The Issue The issue is whether proposed rules 9J-5.026(3)(d), (7)(b), (7)(c)4. and 6., (8)(a), (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and 19., and 9J- 11.023(2), (4), and (5), and existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged in the Petition for Administrative Hearing to Challenge Proposed Amendments to Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, F.A.C. and to Challenge Existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) (Petition).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioners are not-for-profit organizations whose members own real property throughout the State. A substantial number of their respective members own real property which could be amassed as one or more areas in the RLSA program. Some members of these organizations have taken steps in an effort to have their land designated as an RLSA. On behalf of their respective members, each Petitioner has a substantial interest in public policy relating to land use planning, growth management, and the protection of agricultural, rural, and conservation lands. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), has stipulated to the facts necessary to establish standing for each Petitioner. The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the review provisions of the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act codified in Sections 163.3164, et seq., Florida Statutes. The Original Statute Creating the RLSA Program Because of the complexity of the subject matter, a recitation of the RLSA program's history is appropriate. In 2001, the Legislature enacted Chapter 2001-279, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 163.3177(11)(d), Florida Statutes, which created the RLSA pilot program. The law became effective on July 1, 2001, and stated: It is the intent of the Legislature that rural land stewardship areas be used to further the following broad principles of rural sustainability: restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl; identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural economic activity; maintenance of the viability of Florida's agriculture economy; and protection of the character of the rural areas of Florida. § 163.3177(11)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2001). While the eligibility criteria and substantive requirements of the RLSA program have been amended several times, the foregoing principles have remained the same. The statute provides an option, not an exception, under the State's growth management laws for local governments to implement innovative planning and development strategies for large, rural parcels. While having many of the attributes of a traditional "transfer of development rights" program, the RLSA planning process provides additional planning and economic incentives as well as flexibility for the local government to implement this program. The program was best summarized by Secretary Pelham at hearing as follows: The RLSA process is an optional planning process which local governments may elect to use in rural and agricultural areas of the state. Essentially it provides incentives to landowners to preserve or conserve environmental and natural resources and agricultural lands by giving them stewardship credits that may be assigned to those lands to be preserved, but which can be used on other lands through a transfer of those credits to the receiving areas. Tr. at 182. The first step in the RLSA planning process is for the local government to "apply to the Department in writing requesting consideration for authorization to designate a [RLSA]." § 163.3177(11)(d)3., Fla. Stat. (2001). Under the original statute, if the Department chose to authorize a local government to designate an RLSA, it would do so by written agreement with the local government. See § 163.3177(11)(d)4. and (5), Fla. Stat. (2001). Because the original statute was a pilot program, the Department could authorize only five local governments to designate RLSAs. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). To be eligible for designation as an RLSA under this pilot program, a parcel of land had to be larger than 50,000 acres but not over 250,000 acres; it had to be designated as rural or a substantial equivalent on the future land use map (FLUM); and it had to be located outside the municipal and established urban growth boundaries. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). For this reason, only counties (and not cities) were eligible to participate in the program. Once it received Department authorization to designate an RLSA, the county was to then propose and adopt a plan amendment designating the RLSA. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). This plan amendment was to be subject to full review under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for a compliance determination. Also, the plan amendment was required to specifically address the following: Criteria for the designation of receiving areas within rural land stewardship areas in which innovative planning and development strategies may be applied. Criteria shall at a minimum provide for the following adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats; compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses; the establishment of receiving area service boundaries which provide for a separation between receiving areas and other land uses within the rural land stewardship area through limitations on the extension of services; and connection of receiving areas with the rest of the rural land stewardship area using rural design and rural road corridors. Goals, objectives, and policies setting forth the innovative planning and development strategies to be applied within rural land stewardship areas pursuant to the provisions of this section. A process for the implementation of innovative planning and development strategies within the rural land stewardship area, including those described in this subsection and s. 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, which provide for a functional mix of land uses and which are applied through the adoption by the local government of zoning and land development regulations applicable to the rural land stewardship area. A process which encourages visioning pursuant to s. 163.3167(11) to ensure that innovative planning and development strategies comply with the provisions of this section. The control of sprawl through the use of innovative strategies and creative land use techniques consistent with the provisions of this subsection and rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Once the plan amendment was in place, the county was then to implement it through land development regulations. Under the original statute, the county by ordinance was to "assign to the [RLSA] a certain number of credits, to be known as 'transferable rural land use credits' . . . ." These credits would then be transferred to designated receiving areas "solely for the purpose of implementing innovative planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques adopted by the local government pursuant to this section." See § 163.3177(11)(d)8.b., Fla. Stat. (2001). Once transferable rural land use credits were transferred from a parcel, the underlying land uses would be extinguished, the parcel would be limited to agriculture or conservation, and the transfer would be memorialized as a restrictive covenant running with the land. See § 163.3177(11)(d)8.k., Fla. Stat. (2001). The Department was granted the authority to implement this section by rule in the original statute. However, the Department did not adopt rules. No county applied to participate in this pilot program. Amendments to the RLSA Statute The Legislature substantially amended the statute in 2004. See Ch. 2004-372, Laws of Fla. Although the program had no participants as of that time, the Legislature removed the pilot status of the program and the limitation on the number of local governments that may be authorized to designate an RLSA. See § 163.3177(11)(d)1., Fla. Stat. (2004). Although the requirement for a written agreement between the county and the Department was deleted, the requirement for the county's application and Department's authorization prior to the designation of an RLSA remained. See § 163.3177(11)(d)1. and 4., Fla. Stat. (2004). The minimum acreage for an RLSA was reduced to 10,000 acres and the maximum was removed. § 163.3177(11)(d)4., Fla. Stat. (2004). The statute also explicitly recognized that RLSAs could be multi-county. § 163.3177(11)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2004). In 2005, the Legislature again amended the statute in several respects, one of which was directed to the stewardship credit methodology. See Ch. 2005-290, Laws of Fla. However, the statute still requires that the total amount of credits is to be tied to the "25-year or greater projected population of the rural land stewardship area." Although the statute was amended again in 2006, those amendments have no bearing on the issues in this case. See Ch. 2006-220, Laws of Fla. Designating an RLSA Under the Statute Collier County has been frequently mentioned as a local government with an RLSA program. However, that County's comprehensive plan provisions regarding rural development were not adopted under the RLSA statute; rather, they were adopted by the County in 1999 as conventional plan amendments that were later approved in 2002 by a final order issued by the Administration Commission. Collier County's rural planning program does, however, have some of the same core attributes found in the RLSA program, including the creation of transferable land use credits to enable development in designated receiving areas. The Department closely examined the Collier County program as part of its "Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature" (2007 Annual Report). See Joint Exhibit 4. See also § 163.3177(11)(d)8., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he department shall report to the Legislature on an annual basis on the results of implementation of [RLSAs] authorized by the department"). This examination revealed several substantial flaws in the program. First, the Collier County program is extremely complex, with over twenty general attributes that must be examined for every acre of land assigned stewardship credits. This would make it difficult and expensive for small rural counties with limited resources. The Collier County program also assigns the highest stewardship credits to environmentally sensitive lands and appreciably lower values to agricultural land. The result is that development is directed to agricultural areas. For example, eighty-seven percent of the footprint of one receiving area that is currently being developed, known as Ave Maria, was in active agriculture prior to its designation for development. In this respect, the Collier County system is directing development to agricultural lands and not protecting and conserving those lands, which the Department contends contravenes the principles of rural sustainability. Another major concern with the Collier County program is the extent and distribution of receiving areas. The Collier County program does not have any requirements that the receiving area be clustered, thus allowing for the possibility of scattered, sprawling receiving areas throughout eastern Collier County. Also, there appears to be no limit on the footprint of these receiving areas. The original Collier County program envisioned development on only nine to ten percent of the entire area, for a total of approximately 16,800 acres. However, due to the complexity and "flexibility" within the Collier County stewardship credit system, "the maximum development footprint cannot be determined." On September 12, 2006, St. Lucie County adopted plan amendments under the RLSA statute. Later that year, the Department reviewed the amendments and found them to be in compliance. In preparing the 2007 Annual Report, the Department undertook a detailed analysis of the St. Lucie RLSA amendments. Even though the amendments had been previously found to be in compliance, the new analysis revealed several shortcomings in the amendments, including their failure to discuss, analyze, or demonstrate how they further the principles of rural sustainability, a primary focus of the program. Also, the amendments were not supported by an analysis of land use need. Instead of projecting population and need, the RLSA adopted an arbitrary cap of 13,248 dwelling units with "no known planning basis." The St. Lucie RLSA is similar to the Collier County program in two respects: it is very complex, and it places no spacial limits on the footprint of the development area. Due to these shortcomings, the Department has placed little, if any, reliance on the St. Lucie County RLSA amendments as an example of proper planning under the RLSA statute. There is no evidence that any development has occurred under the St. Lucie program, and its most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report dated October 2008 indicated that none may ever occur. In 2007, Highlands and Osceola Counties both applied for and were granted authorization by the Department to designate RLSAs. However, both counties later notified the Department that they would no longer pursue the RLSAs, and the authorizations were withdrawn by the Department. The Rule Development Process In early 2007, the Department became aware of assertions by some landowners that the RLSA program provides for unlimited development within a stewardship area; that RLSA plan amendments were not subject to the growth management provisions in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and that RLSAs were not subject to a needs analysis, as required by the law. At the same time, the Department received numerous inquiries from large landowners and/or their representatives regarding RLSA proposals, some as large as 750,000 acres, and for two "new towns" with 100,000 and 60,000 dwelling units, respectively. It also became aware of concerns and criticisms leveled against the one adopted RLSA program in St. Lucie County and rural planning efforts in Collier County. The main criticism was that the system being used for RLSA planning was too complex, which resulted in an expensive, consultant- intensive process that lacked transparency and was largely incomprehensible. Based on the above concerns and criticisms, the Department began gathering information in early 2007 in preparation for rulemaking. On July 19, 2007, it conducted its first workshop. Two other workshops were held, and the first draft of proposed rule 9J-5.026 was issued in January 2008. That proposed rule set forth the minimum substantive requirements for RLSA planning. In September 2008, the Department issued its first draft of proposed rule 9J-11.023, which sets forth the procedural requirements for a local government to seek authorization from the Department to designate an RLSA. After receiving comments from interested parties, the Department noticed the rules for adoption and conducted a rule adoption hearing. On January 7, 2009, Petitioners filed a Petition challenging most of the provisions in the proposed rules. See DOAH Case No. 09-0048RP. Based upon that challenge, which raised new issues not previously brought to the attention of the Department, the Department withdrew the rules and made substantial revisions to address these concerns. This rendered moot Petitioners' earlier challenge. After the revised rules were noticed for adoption, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging numerous provisions within the proposed rules as well as one existing rule. The Objections As summarized in their Proposed Final Order, Petitioners contend (a) that proposed rules 9J-11.023(2), (4), and (5) are invalid because they exceed the Department's grant of rulemaking authority;4 (b) that proposed rules 9J-5.026(7)(b), (7)(c)4., 6., (8)(a), and (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and 19. enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented; (c) that proposed rule 9J-5.026(3) is vague and fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions; (d) that proposed rule 9J-5.026(9)(a)18. is arbitrary; and (e) that existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. The remaining allegations have been voluntarily dismissed. a. Does proposed rule 9J-11.023 exceed the grant of legislative authority? Petitioners first contend that subsections (2) and (4) in their entirety and the words "If authorized to proceed" in the first sentence of subsection (5) of proposed rule 9J-11.023 are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because they exceed the Department's specific grant of legislative authority. The challenged subsections of the proposed rule read as follows: 9J-11.023 Procedure for the Designation of a Rural Land Stewardship Area. * * * (2) Pre-Notification Actions. Prior to giving official notification of intent to designate a RLSA to the Department, the county(ies) shall conduct at least one noticed public workshop to discuss and evaluate the appropriateness of establishing a RLSA. The county(ies) shall invite the Department of Community Affairs, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Affairs, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Transportation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, affected regional planning council(s), and affected water management district(s) (collectively referred to as the "RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team") to participate in the workshop. Potentially affected landowners and other interested parties shall be given notice and invited to participate in the workshop. The workshop shall address: the statutory process for designating a RLSA; the planning issues that are likely to arise; and the technical assistance that will be available from state and regional agencies if the county(ies) proceed to designate a RLSA. The county(ies) shall provide opportunities for broad public participation in the RLSA process, which may include a series of public meetings or workshops. The county(ies), in coordination