primarily designed for the residents. The discussion of the recreational areas within the project brings to light the question of the possible service community which would grow out of the development. It has been estimated by the Appellant that 807 persons in terms of average annual construction employment will be needed for the five phases of the development. Discussion of these aspects of the project begins on page 82 of Exhibit "B". Based upon this projection, the possibility exists that some satellite community would form in the immediate vicinity of the project site, in view of the distances between the project site and the towns of Ocala and Gainesville. None of the surrounding communities, nor the developer have specifically addressed the deployment of the so called satellite community, in terms of housing, essential services and recreation. Another consideration which is in dispute is the archaeological significance of the project land and the necessary steps to preserve these archaeological finds. A discussion of the archaeology of this site is found on pages 59 through 80 of Exhibit "B". The dispute arises over the necessary steps to the preservation of the archaeologically significant sites, with the Appellee suggesting compliance with the recommendation of the archaeologist's report in Exhibit "B" and the Appellants desiring to make a site by site isolation of the significant archaeological finds and subsequent preservation of those sites at the point of development encounter. Another similar issue is game preservation. There is evidence that the Florida Panther has passed through the development area since tracks were found on the western part of the proposed development. In addition, the Florida Sandhill Crane and Wood Ibis have been sited at Tuscaeilla Lake, on the wet prairie just south of that body of water at the northwest pond. Further discussion of these endangered species and other species of wildlife is found on pages 56 and 57 of the Exhibit "B". A statement by a witness of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was to the effect that the Florida Panther will not stay in the area which is developed to the extent proposed herein. Finally, consideration was given to the question of the sequence of permitting within the five phases of the proposed project. The Appellee has expressed a desire to withhold local permits until federal and state permits were given, which would have an effect on how local permits would be granted. The Appellants are concerned that these local permits in the initial phases, not be held up while waiting for federal or state permits which would pertain to a latter phase. This is a particular concern in view of the fact that the stated five year build out of the project does not seem to be realistic and the actual build out will be between ten and twenty years from the point of any DRI permitting. The requirement for obtaining federal and state permits prior to the local permits at the commencement of each phase and obtaining a general statement of commitment by the federal and state systems in the later phases, was discussed as a solution in the bridge over Interstate-75 and would seem an appropriate solution to other issues similarly in dispute.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact filed with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council on August 20, 1975 for preliminary review be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, Florida 32602 MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc. 1550 Madruga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ernest Tew, as Trustee Suite B-1 901 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Jackson E. Sullivan Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council 3500 Northeast Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 4 Ocala, Florida 32670 R. Stephen Ryder, Esquire Marion County Attorney Board of County Commissioners of Marion County Post Office Box 81 Ocala, Florida 32670 Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Robert L. Shevin Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Bruce Smathers Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Philip F. Ashler State Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Louis Hubener, Esquire 660 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Counsel for the Division of State Planning Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission c/o Secretary of the Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ATTENTION: David V. Kerns, Esquire Robert T. Roess, President Florida Investors Mortgage Corp Post Office Box 639 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Vice Chairman, Simonton-Tuscawilla Concerned Citizens
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 Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District.
Conclusions Having considered the record in this cause, it is concluded pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(e)1 through 6, Florida Statutes: That all statements contained within the Petition, as amended, are found to be true and correct. That the creation of the district is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective local comprehensive plan. That 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. That the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. That the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with capacity and uses of existing local and regional community services and facilities. That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to the special-district government. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Van Assenderp, Esquire George L. Varnadoe, Esquire Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833 Larry Haag, Esquire Citrus County Courthouse 110 North Apopka Avenue Inverness, FL 32650 Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Alfred Bragg, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Patricia A. Woodworth, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 William Buzzett, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 David Maloney, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Jeannette Haag, Esquire Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority 452 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652