with the affected landowners, shall host a site visit of the RLSA for the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team in conjunction with the workshop or after the notification of intent to designate pursuant to paragraph (4)(b). * * * Review of Notification of Intent to Designate. The Department will provide members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team with a copy of the notification of intent to designate within five days after receipt of the notification. If a site visit was not made prior to the notification of intent to designate, the Department will contact the county(ies) within ten days after receipt of the notification of intent to arrange a site visit of the proposed RLSA and surrounding lands. The county(ies) shall ensure proper coordination with the affected landowners. The Department will coordinate the scheduling of the site visit with the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team and request their participation in the site visit. Members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team shall be asked to provide the Department oral and/or written comments on the proposed RLSA within 30 days of the receipt of the notification of intent to designate or the site visit, if it occurs after the notification. The Department may also request meetings with the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team to discuss and evaluate the notification and site visit. The Department may also request a conference with the county's(ies') staff(s) to discuss issues and questions that have arisen as a result of the site visit, comments from members of the Interagency Technical Advisory Team and other stakeholders, and the Department's evaluation of the RLSA proposal. Not later than 60 days following the receipt of the notification of intent to designate or the site visit, whichever is later, the Department shall issue a written notification to the county(ies). The Department's notification shall authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate the RLSA or inform the county(ies) of the Department's decision not to authorize. The decision shall be based on the information contained in or gained from the notification, site visit, other agency comments, and other information received. The Department shall authorize the county(ies) to proceed if it determines that the proposed RLSA meets the threshold eligibility requirements of subsection 9J-5.026(4), F.A.C. and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the RLSA will further the principles of rural sustainability. If the Department decides to authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate a RLSA, the notification will set forth the facts on which the authorization is based, and may include recommendations to the county(ies) regarding the RLSA. The notification will not guarantee that a comprehensive plan amendment(s) to designate a RLSA will be found in compliance by the Department. It will only constitute the Department's authorization to designate a RLSA if the necessary comprehensive plan amendment(s) are adopted and found in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S. If the Department decides not to authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate a RLSA, the agency's notification will explain the reasons for the decision. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: If authorized to proceed, the county(ies) may prepare and process a plan amendment(s) that will be reviewed by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S. The county(ies) may, in preparing the plan amendment(s), establish a local visioning process to facilitate the development of a RLSA plan amendment. The Department encourages the county(ies) to seek and utilize technical assistance from the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team in preparing a RLSA plan amendment. 33. Sections 120.52(8)(b) and 120.54(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes, require that the agency list in the rulemaking notice the purported rulemaking authority for the proposed rule. To comply with this requirement, the Department's rulemaking notice cites Sections 163.3177(9) and (11)(h), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for adopting the rule and Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, as the law being implemented. In its Proposed Final Order, the Department relies on Section 163.3177(11)(h) as the specific statutory authority for rulemaking. It provides that the Department "may adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of [subsection 163.3177(11)]," including the RLSA provisions found in Section 163.3177(11)(d). On the other hand, the law being implemented is quite lengthy and reads as follows: (11)(d)1. The department, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and regional planning councils, shall provide assistance to local governments in the implementation of this paragraph and rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Implementation of those provisions shall include a process by which the department may authorize local governments to designate all or portions of lands classified in the future land use element as predominately agriculture, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a rural land stewardship area within which planning and economic incentives are applied to encourage the implementation of innovative and flexible planning techniques, including those contained herein and in rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Assistance may include, but is not limited to: Assistance from the Department of Environmental Protection and water management districts in creating the geographic information systems land cover database and aerial photogrammetry needed to prepare for a [RLSA]; Support for local government implementation of rural land stewardship concepts by providing information and assistance to local governments regarding land acquisition and assistance to local governments regarding land acquisition programs that may be used by the local government programs that may be used by the local government or landowners to leverage the protection of greater acreage and maximize the effectiveness of rural land stewardship areas; and Expansion of the role of the Department of Community Affairs as a resource agency to facilitate establishment of [RLSAs] in smaller rural counties that do not have the staff or planning budgets to create a [RLSA]. Proposed rule 9J-11.023 describes in detail the process by which a local government is to request Department authorization to designate a RLSA. At issue here are provisions in subsections (2), (4), and (5) of the rule that require a local government wishing to designate an RLSA to conduct a public workshop; cover particular topics during the workshop; host a site visit with designated agencies; and based on the information gathered from this process to then allow the Department, in its discretion, to either authorize or not authorize the local government to begin to prepare and process an RLSA amendment. The latter decision is based on whether the local government has shown "a reasonable likelihood that the RLSA will further the principles of rural sustainability." Petitioners contend that there is no specific grant of rulemaking authority that authorizes the Department to mandate these procedures in the rule or to prevent a local government from proposing and processing an RLSA plan amendment. Instead, they contend that the enabling statute only allows the Department to promulgate rules that are "necessary" to implement the RLSA program, those being a requirement that the county provide notice to the Department that it intends to propose a RLSA plan amendment and a description of the subsequent review process by the Department to determine whether the amendment is in compliance. Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to provide "assistance to local governments in the implementation of this paragraph and rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l)." (The cited rule, among other things, encourages "innovative and flexible planning and development strategies" that allow conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses.) The statute also includes specific authority to establish a "process by which the department may authorize local governments to designate all or portions of lands classified in the future land use element (FLUE] as predominately agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a [RLSA] . . . ." The rule accomplishes this purpose by requiring state agency technical assistance, establishing the process for a workshop and site visit, requiring that the county's notification describe the basis for the designation, requiring broad public participation, and assuring, by approval or disapproval of the county's preliminary proposal, that the proposed RLSA will promote the principles of rural sustainability. Notably, had the Legislature intended this authorization process to be the same as the existing compliance review process for conventional plan amendments, there would be no need for this statutory language. The proposed rule does not exceed the Department's grant of rulemaking authority. b. Do certain provisions within proposed rule 9J-5.026(7) and (9) enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented? Petitioners further contend that proposed rules 9J- 5.026(7)(b), (7)(c)4., 6., (8)(a), and (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented. The challenged rules read as follows: 9J-5.026 Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) * * * Data and Analysis Requirements. * * * Population Projections and Analysis of Land Use Need. Population projections and analysis of land use need shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 9J-5.006, F.A.C., with the following modifications: The amount and extent of allowable development in the RLSA must be based on the 25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA; the anticipated effect of the proposed RLSA must receiving areas, including any committed catalyst projects, infrastructure improvements, or other projects that would attract and support development; the furtherance of the statutory principles of rural sustainability; and the goals, objectives, and policies of the RLSA plan amendment. * * * 4. Land development and other conversion threats whereby rural resources under threat require more incentives via stewardship credits and less threatened resources require lesser incentives. This includes the future threat of low-density sprawl on lands within and surrounding Eligible Receiving Areas; and * * * 6. Values shall be assigned to all of the land in the RLSA. The highest values shall be assigned to the most environmentally valuable land, and to open space and agricultural land where the retention of such lands is a priority. The assignment of values shall be submitted with the RLSA plan amendment as part of the supporting data and analysis. * * * Stewardship Credit System Criteria. (a) Each credit shall represent a defined number of residential units or a defined amount of non-residential square footage. The credit transferee may decide whether to use the credit for a residential or non- residential use in accordance with the land use standards established for the Designated Receiving Area. * * * Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Map. * * * (a) The goals, objectives, and policies shall include the following: * * * 3. Identification of the innovative planning and development strategies to be used within the RLSA, and a process for implementing the strategies, including the adoption of implementing plan amendments, land development regulations, and the issuance of development orders. The process shall include provision for the Department's review of a proposed land development regulation to designate a receiving area for consistency with the RLSA plan amendment. * * * 6. A requirement that Eligible Receiving Areas shall be located on land that is suitable for development and have the lowest land values based on the land values analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph (7)(c). * * * Policies for new towns which comply with the following: As required by subsection 9J-5.003(80) and paragraph 9J-5.006(5)(1), F.A.C., a new town shall be designated on the future land use map. A new town shall be located within a Designated Receiving Area. The plan amendment designating a new town shall include a master development plan that establishes the size of the new town, the amount, location, type, density and intensity of development, and the design standards to be utilized in the new town. Any increase in the density or intensity of land use required to achieve the proposed new town may occur only through the use of stewardship credits assigned or transferred to the Designated Receiving Area either prior to or subsequent to the designation of the new town on the future land use map. New towns shall be surrounded by greenbelts, except for any connecting rural road corridors and to the extent that new towns are adjacent to existing or planned urban development or incorporated areas. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be internally consistent with RLSA provisions of the comprehensive plan. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be accompanied by an amendment to the capital improvements element to incorporate a financially feasible five-year capital improvements schedule for the public facilities necessary to serve the new town and an amendment to the transportation or traffic circulation element to designate any new rural road corridors required to connect the new town with the rest of the RLSA. Provisions to ensure that any use of the underlying densities and intensities of land uses assigned to parcels of land by the county comprehensive plan prior to designation of the RLSA furthers the principles of rural sustainability. * * * The grant of authority for this rule is cited as Sections 163.3177(9) and (11)(h), Florida Statutes, while Sections 163.3177(2), (3), (6)(a), (8), (10)(e), (11)(a), (b), and (d)1., 2., 4., 5., and 6., Florida Statutes, are cited as the laws being implemented. Subsection (2) of the law being implemented provides that "[c]oordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process"; subsection (3) is a lengthy provision requiring that a comprehensive plan include a capital improvements element; paragraph (6)(a) describes in detail the matters that must be contained in the FLUE; subsection (8) requires that all elements of the comprehensive plan be based on data appropriate to the element involved; paragraph (10)(e) generally provides that support data and analysis shall not be subject to the compliance review process, but they must be based on appropriate data; paragraph (11)(a) describes the Legislature's recognition of using innovative planning and development strategies; paragraph (11)(b) expresses the intent of the Legislature to allow the conversion of rural lands to other uses, where appropriate, including urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering, and open space provisions, mixed-use development, and sector planning; and subparagraphs (11)(d)1., 2., 4., 5., and 6. describe the statutory process for creating an RLSA. Subsection (7) of the proposed rule sets forth the data and analysis requirements that apply to all RLSA plan amendments, including data and analysis of existing conditions (subparagraphs (7)(a)1. through 10.); population projections and analysis of land use (paragraph (7)(b)); and a land values analysis (subparagraphs (7)(c)1. through 6.). A land use needs analysis is an integral part of the planning process. Paragraph (7)(b) requires that an RLSA amendment be supported by population projections and an analysis of land use need such that the amount and extent of allowable development must be based on the 25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA, other items, and the anticipated effect of proposed RLSA receiving areas. Petitioners contend that this language contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, amended in 2005, which provides in part that the total amount of development "must enable the realization of the long- term vision and goals for the 25-year or greater projected population of the [RLSA], which may take into consideration the anticipated effect of the proposed receiving areas." See Ch. 2005-290, Laws of Fla. Paragraph (7)(b) does not contravene the terms of the statute. As expressed in the law being implemented, the rule directs that the need analysis shall be based upon, among other things, "the anticipated effect of the proposed RLSA receiving areas " As a part of the data and analysis to be supplied, paragraph (7)(c) requires that an RLSA amendment be supported by a land values analysis that considers six components described in subparagraphs 1. through 6. This in turn requires a comprehensive analysis of rural resources that exist within the RLSA. Subparagraph 4. requires that the analysis include the development threats to rural resources and that resources under threat of conversion receive more incentives from stewardship credits than resources under less of a threat. Petitioners contend that the rule contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6.j., Florida Statutes, because it requires a greater value to be assigned to resources under threat of conversion and would result in other rural and natural and agricultural resources which may have a higher intrinsic value being assigned fewer credits. Specifically, the cited statute requires that "the highest number of credits per acre" should be "assigned to the most environmentally valuable land, or, in locations where the retention of open space and agricultural land is a priority, to such lands." The purpose of the rule is straightforward: to protect those resources that are under the greatest threat and those that are most susceptible to harm over time through land development or other changes, including urban sprawl. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the overall analysis does in fact consider all forms of rural resources in determining how the credits will be assigned. The rule implements the statutory directive of attaining the principles of rural sustainability. Subparagraph (7)(c)6. requires, among other things, that the local government submit as a part of the data and analysis supporting the plan amendment "the assignment of values" of all lands in the RLSA. Petitioners contend that assigning values at the time of the amendment "locks in these values" and would require a subsequent plan amendment in contravention of Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, which Petitioners argue contemplates the creation of credits after the adoption of the plan amendment. At hearing, however, the Department explained that because conditions will obviously change over time, the land values analysis will be periodically updated and can be changed without a new plan amendment. In their Proposed Final Order, Petitioners concede that given this interpretation of the rule, it "would not be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." See Petitioners' Proposed Final Order, par. 73. Paragraph (8)(a) of the proposed rule requires each stewardship credit to represent either a defined number of residential units or non-residential square footage. Once the credits are created in sending areas, they can be transferred to designated receiving areas to be used to enable development that is consistent with the RLSA goals, objectives, and policies. Petitioners contend that the rule will prohibit mixed-use development in contravention of Section 163.3177(11)(d)4.c., Florida Statutes, which requires that the RLSA goals, policies, and objective provide for a "functional mix of land uses." There is no prohibition of a mix of land uses. In fact, the opposite is true. As clarified by a Department witness, "a mix is essentially required, as you can see from [sub]paragraph (9)(a)17., which describes that a mix of use must be addressed." Tr. at 273. The rule does not contravene the statute. Subsection (9) of the proposed rule generally requires that the RLSA plan amendment contain goals, objectives, policies, and a map. Subparagraphs (9)(a)1. through 21. require that the goals, objectives, and policies identify the innovative planning and development strategies to be used in the RLSA process, including the adoption of implementing plan amendments, land development regulations, and the issuance of development orders. Petitioners allege that subparagraphs 3., 6., 18., and enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented. Subparagraph 3. requires "implementing plan amendments" because the Department recognized the fact that the RLSA planning process will consume years or even decades and will require implementing plan amendments to accomplish its purpose. This is especially true here as the RLSA process involves the development of large tracts of land (as much as 100,000 acres or more) that will take years or decades to fully implement and build out. At a minimum, under current law, the "implementing plan amendments" will include a capital improvements element annual update; water supply planning, and the designation of new towns. Except for the requirement that an implementing plan amendment designate a new town pursuant to existing Rule 9J-5.003(80), Petitioners agree that the proposed rule is valid. Because the cited existing rule has been determined to be valid, Petitioners' contention is rejected. See Findings 62-65, infra. Subparagraph 6. provides that the goals, policies, and objectives shall contain "a requirement that the Eligible Receiving Areas shall be located on land that is suitable for development and have the lowest land values on the land values analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph (7)(c)." Petitioners contend that this provision limits the flexibility of local governments to determine the best location for Eligible Receiving Areas and therefore contravenes the provisions in various parts of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, that emphasize flexibility. The rule implements the principles of rural sustainability contained in Section 163.3177(11)(d)2., Florida Statutes. Only by directing development to land with the lowest environmental, agricultural, and rural resource value will an RLSA protect ecosystems, habitat, natural resources, and the agricultural economy. The rule does not contravene this statute. Subparagraph 18. requires an RLSA plan amendment to include policies for "new towns," including a requirement that a new town be designated on the FLUM. Petitioners contend that the requirement to designate a new town on the FLUM contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(4)(d)4., Florida Statutes, which provides for the implementation of the innovative planning and development strategies included in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) through zoning and land development regulations. At hearing, Petitioners narrowed their argument to this one feature in the rule. Because the Department may lawfully require that new towns be designated on the FLUM, subparagraph 18. is consistent with the statute implemented. See Findings 62-65, infra. Subparagraph 19. requires that RLSA plan amendments contain goals, objectives, and policies "to ensure that any use of the underlying densities and intensities of land uses assigned to parcels of land by the county comprehensive plan prior to designation of the RLSA furthers the principles of rural sustainability." Petitioners contend this provision contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, because it "impinges on existing land use rights which is contrary to one of the statutory principles of rural sustainability, namely the 'restoration and maintenance of the economic value associated with rural lands.'" The rule, however, furthers the principles of rural sustainability, as required by Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, since it requires that all lands within an RLSA, whether or not in a Designated Receiving Area, be developed in a manner that furthers those principles. It does not contravene the cited statute. Petitioners also contend that subparagraph 19. contravenes Section 163.3161(9), Florida Statutes, which requires, among other things, that all programs be applied "with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive." Petitioners surmise that the rule may operate to displace underlying density within the RSLA regardless of the use of the RLSA credit system. However, the rule does not displace any underlying density; it only requires that underlying rights be exercised consistent with the RLSA. More specifically, existing densities may be used in any manner that furthers the principles without displacing any of those densities. The rule does not contravene either statute. Is proposed rule 9J-5.026(3) vague and does it have inadequate standards for agency decisions? Petitioners next contend that subsection (3) of proposed rule 9J-5.026, and specifically certain words within the definition of the term "greenbelt," are vague and fail to establish adequate standards for agency decisions. That provision reads as follows: 9J-5.026 Rural Land Stewardship Area (RSLA) * * * (3) Definitions * * * (d) "Greenbelt" means a border of permanently undeveloped land sufficient in size to effectively preclude the expansion of urban development into the surrounding rural lands and to provide an effective buffer to protect the surrounding rural resources from development impacts. A greenbelt is an undeveloped area that surrounds an urban area, a new town, or other urban development and is meant to separate the urban developed area from the surrounding area to provide a border that protects surrounding rural lands from urban development. Petitioners contend that the use of the adjectives "sufficient," "effectively," and "effective" to describe the greenbelt buffer are vague and lack standards to guide agency determinations. In common usage, the word "sufficient" means that the greenbelt is sufficient in size to accomplish its purpose of precluding the expansion of urban development into the surrounding rural lands. Similarly, the word "effectively" means that the use or creation of a buffer to protect urban encroachment on rural lands will be accomplished in an effective manner. Likewise, the word "effective" simply means that the greenbelt achieves the purpose of creating a buffer. These phrases are easily understood by persons of ordinary intelligence, particularly when read in context with other provisions of the rule. See, e.g., Cole Vision Corp., et al. v. Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., 688 So. 2d 404, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Petitioners contend, however, that the rule fails to explicitly include the standard that site-specific data would be considered in determining the "sufficiency" of a buffer. However, this level of detail is not needed since site-specific information is typically considered and applied by the local government and Department through the planning process and might include, for example, the nature of the urban area, the potential impacts if the urban area is extended, the nature of the surrounding land, and other similar factors. The rule is not so vague or lacks sufficient standards as to be invalid. Is proposed rule 9J-5.026(9)(a)18. arbitrary? Petitioners further contend that subparagraph (9)(a)18. of proposed rule 9J-5.026 is arbitrary. That rule reads as follows: 18. Policies for new towns which comply with the following: As required by subsection 9J-5.003(80) and paragraph 9J-5.006(5)(1), F.A.C., a new town shall be designated on the future land use map. A new town shall be located within a Designated Receiving Area. The plan amendment designating a new town shall include a master development plan that establishes the size of the new town, the amount, location, type, density and intensity of development, and the design standards to be utilized in the new town. Any increase in the density or intensity of land use required to achieve the proposed new town may occur only through the use of stewardship credits assigned or transferred to the Designated Receiving Area either prior to or subsequent to the designation of the new town on the future land use map. New towns shall be surrounded by greenbelts, except for any connecting rural road corridors and to the extent that new towns are adjacent to existing or planned urban development or incorporated areas. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be internally consistent with RLSA provisions of the comprehensive plan. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be accompanied by an amendment to the capital improvements element to incorporate a financially feasible five-year capital improvements schedule for the public facilities necessary to serve the new town and an amendment to the transportation or traffic circulation element to designate any new rural road corridors required to connect the new town with the rest of the RSLA. As noted earlier, this rule sets forth the requirements for policies in the RLSA plan amendment that are applicable to new towns. Petitioners contend that the rule is arbitrary because it "selectively emphasizes" a new town as only one of several innovative and flexible planning strategies set forth in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l). To be arbitrary, a rule must not be supported by logic or the necessary facts. See § 120.52(8)(e), Fla. Stat. Here, the more persuasive evidence shows that new towns are much larger development types; they are more intense than other development forms; and they will likely generate greater impacts. In an RLSA, they take on even more significance since the planning goal is to further the principles of rural sustainability. Collectively, these factors form a sufficient basis and rationale for giving new towns different treatment than other development forms that are smaller, have fewer uses, are less intense, and are more likely to have lesser impacts. The proposed rule is not arbitrary. e. Does existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) contravene the specific provisions of law implemented? Finally, Petitioners have challenged existing Rule 9J- 5.003(80), which became effective in 1994, on the ground that it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. That rule defines the term "new town" as follows: (80) "New town" means a new urban activity center designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area, distinct and geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town is of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban area designation. New towns include basic economic activities; all major land use categories; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. New towns are based on a master development plan. The specific authority for the rule, when adopted, was Section 163.3177(9) and (10), while the law being implemented was identified as Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes. Because Section 163.3178 involves coastal management, and a new town would probably not be located in a coastal zone, it has marginal relevance to this proceeding. The Department relies principally on Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires, among other things, that "various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series."6 The existing definition provides, in part, that a new town will include "all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial." Because they include numerous land use categories, new towns are by definition a mixed-use land use category. See Fla. Admin. Code 9J-5.006(4)(c). Mixed-use land use categories must be designated on the FLUM. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.("The future land use plan may designate areas for future planned development use involving combinations of types of uses"). As noted above, a new town is recognized in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as an innovative and flexible planning option. Because the Legislature referenced this rule provision with approval four times in the RLSA statute, it must be presumed that the Legislature was expressing approval of the existing definition with the mapping requirement. See §§ 163.3177(11)(d)1. (two separate references); 163.3177(11)(d)4.c.; and 163.3177(11)(d)4.e. The rule does not contravene the statute being implemented.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Martin County's amendments to its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), adopted by Ordinance 833, are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State land planning agency. The Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Through its Board of County Commissioners, it adopted Ordinance 833 on November 17, 2009, amending the LDRs pertaining to fishing and hunting camps. Petitioner is a person who resides in Martin County. She has an ownership interest in three parcels of land in the County. Two of the parcels are adjacent to land that is eligible for development as a hunting camp under the new LDRs. An owner of land that is adjacent to one of Petitioner's parcels has submitted plans for a hunting camp to the County. Petitioner's principal complaint is that Ordinance 833 allows new commercial uses at fishing and hunting camps, which she contends are uses that are inconsistent with policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan that require new commercial development to be located in the Primary Urban Service Area and which require that agricultural lands be protected. There are no policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Plan that specifically address fishing and hunting camps, but the following policies are relevant to the determination of the issues raised by Petitioner. Policy 4.7A.2. Development in Primary Urban Service District. Martin County shall require new residential development with lots of one-half acre or smaller, commercial uses and industrial uses to locate in the Primary Urban Service District. This requirement is to ensure consistency with the County's growth management policies and Capital Improvements Element and to assure that the Plan's LOS standards will be provided and maintained cost-efficiently. Policy 4.7A.10. Priority for public services. In providing public services and facilities and allocating public financial resources for them first priority shall be given to the Primary Urban Service District. Second priority shall support the staged development of suitable lands in the Secondary Urban Service District at densities specified in Policy 4.7B.1 or as they are converted to the Primary Urban Service District. Public Services that support or encourage urban development in other areas shall not be provided, except for improvements necessary to remedy an existing deficiency. Policy 4.12A.2. Restrictions outside urban service districts. Outside urban service districts, development options shall be restricted to low-intensity uses, including Agricultural lands, not exceeding one unit per 20 gross acres; Agricultural Ranchette lands not exceeding one unit per five gross acres; and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural agricultural uses. Policy 4.13A.1 The FLUM identifies those lands in Martin County that are allocated for agricultural development. This designation is intended to protect and preserve agricultural soils for agriculturally related uses, realizing that production of food and commodities is an essential industry and basic to the County's economic diversity. * * * The further intent of the Agricultural designation is to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban or even low density residential development. * * * Policy 4.13A.8(3) General Commercial development. * * * The areas designated for General Commercial development are specifically not adapted to permanent residential housing, and such uses shall be located in other areas designated for residential development. On the other hand, transient residential facilities including hotels and motels, timesharing or fractional fee residential complexes, or other transient quarters should be located in areas designated for commercial use. Ordinance 833 amended Article 3 of the LDRs, entitled "Zoning Districts." Section 3.3 was amended to change the definition of "fishing and hunting camps." The previous definition excluded overnight lodging facilities, but the amendment changed the definition to include "overnight accommodations, food, transportation, guides and other customary accessory uses and facilities as set forth in Section 3.76.1." Section 3.76.1 is a new section entitled "Hunting Camps" and establishes development standards for hunting camps, including a limitation on overnight accommodations to six guest rooms and a limitation on food service to customers of the hunting camp. Sales and rentals of hunting supplies and accessories are also limited to customers of the hunting camp. Ordinance 833 also defined "fishing and hunting camps" in a new Section 3.403. The definition in Section 3.403 is identical to the definition in Section 3.3, except that instead of including a reference to Section 3.76.1, the definition refers to Section 3.412.A. Section 3.412.A. adds the same development standards for hunting camps that are found in Section 3.76.1. There is no material difference between the two definitions. Common sense indicates that the lands designated "Agricultural" on the Future Land Use Map are more appropriate areas for fishing and hunting camps than the Primary or Secondary Urban Service Districts. People generally fish, hunt, and camp in rural areas, not in urban areas. Martin County contends that fishing and hunting camps are not commercial land uses, but are recreational uses. Petitioner claims, however, that the addition of overnight accommodations, food facilities, and accessory uses at fishing and hunting camps makes them inconsistent commercial uses. The dictionary definition of the word "camp" includes the idea of staying overnight in an area. See, e.g., Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 158 (1979). If a person stays overnight in a camp, he or she must have shelter and food. It is a matter of general knowledge of which the Administrative Law Judge takes judicial notice that fishing and hunting camps often provide lodging for hunters and fisherman to stay overnight and facilities for eating. Policy 4.12A.2 of the Comprehensive Plan allows "low- intensity uses," including "small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses" outside of urban service districts. This policy co-exists with Policy 4.7A.2, which requires new commercial development to be located in the Primary Urban Service District. Obviously, therefore, low-intensity uses and small-scale service establishments that support rural and agricultural uses are not the type of uses, even if they have commercial aspects, that must be located in the Primary Urban Service District. Although the County does not claim (for reasons that are not clear) that "customary accessory uses and facilities" for fishing and hunting camps are encompassed by the term "small-scale service establishments," the County asserts that customary accessory uses and facilities are the types of low- intensity uses which Policy 4.12A.2 allows outside the urban service districts. That is a reasonable interpretation of Policy 4.12A.2. The LDRs establish development guidelines for hunting camps that are consistent with low-intensity uses. Petitioner argues that no development guidelines are established for fishing camps and, therefore, they could be potentially include high-intensity commercial activities. If Ordinance 833 did not create development guidelines for fishing camps, that would not constitute a change because the previous LDRs already permitted fishing camps in agricultural areas without specifying any development guidelines other than a prohibition against overnight lodging. Both of the new definitions for "fishing camps" created by Ordinance 833 appear to incorporate by reference the guidelines applicable to hunting camps. However, even if the guidelines are not applicable to fishing camps, it cannot be assumed for the purposes of this consistency determination that the new LDRs permit uses at fishing camps that would not be low-intensity uses. The LDRs do not express or imply that intent. The new LDRs are not inconsistent with Policy 4.7A.10, related to the County's priorities for providing public services, because the LDRs do not support or encourage urban development. The new LDRS are not inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, related to the protection of agricultural soils because the allowance in the Comprehensive Plan for uses other than farming in the agricultural areas shows that the policy to protect agricultural soils is not meant to preserve every square foot of agricultural soil for farming. The new LDRS are not inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, related to the protection of agricultural lands from encroachment by urban or residential development because the LDRs do not authorize urban or residential uses in conjunction with fishing and hunting camps. Petitioner did not show that the restricted commercial activities at fishing and hunting camps are urban uses. Therefore, such uses do not contribute to urban sprawl. They are reasonably treated by the County as low-intensity, support services which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies to prevent urban sprawl into agricultural areas and to otherwise protect agricultural lands.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land use designation placed on the property of intervenors is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City of Jacksonville comprehensive plan.
Findings Of Fact Background This controversy involves a challenge to the City of Jacksonville 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) by intervenors, Sybil L. Davis, Katherine T. Dekle, and Dr. James A. Acree, all residents and property owners in Duval County, Florida. The parties agree that intervenors are affected persons and thus have standing to pursue their claims. Intervenors contend generally that the land use designation given to their respective properties is inconsistent with other parts of the Plan and should be changed. If the requested relief is granted, intervenors would be able to develop their properties in a different manner than is now permitted under the Plan. The proposed Plan was first submitted by respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), to petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), on March 19, 1990. The DCA is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The City is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to chapter 163. The proposed plan was the City's first attempt at meeting the compliance requirements established in that chapter. Under the law, the DCA is required to review all proposed plans for compliance with applicable statutes and rules. In that vein, besides its own in-house review, the DCA received comments from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Transportation (DOT), considered such comments, and where appropriate, incorporated those views into its Objection, Recommendation and Comment Report (ORC) issued on July 10, 1990. The ORC contains the DCA's objections and comments concerning the Plan as well as recommendations which address those concerns. After considering the ORC, the City adopted a revised Plan on September 11, 1990, by Ordinance No. 90-794-380, which was then transmitted to the DCA. On November 9, 1990, the DCA issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance. After negotiations between the two parties, the City agreed to adopt remedial amendments to its Plan. This was accomplished by Ordinance No. 92-925-1405, effective January 22, 1993. Thereafter, on February 26, 1993, the DCA issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find the Plan, as amended, in compliance with the law. As a consequence of this action, the interests of the City and DCA are aligned in this proceeding. Intervenors, however, consider the Plan to be internally inconsistent as to their respective properties and thus not in compliance with the law. It should be noted that during the local hearing process before the City, intervenors' requests to have their land use designation changed were denied. The Davis-Dekle Property Both Davis and Dekle own property which fronts on Southside Boulevard, a major arterial highway that runs in a north-south direction for ten to fifteen miles between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. It consists of two northbound lanes, a divider (grass) median, and two southbound lanes. In addition, a twenty-foot service road runs along the outside of each roadway and is separated from the main roadway by a grass median. The highway right-of-way is 200 feet wide. This right-of-way has existed since at least the 1940's while the service roads were built in the 1950's. Davis owns two parcels of property on Southside Boulevard, also known as State Road 115. The first parcel, which is located at 2351 Southside Boulevard, is a vacant lot measuring 100 feet wide by 200 feet deep. The lot was purchased in 1987 with the intention of eventually converting the property to commerical use. A year later, Davis purchased a 1,000 square foot home located at 2615 Southside Boulevard. The house sits on a lot measuring approximately 85 feet wide by 200 feet deep. Although she currently resides in the home, Davis also intends to convert this property to commercial use if her appeal is successful. Both lots sit on the east side of Southside Boulevard between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. Dekle's property is located at 2710 Southside Boulevard and lies on the west side of the street between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. Dekle purchased the property in 1947 and has lived there for almost thirty years. The lot measures approximately 100 feet wide by 208 feet deep. Intervenors' properties are located in what is known as Southside Estates, a subdivision developed soon after World War II. The neighborhood surrounding their property is residential. Indeed, some 115 single-family homes are located on Southside Boulevard. Thus, the area historically has been a residential area since the 1940's and the predominant land uses along both sides of Southside Boulevard are single-family residences. Under the Plan, intervenors' properties are included in an area designated as "Low Density Residential," and thus this designation would bar intervenors from converting their properties to commercial use. "Low Residential Density" is defined in the future land use element of the Plan as follows: This category permits housing developments in a gross density range of up to seven (7) dwelling units per acre when full urban services are available to the site. Generally, single family detached housing will be the predominant land use in this category, although mobile homes, patio homes and multi-family dwellings shall also be permitted in appropriate locations. Minimum lot size shall be half acre per dwelling unit when both centralized potable water as well as wastewater are not available. The lot size shall be reduced to 1/4 acre per dwelling unit if either one of these services are not available. As noted above, intervenors' properties lie on Southside Boulevard between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. The distance between these two latter roadways is approximately two miles. There is a major node of commercial development at the intersection of Southside and Atlantic Boulevards and a smaller commercial node at the intersection of Southside and Beach Boulevards. These uses, which extend approximately one-third of the distance between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards, are predominately offices, with the exception of more intense commercial uses near the intersection with Atlantic Boulevard. The southernmost extent of the commercial uses is approximately six or seven blocks north of the Dekle property. Intervenors complain that because of heavy traffic found on Southside Boulevard during the weekdays, their property should not carry a low residential density classification. More specifically, between 2:00 p. m. and 6:00 p. m. weekday afternoons, traffic backs up for more than a mile on the southbound lanes of Southside Boulevard between Atlantic and Beach Boulevards while there is a similar traffic backup in the northbound lanes during morning rush hours. This is confirmed by the fact that the roadway is functioning at a level of service "F," which means arterial flow is at "extremely slow speeds" and "intersection congestion" is likely at critical signalized locations. The DOT considers the minimum acceptable level of service to be level of service "D." Traffic counts, measured in average daily trips, are projected to reach 40,871 by 1995 at a point on Southside Boulevard 100 feet south of Atlantic Boulevard and 51,089 by the year 2010. Intervenors agree, however, that the service roads, on which their properties front, flow smoothly and are lightly traveled. Because intervenors' homes are located at the front of their lots closest to the service roads, they experience vehicle noise which affects their ability to watch television, sleep or carry on other normal activities unless windows and doors are closed at all times. Odors and fumes generated by the nearby traffic also require that windows and doors be shut at all times. Unless they retreat to the rear of their lots while outside their homes, they cannot escape the traffic fumes. In view of the foregoing condition, intervenors contend that a change in land use designation from low density residential to commercial is appropriate. "Commercial" is described in the future land use element of the Plan as follows: This category is intended to provide for all types of sales and services activities, such as retail trade, personal and professional services and storage, offices, hotels, motels, entertainment, and amusement facilities. Commercial recreation and entertainment activities, such as amusement parks and marinas, are also allowed in this category. Multi-family uses, when developed as part of an integrated mixes use project, are also permitted consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density Residential (HDR) plan category description. The Plan includes five types of commercially dominated land use categories: residential-professional-institutional, neighborhood commerical, community/general commercial, regional commercial, and central business district. The primary uses range from a small convenience store, laundry/dry cleaning shop to a large shopping center or a multi-story office building. In considering intervenors' request to change the proposed land use to commercial, the City looked at the Greater Arlington Plan (an earlier land use plan completed in 1985), the existing use of the land, and the existing zoning. It also considered the general character of the area and the fact that most homes were graded in an "A" condition and were structurally sound. It should be noted here that the DCA did not raise any concerns over the proposed land use classification in its ORC report, nor has it subsequently posed any objection. In determining the appropriate land use classification for intervenors' properties, the Plan is the primary document to be used to guide the City's future growth and development. The future land use and housing elements of the Plan contain goals, objectives and policies which bear directly on this issue. More specifically, the following goals, objectives and policies found in the future land use and housing elements of the Plan support the classification given to intervenors' properties: Future Land Use Element GOAL 1 To ensure that the character and location of land uses optimize the combined potentials for economic benefit and enjoyment and protection of natural resources, while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses and environmental degradation. Objective 1.1 Ensure that the type, rate, and distribution of growth in the City results in compact and compatible land use pattern, an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourages proliferation of urban sprawl through implementation of regulatory programs, intergovernmental coordination mechanisms, and public/private coordination. Policy 1.1.1 The City shall ensure that all new development and redevelopment after the effective date of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Future Land Use Map series, and textual provisions of this and other elements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as provided in Chapter 163 (Part II), F.S. 1.1.8 By April 1, 1991, require that all new non-residential projects be developed either in nodal areas, in appropriate commercial infill locations, or as part of mixed or multi-use developments, as described in this element. GOAL 2 To enhance and preserve for future generations geographic areas with unique economic, social, historic or natural resource significance to the City. GOAL 3 To achieve a well balanced and organized combination of residential, non-residential, recreational and public uses served by a convenient and efficient transportation network, while protecting and preserving the fabric and character of the City's neighborhoods and enhancing the viability of non-residential areas. Issue: Residential Development Patterns The neighborhood is the functional unit of residential development. There is a need to protect existing, viable neighborhood units and the neighborhoods that will emerge in the future. However, much newer residential development occurs as enclaves, with little or no functional linkage to surrounding areas. Unplanned low density development has become a familiar land use pattern in Jacksonville as new subdivisions have been developed further and further out, away from the existing urban area. * * * Objective 3.1 Continue to maintain adequate land designated for residential uses which can accommodate the projected population and provide safe, decent, sanitary and affordable housing opportunities for the citizens. Protect single-family residential neighborhoods by requiring that any other land uses within single-family areas meet all applicable locational criteria of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and subsequent Land Development Regulations. Policies 3.1.2 The City shall eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from potentially stable, viable residential neighborhoods through active code enforcement and other regulatory measures. * * * 3.1.7 The City shall give high priority consideration to the provision of affordable housing in land development and funding decisions, especially those made relating to public/private cooperative efforts in which the City is participating. * * * Issue: Commerical and Industrial Development Patterns * * * Despite a significant increase in the number of planned centers approved in recent years, little change has occurred in the pattern of strip commerical uses lining the City's arterial and collector roadways. This development pattern is typically inefficient, unsafe, and aesthetically unattractive. It results in multiple curb cuts, sometimes up to 50 per mile, thereby reducing the traffic carrying capacity of highways while at the same time increasing the potential for accidents. With a clutter of signs of all sizes, shapes, color, and design, the appearance of these areas is not only unsightly, it is also distractive for traffic on the highway and can, therefore, be dangerous. Another problem relating to strip commercial uses has developed as the commercial market has begun to overbuild during the recent national economic expansion cycle. Commercial retail and office space has remained in an over-supply condition (indicated by vacancy rates over 15 percent) for the past several years,, and as a result, new space has come on line at square footage costs that create strong competition with existing space. This competitive market results in relocations of existing businesses to newer projects, leaving many older commercial buildings semi-vacant and with little investment benefit to the owners. Without the hope of a reasonable economic return, owners may not invest funds to maintain their structures, and inevitably, commercial blight begins to develop. For these reasons, new commercial development will be strongly encouraged to occur in nodes or clusters in the form of office parks, shopping centers and mixed use developments. Strip commercial expansion along arterial streets will be discouraged, except for commercial infill of uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, auto sales and service, mobile home sales, convenience stores and gas stations, which shall continue to locate along highways. * * * Policies The City shall promote, through the use of development incentives and other regulatory measures, development of commercial and light/service industrial uses in the form of nodes, centers or parks, while discouraging strip commercial development patterns, in order to limit the number of curb cuts and reduce conflicts in land uses, particularly along collectors and arterials. The City shall promote, through the Land Development Regulations, infill and redevelopment of existing commercial areas in lieu of permitting new areas to commercialize. * * * The City shall permit expansion of commercial uses adjacent to residential areas only if such expansion maintains the residential character of and precludes non- residential traffic into adjacent neighborhoods. The City shall require neighborhood commercial uses to be located in nodes at the intersections of collector and arterial roads. Prohibit the location of neighborhood commercial uses interior to residential neighborhoods in a manner that will encourage the use of local streets for non-residential traffic. The City shall implement the locational criteria of this element for commercial and industrial uses consistent with the character of the areas served, availability of public facilities, and market demands. * * * Housing Element GOAL 1 The City shall develop stable and definable neighborhoods which offer sale, sound, sanitary housing that is affordable to all its present and future residents. Issue: Neighborhood Stabilization Urban housing is a function of neighborhood. Stable neighborhoods encourage residents to maintain, upgrade, build and buy housing resulting in a sound, diverse housing stock. * * * There is an inadequate number of organizations committed to the revitalization and cohesiveness of Jacksonville's neighborhoods. Preservation is relatively easy and inexpensive compared to redevelopment and will prevent widespread blight and deterioration in convenient residential locations close to transportation, schools, shopping and medical facilities. * * * Objective 1.4 Preserve, protect, and stabilize residential neighborhoods keeping the maximum number of dwelling units in the housing supply, as measured by the implementation of the following policies. * * * Policy * * * 1.4.5 Commercial and other non-residential uses lying adjacent to residential neighborhoods should not be expanded into residential neighborhoods unless: Such uses enhance or do not diminish or degrade the residential character of the neighborhood, and The expansion shall not result in a reduction of the level of service on the residential streets; * * * One of the overriding policies contained in the Plan was a desire to maintain the City's vibrant neighborhoods. The future land use element addressed those concerns by discouraging strip commercial development and promoting instead the development of commercial land uses at major intersectional nodes. Strip commercial development often has a "cancerous" effect on nearby residential land uses. Problems associated with strip commercial development include encroachment on adjacent residential neighborhoods, increased noise and traffic in residential areas, undesirable aesthetic appearances, and inefficient traffic flow along the roadways on which strip commercial development occurs. The Southside Estates subdivision is vulnerable to encroachment because of the grid pattern of streets, which increases the likelihood of non- residential traffic passing through the subdivision. If lots facing Southside Boulevard were converted to commercial land uses, traffic would likely increase on the neighborhood streets. The neighborhood is a stable neighborhood with a large inventory of homes in good condition. The current noise and traffic along Southside Boulevard has not impaired the neighborhood stability, as the character and condition of homes along Southside Boulevard is comparable with that in the interior of the neighborhood. The residential area in question constitutes an "established neighborhood" as that term is defined in the Plan. There, the term is defined as follows: A neighborhood where platted, or otherwise divided, land has been at least eighty percent developed and occupied without substantial deterioration since such development. The residential area surrounding intervenors properties provides a significant supply of affordable housing to both home buyers and renters. Preservation of that housing stock is preferable to development of additional housing elsewhere. Therefore, maintenance of this neighborhood for residential use supports the housing element of the Plan. As noted earlier, Southside Boulevard is classified as a principal arterial roadway in the Plan. It currently serves as a major north-south roadway. The State has planned and partially constructed State Road 9A, a limited access facility located to the east of Southside Boulevard. When completed, State Road 9A will be the eastern circumferential link to Interstate 95 north and south of the City. State Road 9A will accommodate some of the through traffic currently using Southside Boulevard and will reduce the volume of truck traffic on Southside Boulevard. Contrary to intevenors assertion, conversion of residential properties along this portion of Southside Boulevard would result in increased traffic along the main roadway as well as the service roads. It would also result in an increased number of vehicles entering onto Southside Boulevard. This would further exacerbate an already unacceptable level of service along that road. Southside Boulevard is not a limited access facility as defined in the future land use element of the Plan. Therefore, policy 3.1.12 within that element, which permits residential land use designations adjacent to limited access highways when the negative impact of the roadway can be mitigated, is not applicable. Policy 3.2.2 of the future land use element provides as follows: The City shall promote, through the Land Development Regulations, infill and redevelopment of existing commercial areas in lieu of permitting new areas to commercialize. "Infill development" is defined in the future land use element definitions as "development on scattered vacant sites within the urbanized/suburbanized area of the community." "Commercial infill" is defined as "commercial development of the same type and grade as adjacent commercial uses that is sited between those uses in existing strip commerical areas." Reclassification of this part of Southside Boulevard to a commercial land use would not consitute commercial infill development, as such development would not be occurring on scattered sites or vacant sites, nor are the adjacent uses commercial ones. The area in question cannot be considered a "blighted area" as that term is defined in the future land use element of the Plan. Policy 1.3.1 of the future land use element directs that the City require all non-residential development located along a designated major arterial to construct a service drive which connects to the service drive of adjacent properties, unless otherwise approved by the city traffic engineer. Such a service drive does not exist along this portion of Southside Boulevard. However, the same policy does not require that all property fronting a service drive be classified for commerical use. Further, in the event such service roads are provided in new locations, the policy does not require such roads to be constructed at City expense. Reclassification of intervenors' properties to commercial uses would constitute an expansion of commercial uses adjacent to residential areas. Policy 3.2.4 of the future land use element permits such expansion only if it maintains the residential character of and precludes non-residential traffic into adjacent neighborhoods. Establishment of commercial uses on the property would be a negative influence which would begin the erosion and decay of the surrounding neighborhood. Because of the street grid pattern, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to preclude non-residential traffic from utilizing streets in the adjacent neighborhood. Table L19 of the future land use element is a land use acreage allocation analysis. That table depicts the existing acreage for certain land use categories, the projected acreage needs for those categories to the year 2010, and the acreage allocated to those needs on the future land use map series. The amount of acreage allocated to commerical land use categories is 185.90 percent of the projected need while the acreage allocated to residential land use categories is 127.99 percent of the projected need. Therefore, the land use classifications found on the map series result in a greater overutilization of commercial land use acreage than that found with respect to residential land use acreage. The City's classification of intervenors' properties is similar to that along comparable areas elsewhere in the City. For example, State Road 13 (San Jose Boulevard/Hendricks Avenue) north from Baymeadows Road is characterized by predominately single family residential land uses interrupted by several nodes of commercial development. Like Southside Boulevard, San Jose Boulevard is a four-lane roadway carrying comparable volumes of traffic. This portion of San Jose Boulevard contains a parking lane, but it does not have parallel service roads and the overall width of the right-of-way is narrower than that found on Southside Boulevard. Therefore, homes along this portion of San Jose Boulevard are generally located as close to the right-of-way as those along Southside Boulevard and are closer to the traffic lanes themselves. Traffic counts are comparable, but projections for State Road 13 are as high as 78,426 by the year 2010. Despite this traffic, this area remains a viable, stable residential area. In summary, then, intervenors' properties should be classified as low residential density. This classification is consistent with and supported by the Plan's goals, objectives and policies. Therefore, intervenors' properties should not be reclassified as commercial. The Acree Property Intervenor Acree and his brother, who are both licensed veterinarians, own approximately 460 acres in the northwest portion of the county located on Acree Road (formerly Thomas Road). Of that amount, 360 acres were purchased in 1956 when the brothers started a wholesale dairy as an investment. Three adjoining parcels totaling 116 acres were later purchased as the dairy operation expanded. In 1989, the dairy animals were sold and Acree planned to sell the farm and retire. At that time, he hired civil engineers to develop a conceptual site plan for the purpose of ascertaining the value of his land for development under existing zoning regulatioins. Since the Plan changes his classification and impacts his ability to develop the property, Acree has brought this appeal for the purpose of challenging the land use classification given to his property. The Acree property is designated "agricultural" under the Plan. The allowable densities in an agricultural land use category are contained in the plan category descriptions of the future land use element and provide as follows: One dwelling unit (D.U.) per 100 acres of land for lots of record of 640 acres (section) or more in size at the time of adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; One dwelling unit (D.U.) per 40 acres of land area for lots of record of 160 acres (1/4 section) up to but not including 640 acres (section) in size at the time of adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; One dwelling unit (D.U.) per 10 acres of land area for lots of record of 40 acres and up to but not including 160 acres at the time of adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. One dwelling unit (D.U.) per 2.5 acres of land for single lots of record or the combination of contiguous lots of record under common ownership up to but not including 40 acres which were existing on September 21, 1990. In the event such land area equals 40 acres or more, the allowable number of dwelling units shall be determined according to paragraph (iii) above. Notwithstanding this requirement, one dwelling unit shall be permitted on any nonconforming lot of record which was existing on September 12, 1990. Development on such nonconforming lots of record shall be subject to all other plan provisions. By his petition, Acree seeks to have his property classified as rural residential. This classification is defined in the plan category descriptions of the future land use element as follows: This category is intended to provide rural estate residential opportunities in the suburban area of the City. Housing development at a net density range of up to two (2) dwelling units per acre will be allowed when community scale potable water and sewer facilities are available to the site, and one (1) unit per net acre when the site will be served with on-site water and wastewater facilities. Generally, single- family detached housing and mobile homes will be the predominant land uses in this category. In addition, agriculture, silviculture, and similar other uses may be permitted as secondary uses subject to the standards and criteria in the Land Development Regulations. If the petition is approved, Acree would be allowed to develop his property with a much higher density, and the value of the land would increase correspondingly. Prior to the adoption of the plan, Acree's property was zoned OR (agriculture). Under then-existing regulations, a residential density of one dwelling unit per acre of land was authorized. All other rural land in the county could be utilized for residences in one and one-half acre minimum size lots. This compares with current restrictions described in finding of fact 31. Acree's property is 3 miles by roadway (but only 2.4 linear miles) from the nearest available water and sewer utilities. The property is 1.5 miles from the nearest property classified as rural residential on the future land use maps. Presently, the farm is surrounded by timberland. In originally finding the City's Plan not in compliance, the DCA's concerns included the plan's projections of agriculture land use, its vested development rights, and urban sprawl considerations. As a consequence, in developing the Plan, one of the factors considered by the City was the discouragement of urban sprawl. That term is defined in the future land use element of the Plan as follows: A terminology commonly used to describe certain kinds of growth and development patterns. It refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas without provisions for utilities and services. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) strip or ribbon development; and (3) large expanses of low-density, single- dimensional developments. This corresponds to the description given the term by the DCA in a technical memorandum issued by the DCA in 1989. The future land use element of the Plan contains the following objective and policies to discourage urban sprawl: Objective 1.1 Ensure that the type, rate and distribution of growth in the City result in compact and compatible land use patterns, an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourages proliferation of urban sprawl through implementation of regulatory programs, intergovernmental coordination mechanisms, and public/private coordination. Policies * * * 1.1.16 Prohibit scattered, unplanned urban sprawl development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan in locations inconsistent with the overall concepts of the Future Land Use Element. * * * 1.1.18 Limit urban scale development to the Urban and Suburban areas of the City, as identified in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, in order to prevent urban sprawl, protect agriculture lands, conserve natural open space, and to minimize the cost of public facilities and services, except for urban villages and other large scale mixed use developments which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. * * * 1.1.20 Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system, and discourage urban sprawl. * * * In addition, leapfrog development is defined in the future land use element as follows: An urbanizing growth pattern which occurs when new land development is sited away from existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas. To discourage urban sprawl, the City has incorporated into its Plan a provision dealing with public facilities. This provision, which is found in the capital improvements element, establishes areas in which the City would provide public services during the time frame of the Plan. They include the "urban area," where urban services already exist or are programmed to be provided within a short time; the "suburban fiscal commitment area" where services such as water and sewer are in place or planned to be installed within five years; the "suburban non-fiscal commitment area," which is that portion of suburban area in which the City does not commit to providing water and sewer services witin the next five years; and the "rural area," which is predominately undeveloped and unplatted and comprises those areas not intended to be developed by the year 2010. Acree's property is located in the rural area as depicted in the capitol improvement element of the Plan. The sanitary sewer sub-element of the public utilities element of the Plan is also relevant to this issue. It provides in part as follows: Goal 1 The City shall provide for economically and environmentally sound wastewater collection and treatment systems which . . . promote beneficial land use and growth patterns and . . . discourage urban sprawl. Objective 1.1 In order to discourage urban sprawl and correct existing deficiencies, the City shall provide regional wastewater facilities in concert and conformance with the Public Facilities Map as adopted in the Capital Improvement Element. Policies * * * 1.1.5 The City shall not invest in sanitary sewer facilities in the Rural area as defined in the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements, except where necessary to protect the public health and safety. The potable water sub-element of the public utilities element of the Plan contains comparable objectives and policies with regard to providing regional water facilities. The above provisions do not prevent a developer from paying the cost to extend such services to his property. Any facilities installed by the developer, however, must be maintained by the City after such facilities are turned over to the City by the developer. The plan category descriptions found in the Plan for agriculture land uses established a hierarchy based upon the size of the lot of record. The intent of the varying densities is to provide flexibility to owners of smaller lots of record while encouraging large land owners to maintain agricultural land uses, rather than converting to residential development. By law, certain development approved prior to the adoption of the Plan has vested rights. Local governments have included vesting language in their comprehensive plans. Some governments have elaborated upon vesting language to allow exceptions based upon density. The language regarding densities in agriculture land uses found in the Plan is similar to language found in other local government plans. Most plans with density exception language also contain provisions combining contiguous lots of record under common ownership. The density provisions found in the Plan do not make it inconsistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the DCA's rules, or the state comprehensive plan. At its closest point, Acree's property lies just 400 feet from the Nassau County line. He established that most of the land in Nassau County just north of the Duval County line, and just a short distance from his own, can now be developed at a residential density of one dwelling unit per acre while some can be developed at a residential density of one dwelling unit per one-half acre. He also established that all agriculture land in Nassau County can be developed with a residential density of one dwelling unit per twenty acres for tracts of 320 acres and greater regardless of the amount of land in single or contiguous ownership. However, there is nothing in chapter 163 or the agency's rules which require adjacent land uses in adjoining counties to be identical. Put another way, decisions made in Nassau County with respect to its comprehensive plan are not binding on Duval County. Therefore, the City was not required to classify Acree's property as rural residential merely because an adjoining county had classified nearby land in that manner. Redesignation of Acree's property from agriculture to rural residential would not constitute "infill" development. This is because of the property's distance from other urban development in the county and distance from existing water and sewer servcies. Given the location of Acree's property, reclassification to rural residential land would constitute leap frog development and promote urban sprawl as those terms are defined in the Plan. This is true even though nearby land in Nassau County is considered urban sprawl by City planning officials. Finally, preservation of agriculture land uses is a state concern, especially in areas not projected to be served by water and sewer services. Testimony established that there are several areas in Duval County classified as rural residential which constitute urban sprawl. With the exception of one such area, however, all areas reflect existing residential developments already in place. Table L19 of the future land use element of the Plan is a land use acreage allocation analysis which depicts the existing acreage for certain land use categories, the projected acreage needs for those categories to the year 2010, and the acreage allocated to those needs on the future land use map series. Table L19 indicates that the amount of the acreage allocated to the rural residential land use category is already 194.94 percent of the projected need. In summary, then, in order for the Plan to be internally consistent, Acree's property should be classified as agriculture. This will ensure that development occurs in a compact pattern, which is more cost efficient and compatible with the requirements of the Plan. Therefore, the property should not be reclassified as rural residential since this would be contrary to the goals, objectives and policies within the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the City's Plan to be in compliance with the law. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7496GM Petitioners Davis and Dekle: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Petitioner Acree: Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Rejected as being irrelevant. 3-4. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 6-7. Rejected as being irrelevant. See finding of fact 42. 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35 and 44. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 31 and 41. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 42. 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35 and 43. DCA and the City: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 18-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. 43. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. 44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 42. 47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 48. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 50. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 51-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 55-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. 57. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 59-60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 62. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 63. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 65. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. 66. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 67. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Katherine A. Castor, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael A. Altes, Esquire 200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1100 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4308 James A. Acree 5031 Dianwood Drive East Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Tracey I. Arpen, Jr., Esquire 1300 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Jefferson County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. At issue in this case is a plan amendment adopted by the County. Petitioner, Jack Hamilton, is a resident of Jefferson County. He owns and operates a nursery, orchard and cattle operation on his property on the east side of Highway 19, approximately two miles north of Monticello, Florida. The land, which is approximately 135 acres in size, is presently designated in a land use category known as Agriculture 2. For the last twenty years or so, the Jefferson Nursing Center (JNC), a nursing home, has been situated on a seven acre parcel of land surrounded on three sides by petitioner's property. Here, petitioner challenges a plan amendment which allows nursing homes, including JNC, in the Agriculture 2 category. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus he has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan (plan) on July 19, 1990. Through inadvertence, in the original plan, institutional uses such as churches, schools, nursing homes, parks and recreation areas were not specifically allowed as permitted uses in any residential or agriculture district even though such uses were commonly found in both types of districts. Even so, on an undisclosed date, the plan was determined by the DCA to be in compliance. On April 1, 1994, the County submitted to the DCA various amendments relating to a proposed petroleum pipeline project. During the course of preparing those amendments, the County became concerned for the status of all of the existing churches, nursing homes, schools, and other institutional uses in the County, because of their not being specifically mentioned in the plan. To avoid any question about the status of these uses and their treatment in the Land Development Code, which implements the plan, the County included an amendment to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5-9 to provide for the adoption of land development regulations to permit all public land uses. On June 8, 1994, the DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report concerning the proposed public land uses amendment. Among other things, the DCA determined that the language in the amendment was too broad. In response to the ORC, on August 3, 1994, the County adopted revised Ordinance 94-10, which amended the comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use District, adopt a Public Facilities Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. Under this amendment, only existing public uses were included within the district, and these were specifically identified on a series of maps and a List of Public Facilities, both of which were included as part of the plan amendment. On September 26, 1994, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 94-10 not in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This determination was based in part on the fact that the amendment did not sufficiently detail what land use regulations and restrictions would apply in the district. On March 28, 1995, the County submitted to the DCA for its review a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance 94-10 and amending the County's comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District, adopt a Public Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. This proposed amendment provided that the current land use district designation, and all applicable regulations for that district, would continue to apply to lands included within the overlay district. It also provided standards for any future additions to the overlay district. On June 2, 1995, the DCA issued its ORC Report concerning the proposed Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District amendment in which it continued to object to the proposed district. In response to the ORC, and after consulting with the DCA, on July 20, 1995, the County adopted Ordinance No. 95-07. That ordinance repealed Ordinance No. 94-10 and amended the comprehensive plan to allow (a) churches in all land use categories except Conservation District and (b) adult care facilities, day care facilities, and nursing homes in any land use district that allows residential use. Ordinance No. 95-07 was not adopted pursuant to a compliance agreement. On September 7, 1995, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 95-07 in compliance. Petitioner timely filed his appeal of the DCA's determination that Ordinance No. 95-07 was in compliance. As amended, the petition contends that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, lacks standards pertaining to density and intensity of development for nursing homes, and is internally inconsistent with the plan. As such, he contends the amendment is arbitrary and capricious, and not fairly debatable. Although the issues in the case have been framed by petitioner in this manner, in simple terms his primary concern is that nursing homes, and specifically JNC, are incompatible with agricultural uses and do not belong in the Agricultural 2 land use category. The Plan Amendment Identification and adequacy of data and analysis When it forwarded Ordinance No. 95-07 to the DCA for review, the County did not specify in its transmittal letter what data and analyses it was relying on to support the amendment. In an earlier telephone conversation between the County planner and the DCA, however, the County indicated that it was relying on the existing data and analysis originally submitted with its comprehensive plan. The DCA established that this is not unusual and is an acceptable practice for smaller counties. Indeed, there is nothing in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the identification of the supporting data and analysis be conveyed to the DCA in writing. Jefferson County is a small, rural county with only one person in its planning department. For counties with limited technical staff, the DCA normally provides technical support, and it customarily reviews the plan and existing data and analysis to identify those portions of the documents which are relevant to, and support, a plan amendment. Thus, in accordance with its practice for smaller counties, the DCA did not require the County to make a complete assessment of the plan and point out various page and reference numbers, but instead it performed that task. There was no showing that petitioner, or any other member of the public, was prejudiced in any respect by the DCA doing this. Besides the existing plan data and analysis, the DCA also had in its files the map and list specifically identifying each public use existing in the County and its location, including all churches, day care facilities, and nursing homes. The map and list were available at the public hearings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance 95-07, and identified JNC within the Agriculture 2 district. Petitioner, who was a long-time member of the County Planning Commission, attended those hearings. There is no evidence that he, or any other member of the public, was unable to participate in the amendment process in a meaningful way. In determining the text amendments to be in compliance, the DCA relied upon certain data in the plan, including the existing population survey, soil survey and soil suitability data; a table comparing population composition showing the population existing and the need for elderly housing; the silviculture map as a factor in determining site suitability; the land use map showing the general overview of all land use types in the County; an analysis of the uses in the different land use categories; and a map plat showing petitioner's property, the location of the JNC, the proximity of two mixed-use business/residential areas to the north and south, and the residential densities in the area. The DCA also considered policies in the traffic circulation and transportation elements of the plan, a table of existing traffic conditions, existing housing data, an inventory of group homes, and special housing needs within the County, including housing for the elderly. Finally, the DCA considered Housing Element Policy 5-3 and Objective The policy provides that the County shall establish nondiscriminatory standards and criteria addressing the location of group homes and foster care facilities as well as other special needs housing. The objective calls for adequate sites for group homes and facilities in residential areas or other appropriate areas of residential character. Petitioner's expert concedes that nothing prohibits the County from adopting an amendment which allows nursing homes in an agricultural district so long as adequate data and analysis are present, and appropriate nonresidential intensity standards are found in the plan. Given the foregoing data and analysis, it is found that petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment lacks adequate data and analysis. Compatibility of uses Petitioner has also contended that the plan amendment allows uses (nursing homes) which are incompatible with agricultural uses. In this regard, petitioner offered his lay opinion that nursing homes are incompatible with agriculture uses because in the event of a problem during normal agricultural operations, such as a shift in the wind direction during burning or crop spraying, bedridden nursing home patients cannot be easily transported out of harm's way. With appropriate site planning features, petitioner's expert agreed that nursing homes are not inherently incompatible with agricultural land uses. The Code contains such site design criteria which are designed to eliminate or minimize incompatibilities. For example, it contains provisions regarding setbacks, a site planning process, and screening and buffering requirements. The fact that petitioner's agricultural operation and JNC have coexisted for more than twenty years is some evidence that the uses are or can be compatible. The County's proposed amendment to allow adult care facilities, day care facilities and nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category is not inconsistent with any other objective or policy, is found to be fairly debatable, and is therefore in compliance. Density and intensity standards The law (s.163.3177(6)(a), F.S.) requires that comprehensive plans contain density and intensity standards for each land use. Petitioner contends that, notwithstanding this statutory requirement, there are no standards in the amendment or the comprehensive plan for density or intensity of development of nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category. It is noted that the Agriculture 2 land use district description in Policy 1-3 of the FLUE provides a residential density but does not contain an intensity standard. FLUE Objective 1 provides, however, that "(f)uture growth and development shall continue to be managed using the County Development Code," which was adopted in April 1981. That Code spells out densities and intensities for each area. The objective further directs that the regulations be revised to address issues identified in Section 163.3203, Florida Statutes, compatibility of uses, and incentives to upgrade infrastructure. In addition, FLUE Policy 6-2 provides that the development review and approval process in the Code be the vehicle for limiting densities and intensities of development consistent with the availability of infrastructure. This policy has already been determined to be "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Rule 9J-5.005(8)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes a local government to include in its comprehensive plan documents adopted by reference but not incorporated verbatim into the plan. In this case, the County adopted in its Code specific land development regulations governing growth and development, including density and intensity standards. There was no evidence that the Code fails to meet the statutory requirement that densities and intensities be included in the plan. Indeed, as a general rule, comprehensive plans in Florida either specifically describe all of the particular uses allowed in each district, or they generally describe such uses and let the particular uses to be allowed be determined in land development regulations. Here, the County has opted for the second type. This being so, it is found that petitioner has failed to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan and plan amendment lack appropriate standards governing densities and intensities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining the County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 95-07 to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire 149 Carr Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32312-9032 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David La Croix, Esquire 521 West Olympia Avenue Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-4851
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments CPA 10-4 and CPA 10-5 adopted by Martin County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 on August 10, 2010, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State and has the responsibility of administering its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It adopted the two amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners all reside or operate a business in the County, and they submitted oral or written comments to the County during the adoption process. Intervenors are limited liability corporations owned by King Ranch Florida Operations, LLC, an agricultural operation with offices in Florida and Texas. Intervenors own the subject property, which is more commonly known as Sunrise Groves. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that Intervenors are affected persons. The Plan Amendments The amendments concern a 1,717-acre parcel of land located immediately west of, and adjacent to, Interstate 95 (I-95) in the northern part of the County. Southwest Martin Highway (also known as County Highway 714), which runs in an east-west direction, is situated on the south side of the parcel, while the site is separated by a canal on its northern boundary from the City of Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County. Aerial photographs reflect that undeveloped land lies to the west of the property. See Intervenors' Exhibit 18. At least four large and very urban Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) have been approved in Port St. Lucie, immediately north of the parcel, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the parcel. From the mid-1960's until the mid-2000's, the parcel was an active orange grove. Due to damage from citrus canker and "greening," which is an incurable, aggressive, and deadly virus affecting citrus plants, the parcel has become a literal wasteland of dead orange trees. The property is now desolate and unprofitable and cannot be converted to any other profitable or feasible agriculture use. Around the same time that the citrus grove was being destroyed, the County commissioned Urbanomics, Inc., and Leak- Goforth Company, LLC, to perform an economic study to determine how the County could better compete in the Florida market. In November 2006, the results of that study were released. See Intervenors' Ex. 11. The study indicated that the County should be pursuing various types of industrial development, with a focus on recruiting firms and institutions with 50 to 100 or more employees, or those that have capabilities and are on pace to reach this minimum employment threshold in three to five years. The study also concluded that in order to accommodate the types of industries that the County would need to pursue, it would need more space designated for industrial use. Based upon the study, the County has adopted policies in the Economic Element of the Plan regarding future economic development in the County. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 15. On September 30, 2009, Intervenors applied to the County for a new land use designation to be added to the Plan, allowing industrial uses to be combined with commercial and agricultural uses on their parcel of land. See Intervenors' Ex. 2. Intervenors also applied for a change in the land use category on their property from Agricultural to the new land use category. The re-designated parcel would become a "freestanding urban service district," which requires that the property be served by water and sewer services from a regional supplier rather than individual wells, septic tanks, or on-site package treatment plants. It would be one of two freestanding urban service districts (USDs) in the County.1 When Intervenors initially applied to the County for the amendments, the proposed future land use category was titled "I-95 Agricultural Technology & Employment Center." As the amendment evolved in subsequent months, however, a decision was made to shorten the name to something less cumbersome, which ultimately became "AgTEC," an acronym for Agriculture and Targeted Employment Center. As proposed, the AgTEC designation was significantly different from other land use designations in the Plan in a number of ways. AgTEC is a "site-specific" land use designation, tailored for a specific parcel of property, the 1,717 acres owned by Intervenors. It allows for agricultural uses to continue indefinitely on 817 acres of the parcel, if a viable agricultural use can be found in the future. It also permits new uses on a maximum of 900 acres of the parcel, but limited to certain "Primary Targeted Employment" uses and others which are ancillary to them. Residential is not an allowable use. Finally, it imposes a strict requirement that all future development of the parcel must be subject to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. On April 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved the application and voted to transmit Amendments 10-4 and 10-5 to the Department. On June 25, 2010, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report recommending that the two amendments not be adopted unless additional data were supplied and certain revisions made. See Petitioners' Ex. 4B, pp. 26-47. The Department's objections related to urban sprawl, a failure to demonstrate need, transportation deficiencies, lack of access to public facilities, and a failure to preserve agricultural lands. On July 17, 2010, Intervenors submitted a response to the ORC report, which included an update to the original application addressing the Department's concerns. They also provided additional data and analysis concerning the structure of the County's economy; location quotient data (ratios by type of economic activity in the region), which were consistent with a report submitted by Dr. Nicholson, an economist employed by Intervenors; and environmental information. On August 10, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted the FLUM amendment as Ordinance No. 881 and a revised version of the text amendment as Ordinance No. 882. See Joint Ex. 4 and 5. On October 6, 2010, the Department issued its notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance. See Joint Ex. 6. On October 7, 2010, the Department published notice of its intent to find the amendments in compliance in The Stuart News. Petitioners then timely filed their Petition, as later amended. Ordinance No. 881 refers in its title to a parcel of land known as "Sunrise Groves," which is described in the main body of the ordinance as 1,717 acres of land located west of I-95 and north of Southwest Martin Highway. The site is also defined by legal description attached as Exhibit A to that ordinance. See Joint Ex. 4, pp. 4 and 5. The title indicates that the land designation on the FLUM is being changed from Agricultural to AgTEC. Ordinance No. 882 also refers in its title to a parcel of land as "Sunrise Groves," and that a new site-specific land use category, AgTEC, is being created for that parcel. The text amendments, which are attached as Exhibit A, provide further site-specific indicators of where the new land use designation applies. See Joint Ex. 5, pp. 5-17. They describe an area that is 1,717 acres in size, state that AgTEC uses may be no closer than 300 feet from any existing residential use, and require provision of the right-of-way for a multi-lane arterial north-south roadway "connecting Martin Highway [in Martin County] to Becker Road [in adjoining St. Lucie County], providing the opportunity for a regional parallel reliever road to I-95 . . . ." Id. at pp. 6 and 7. This roadway (an extension of Village Parkway) is specifically depicted on a conceptual map showing the general location where it is to be built. See Joint Ex. 5, AgTEC Long Range Transp. Map. Petitioners contend that the text amendment does not clearly identify the location of the property or Intervenors' parcel as the subject of the amendments, partly because the ordinance title and conceptual map will not become a part of the Plan. However, Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 clearly refer to the same specific parcel of land intended for designation as "AgTEC" and subject to the requirements of the AgTEC future land use category. When reading the two ordinances, a reasonable person would not be confused as to which property designated for the new land use category applies. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that no other parcel of land within the County could be similarly designated as "AgTEC," absent an amendment to the AgTEC future land use category in the Plan. Petitioners' Objections As narrowed by their stipulation and the withdrawal of certain issues at hearing, Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions within the Plan; that the amendments encourage urban sprawl; that the amendments impermissibly convert land designated for agricultural purposes to other uses; that the text amendment is based upon the Plan that was in effect prior to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments that became effective in January 2011, thereby creating internal inconsistencies; that there is no demonstrated need for the amendments; that the amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis; and that the amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for implementation. A contention that the text amendment includes unauthorized self-amending language is not addressed in Petitioners' proposed recommended order and is presumed to be abandoned. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other FLUE provisions in numerous respects. Some of these consistency arguments are based on the fact that the text amendments in Ordinance No. 882 use the numbering system for the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUE that was in effect when Ordinance No. 882 was adopted on August 10, 2010, rather than the new numbering system that became effective on January 3, 2011.2 As described in Endnote 2, infra, the new numbering system was adopted by the County during the months- long process of amending the Plan during the EAR process. The new text added to the Plan during that time-frame will simply be re-numbered by the Municipal Code Corporation, which publishes the codified version of the Plan, to conform to the new numbering system. This is consistent with the publisher's authority under Part 6 of Ordinance No. 882, which states in relevant part: "CODIFICATION. The word 'ordinance' may be changed to 'article[,]' 'section[,]' or other word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered." Joint Ex. 5, p. 3. This codification provision is found in every ordinance adopting a text amendment. By way of example, the content in section 4.4.g.1.n(3) in Ordinance No. 882 (on page 17 of Joint Exhibit 5) will be recodified in new policy 4.7A.14, which replaces the old section. Except for the new number, the content of both provisions is the same. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4, p. 50. There was no evidence that the new EAR- based amendments create an inconsistency with these amendments. Petitioners also contend that an internal inconsistency in the Plan arises due to two references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance No. 882 (on pages 7 and 11), and a single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 (on page 2). They also argue that the "I-95 AgTEC" category lacks "meaningful and predictable standards for implementation" as a land use designation if it is distinct from the "AgTEC" category. However, they failed to present any evidence that Intervenors or the County intended to create two different future land use categories. The evidence supports a finding that both references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance 882 were merely "vestigial" references (i.e., references made during an early stage of the amendment process) to the initial title proposed for the land use category when Intervenors first applied to the County. The evidence shows that the County staff simply missed the two references when it conducted an electronic "find and replace" search intended to convert all references in the ordinance to "AgTEC" before presenting the final draft to the Board for adoption. Except for these two references to "I-95 AgTEC," the ordinance consistently uses the "AgTEC" title for the land use designations. Both references are merely scrivener's errors. The single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is simply a misspelling of the proper title of the new future land use category to be applied to the property. The simultaneous adoption of the two ordinances, the application for both ordinances by the same applicant, and the obvious similarity between the correct spelling and the misspelling support a finding that the use of "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is also a scrivener's error. Historically, after securing Board approval, the staff has been authorized to correct errors in the FLUM without a formal amendment; however, the County Growth Management Director could not recall a situation where a scrivener's error in a text amendment had occurred and was unsure as to how that type of error would be corrected. More than likely, these scrivener's errors will be corrected by another plan amendment. In any event, these non-substantive, minor scrivener's errors do not render the amendments not in compliance. Petitioners further contend that the amendments are inconsistent with the County's stated policy of preserving agricultural lands. See Joint Ex. 1, FLUE policy 4.12A.1. However, the amendments preserve almost one-half of the land (817 acres) for agricultural purposes even though the entire parcel is now unproductive. Petitioners also argue that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 4.13A.1.(2)(a) and (b), which provide that the conversion of agricultural land to another land use may be done only when it does not affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands, and only when it is a "logical and timely extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area." As noted above, there are four approved DRIs immediately north of the parcel in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie, including a large regional mall on the parcel's northern boundary. The new land use is a logical extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area. Also, there is no evidence that the new land use will affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands. To the contrary, the evidence shows that any adjacent agricultural areas to the west are protected by a requirement that 75 percent of the common open space be along the western border. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the cited policies. Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with a series of FLUE policies that, in general terms: (a) require the availability of services and facilities before expanded urban development may be approved (FLUE policies 4.1B.2., 4.1B.3., and 4.13A.1.(b)); (b) prohibit any regional utility from serving customers outside the Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD) (FLUE policies 4.7A.2.-4., 4.7A.10., 4.7B.8.(6)-(7), and 4.7B.9.); and (c) prohibit urban development outside the PUSD (FLUE policy 4.13A.9.). Although couched differently, the essence of the argument is that the amendments allow development in an area that is not presently within any PUSD or SUSD, thereby creating an issue of internal inconsistency with other provisions of the Plan. The existing Plan establishes two main types of "urban service districts" in the County: a PUSD and a SUSD. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4. There is an "eastern" PUSD that includes most of the unincorporated coastal area of the County, surrounding the Cities of Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park. Adjacent to the eastern PUSD is a much smaller eastern SUSD. See Joint Ex. 3. Several miles west of the boundaries of the eastern PUSD and SUSD there is a smaller "Indiantown" PUSD that consists of the unincorporated inland area of the County known by that name, and an adjacent Indiantown SUSD. Id. The County's purpose for having USDs is to "regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in the Plan." Joint Ex. 1, FLUE Goal 4.7. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is generally limited by the Plan to the land inside the County's USDs. The term "public urban facilities and services" is defined as "[r]egional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 2, § 2.2(127). The Plan also contains numerous provisions that establish a broad prohibition against all industrial uses and most commercial uses on land outside the County's USDs. The Plan expressly provides for the creation of so- called "Freestanding Urban Service Districts" within the County. See Joint Ex. 1. Ordinance No. 882 includes an amendment to FLUE section 4.4.M.1.h.(5) to establish that land designated as AgTEC shall be a freestanding USD. See Joint Ex. 5, p. 8. It also amends FLUE section 4.4.g.1.n.(3) to include land designated AgTEC as one of several enumerated "exceptions to the general prohibitions on development outside of the [PUSD]." Id. at p. 17. This means that the amendment creates its own exception from restrictions in the Plan that might otherwise apply to development outside the PUSD. Therefore, the prohibitions against a regional utility serving a customer outside the PUSD and SUSD, or expanding urban development outside a PUSD, do not apply. As noted above, these amended section numbers will be renumbered in the codification process to conform to the numbering in the new EAR-based amendments. However, the content remains the same. See Finding of Fact 18, supra. Petitioners presented no evidence that the freestanding USD for the AgTEC-designated land would lack the urban public facilities and services that would be necessary under the Plan. Utility services do not have to be physically available at the property boundary before a change in land use can be approved; they must only be planned or programmed. To be programmed, the services may be identified in the capital improvement element of the Plan or appear in a DRI approval. According to Mr. Dulin, County Senior Planner, the utility services for the parcel appear in "one or a number of the [DRIs] approved in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie." This type of arrangement for services is not unusual, as the County now provides services to some areas in St. Lucie County, while Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County provide services to certain areas in the County. The evidence shows that Port St. Lucie has the capacity to meet the requirements of the development, and that those services will be paid for by the developer, and not the County. At the amendment stage, the lack of a formal written agreement between the developer and Port St. Lucie is of no concern, as one is not required until the Intervenors seek a development order from the County. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the FLUE. Urban Sprawl Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 "primary indicators" of urban sprawl to be considered in the review of plan amendments to determine whether the presence of multiple indicators "collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(5)(d). Petitioners' expert, Charles G. Pattison, contends that, with the exception of four indicators (1, 4, 11, and 13), all other indicators are triggered by the changes effectuated through the amendments being challenged. However, indicator 3 was not raised in the Amended Petition or stipulation. Therefore, only the remaining eight indicators will be addressed. See Heartland Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Dep't of Community Affairs, Case No. 94-2095GM (Fla. DOAH Oct. 15, 1996), modified in part, Case No. DCA-96-FOI-GM (Fla. DCA Nov. 25, 1996), 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63. Indicator 2 requires a determination as to whether the amendments promote, allow, or designate "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. As noted above, large and very urban DRIs have been approved in neighboring Port St. Lucie just north of Intervenors' property, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the property. Also, some of the infrastructure for these developments has been constructed immediately north of Intervenors' parcel, to which the infrastructure on Intervenors' parcel is required to connect. It is unreasonable to ignore this development simply because it lies within an adjacent local government, rather than viewing the existing and approved development in the area as a whole. A more reasonable approach is to consider the existing urban areas immediately to the north of the parcel. Indicator 5 requires an analysis to determine whether the amendments fail to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)5. Because the parcel is bordered on the east by I-95 and on the north by DRIs in Port St. Lucie, the only areas of concern affected by this indicator would be to the south or west of the parcel. Petitioners failed to prove, however, that the AgTEC requirements for buffers on the east and south boundaries and required open space on the western border of the site constitute inadequate protection for any adjacent agricultural areas or activities within the meaning of the rule. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)6.-8. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve a proposed use. As noted above, the provider of water and sewer services to Intervenors' parcel (Port St. Lucie) has ample capacity to meet its projected needs and the capability of doing so from adequately sized lines located within a quarter of a mile from the parcel. Also, there is no credible evidence that there will be a lack of transportation infrastructure to meet the demand expected to be placed on the parcel. Indicator 9 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments fail "to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Through the use of setbacks, buffers, and other site design criteria, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments create a sufficiently clear separation between the industrial/commercial uses that would be allowed and any rural uses to the south and west of the site. Petitioners did not identify any adjacent rural uses that would require such separation. Indicator 10 requires that the amendments do not discourage or inhibit infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. While Petitioners pointed out that there are other parcels in the County currently designated for industrial use, those parcels are either too small or too scattered to attract the types of industrial development desired by the County, which are described in the Economic Element of the Plan. Further, there was no evidence that the other smaller and scattered parcels would be adversely affected by the large-scale development envisioned on the AgTEC land. Finally, indicator 12 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments result "in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(g)12. The evidence shows that the AgTEC requirements for new transportation infrastructure, coupled with the existing access from two adjacent interchanges on I-95, provide ample accessibility for the parcel and other related land uses. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that none of the primary indicators of urban sprawl at issue are triggered by the amendments. Other Issues Petitioners assert that Intervenors failed to demonstrate a need for commercial or industrial land outside the USDs. They also contend that the economic study performed by Dr. Nicholson failed to consider other vacant parcels of land designated for industrial use, including large amounts of acreage in Palm City and Indiantown. However, Dr. Nicholson established that of the 2,590 acres of available industrial land in the County, the vast majority of these sites are small, less than five acres in size, and are inadequate. He also established that the County lacks any well-planned, amenity- oriented industrial, office, or business parks, which would be the type of development contemplated on Intervenors' parcel. It is fairly debatable that the needs analysis submitted by Intervenors is adequate to support the amendments. Although raised as an issue, there was no evidence that the amendments are internally inconsistent with any provisions within the Economic Element of the Plan. All other contentions not specifically addressed herein have been considered and rejected. Improper Purpose Because they did not substantially change the outcome of the Department's determination that the amendments are in compliance, Petitioners are non-prevailing adverse parties. See § 120.595(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat. Therefore, it is necessary to make a determination as to whether Petitioners participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose," as that term is defined in section 120.595(1)(e)1. Petitioners generally alleged that the amendments were internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in numerous respects, that they encouraged urban sprawl, that they contain substantive errors that cannot be corrected in this proceeding, and that there is no needs analysis to support the amendments. Each of these contentions was ultimately found to be without merit, and contrary evidence on these issues submitted by the County and Intervenors was credited. However, when taken as a whole, the record does not support a finding that Petitioners participated in this proceeding "primarily" to harass the applicants, increase the cost of litigation, or cause them unnecessary delay. The Amended Petition was not frivolous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Section 2.01.03M. as amended, of the Walton County Land Development Code is consistent with Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5), of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County Comprehensive Plan was adopted on November 7, 1996. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan provides in pertinent part: Policy L-1.1.1: Development within the various land use categories depicted on the Future Land Use Map shall be governed by the following permitted uses and densities and intensities of use. These land use categories are grouped and identified below as (A) Land Use Categories Exclusive to North Walton County; (B) Land Use Categories Exclusive to South Walton County; and (c) Land Use Categories Common to Both North and South Walton County. * * * COASTAL CENTER (CC): This land use category is primarily residential, allowing medium densities and support uses . . . (a) Uses in the Coastal Center include: Public uses are squares, parks and playgrounds. Civic uses include libraries, post offices, churches, and similar facilities. Workplaces shall be limited to offices and artisanal uses. Commercial shall be for retail, entertainment, restaurant, services and lodging. Residential uses have a maximum density of eight (8) units per acre. The entire Land Development Code of Walton County was readopted on July 24, 1997, by Ordinance 97-28. At the time Petitioners initiated their challenge, Section 2.01.03M of the Land Development Code provided n pertinent part: Section 2.01.03M COASTAL CENTER (CC): The areas within this mixed use land use district are primarily residential, allowing medium density residential densities and supporting uses. . . Uses Allowed: The uses allowed in this district include: Public uses Civic uses Workplace, limited to offices and artisanal uses General Commercial Residential Multifamily Residential Residential Density Allowed: The maximum allowable density for residential development in this district is eight (8) units per acre (8 units/1 acre). Commercial Intensity Allowed: Commercial and industrial development within this district shall have a maximum floor area ration of 1.5 and an impervious surface ratio of .75. Section 2.01.04A of the Land Development Code provides in pertinent part: General Commercial - A wide variety of general commercial, commercial recreational, entertainment, and related activities is included in this group of uses: department stores; hospitals; hotels or motels; LP gas storage and distribution facilities below 1,000 gallons; marinas; miniature golf, driving ranges; outdoor arenas, rodeo grounds, livestock auction facilities, racetracks (auto, dog, go-cart, horse, motorcycle), shooting and firing ranges, and similar activities; miniwarehouses; plant nurseries; recreation vehicle and travel trailer parks; shopping centers; taverns, bars, lounges, nightclubs, and dance halls; theaters and auditoriums; vehicle sales, rental, service, and repair, including carwash facilities, and the sales, rental, repair and service of new or used automobiles, boats, buses, farm equipment, motorcycles, trucks, recreational vehicles, and mobile homes; veterinary offices and animal hospitals; mobile home parks; indoor recreational uses; all neighborhoods serving commercial/retail uses; mini storage; and inventory storage as part of a business. Petitioners reside at 139 North Holiday Road, Destin, Florida 32541 in Walton County, Florida, which is designated in the Coastal Center category on the Future Land Use Map of Walton County's Comprehensive Plan. In the County's Response to Petition I dated March 31, 1998, the County acknowledged that "industrial" land uses are not allowed within the Coastal Center category under the Comprehensive Plan, and that, therefore, this provision of the Land Development Code is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The County also responded that, "Retail, entertainment, restaurants, services, and lodging are general commercial uses." The Comprehensive Plan limits the commercial uses in the Coastal Center category to those uses. The County intended that any use listed in the Land Development Code under general commercial which is not retail, entertainment, restaurant, services, or lodging is not allowed in Coastal Center. On May 18, 1998, an informal hearing was conducted by the Department at the Walton County Courthouse Board Room. Each Petitioner and the County were provided opportunities to present written or oral evidence to the Department to aid it in reaching a determination about consistency. After the informal hearing the Department determined that Section 2.01.03M of the Code was inconsistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan. In its Determination of Inconsistency, the Department found that, because Section 2.01.03M.3. of the Code allows industrial uses in the Coastal Center, when such land uses are not permitted in the Coastal Center under the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.01.03M.3 of the Land Development Code is inconsistent with Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5) of the Plan. The Department also found that because Section 2.01.03M, when read together with Section 2.01.04A of the Land Development Code, expands on the type of commercial uses permitted within the Coastal Center land use district under Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5) of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.01.03M of the Code is inconsistent with the Plan. On November 16, 1998, the County adopted the following amendments to its Land Development Code by Ordinance No. 98-21: Section 2.01.03M. COASTAL CENTER(CC): The areas within this mixed use land use district are primarily residential densities and supporting uses . . . Uses Allowed: The uses allowed in this district include: Public uses Civic uses Workplace, limited to offices and artisanal uses Commercial shall be for retail, entertainment, restaurant, services and lodging Residential Multifamily Residential Residential Density Allowed: The maximum allowable density for residential development in this district is eight units per acre (8 units/1 acre). Commercial Intensity Allowed: Commercial development within this district shall have a maximum floor area ration of 1.5 and an impervious surface ratio of .75. The amendment to Section 2.01.03M of Walton County's Land Development Code is virtually identical in language to the language of Policy L-1.1.(B)(5) of Walton County's Comprehensive Plan. Section 2.01.03M of the Land Development Code as amended clearly is consistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan.
