The Issue Whether an amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, PC-93-12, adopted by Ordinance 93-42, renders the Broward County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993)
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Francis C. Nipe, is an individual who resides and owns real property located in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Nipe presented oral and written comments to Broward County concerning the plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is a local government charged with responsibility by Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and the Broward County Charter for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County. The County is also responsible for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged by the Act with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Intervenor, Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of business located in the County. Intervenor, Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, also has his principal place of business located in the County and is the contract purchaser of the property which is the subject of the amendment at issue. Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., submitted oral and written comments to the County concerning the subject amendment during the amendment process. (Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., and Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, will hereinafter be jointly referred to as "Swerdlow"). Intervenor, VST/VMIF Oakridge Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "VST"), owns the real property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this proceeding. VST submitted written comments during the amendment process. Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., as agent for Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, and VST, was the applicant for the amendment at issue in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is generally a rectangular-shaped geographic area located in southeastern Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Dade County, on the west by Collier and Hendry Counties and on the north by Palm Beach County. The County's Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with the Act on March 1, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan"). Volume 1 of the County Plan consists of the Broward County Land Use Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Plan"). The Land Use Plan applies throughout the County. Broward County composite exhibit 1. Volume 2 of the County Plan contains the other elements required by the Act. Some of the elements of Volume 2 apply throughout the County and some apply only to unincorporated areas or areas in which the County provides services. Volume 3 of the County Plan consists of supporting documents for the Land Use Plan. Broward County composite exhibit 1. The County Plan includes a 1989 Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), which is a part of the Land Use Plan. Broward County exhibit 6. The Land Use Plan establishes several categories of land uses. The future land use categories established are: Residential: A number of uses are allowed within areas designated "residential." The following subcategories, based upon dwelling densities, are established: Estate (1) Residential. Low (2) Residential. Low (3) Residential. Low (5) Residential. Low-Medium (10) Residential. Medium (16) Residential. Medium-High (25) Residential. High (50) Residential. Other subcategories of residential property include: Rural Estates. Rural Rances. Commercial. Office Park. Commercial Recreation. Industrial. Employment Center. Recreation and Open Space. Conservation. Agricultural. Community Facilities. Transportation. Utilities. Regional Activity Centers. Mining. The FLUM depicts the proposed distribution, extent and location of land use designations for the County. The County Plan creates the Broward County Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Council"), as an advisory body to the County Commission. Initial Consideration of the Subject Amendment. The County received a request to amend the County Plan by changing the land use designation of approximately 143 acres of real property from Low-Medium (10), Commercial Recreation and Irregular (6) Residential to primarily Low (5) Residential. In June of 1993 the area included in the application was reduced from 143 acres to 109 acres. The 109 acres are classified as Commercial Recreation. On July 7, 1993, it was requested that the land use designation of the 109 acres being sought by the applicant be reduced to Low (3) Residential. The County approved the request to change the land use designation of the 109 acres of Commercial Recreation to Low (3) Residential (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), and transmitted the Amendment to the Department for review. The Department's Initial Review of the Subject Amendment. The Department reviewed the Amendment and prepared its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), dated September 24, 1993. Comments of various entities were considered by the Department during its review. The Department raised two objections to the Amendment in the ORC. One objection was that the County had not provided peak hour analysis of traffic conditions impacted by the Amendment both before and after the Amendment. The Department's objection concerning traffic conditions was based upon comments from the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"). DOT had requested that a P.M. peak-hour traffic analysis be provided for roads serving the property which is the subject of the Amendment. The Department also objected to the Amendment because the County had failed to provide adequate data and analysis demonstrating a need for increased residential density to accommodate the projected population. The County's Response to the ORC and Approval of the Amendment. On October 28, 1993, the Planning Council recommended approval and adoption of the Amendment, as modified. On November 10, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance 93-42. Included in Ordinance 93-42 were a number of amendments to the County Plan, including the Amendment, PC-93-12. Pursuant to the Amendment, the land use designation of approximately 109 acres of real property, was amended from Commercial Recreation to Low (3) Residential. In response to the ORC, the County informed the Department that a P.M. peak-hour traffic analysis was not required for the Amendment because the Traffic Circulation Element of the County Plan is based upon an analysis of average daily trips. The method utilized in the County Plan utilizes average daily traffic in the calculation of levels of service for affected roadways. In response to the Department's objection concerning the need for additional residential property, the County reported that the Amendment property is located in the southeast sector of the County and that the southeast sector is generally built out. The Department was also informed that facilities and services in the Southeast sector are in place. The County also took the position that the Amendment constitutes "infill" development. Finally, the County pointed out to the Department that the number of dwelling units permitted by the Land Use Plan for the southeast sector have been reduced by over 2,124 units through amendments to the County Plan. The County also informed the Department that revised population figures suggest an additional increase in population for the southeast sector of 1, 327. Therefore, there will be no increase in total projected residential units in the southeast sector as a result of the Amendment. Final Department Review. The Department discussed the County's response concerning traffic projections with DOT. DOT withdrew its objection and the Department accepted the County's explanation. The Department considered and accepted the County's response to the objections contained in the ORC concerning the adequacy of data and analysis to support an increase in residential property. The Department determined that the additional data and analysis were adequate. The suggestion that the Amendment constitutes "in fill" was not part of the reason the Department accepted the County's explanation for why an increase in residential property was being approved. On January 4, 1994 the Department entered a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment in compliance. Ms. Nipe's Challenge to the Amendment. On or about March 11, 1994, Ms. Nipe filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing of Frances Nipe with the Department challenging the Amendment. In the petition, Ms. Nipe alleged that the Amendment is not "in compliance" for essentially the following reasons: The "residential density has not sufficiently been supported by data and analysis that the increase in residential density is necessary to accommodate the projected population." In support of this argument, Ms. Nipe cited Rules 9J-5.006(2)(a) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 9J- 11.006(1)(b)4. and (3) [incorrectly cited as 9J-11.00.006(1)(b)4. and (3)], Florida Administrative Code. The Amendment is inconsistent with Broward County Land Use Plan - Chapter 5, Section B, Commercial Recreation Use, 2., . . ." and will have a detrimental impact upon tourism development in the County. The Amendment will further degrade the level of educational services. The Amendment will "place additional trips on existing over capacity roads." The rationale of the applicant for the Amendment is inadequate in that the subject property "contains sufficient acreage that a redesigned golf course would meet USGA Standards as well as accommodate some residential development" and "[n]eighbors and Patrons are not Golf Professionals and don't care if the course meets USGA Standards to the Letter." The Amendment is "highly insensitive to the natural oak hammock areas on the subject property " The Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 02.03.00, Goal 03.00.00, Objective 03.03.00 and Policy 03.03.00 "in that it contradicts the Tourism development policies and undermines the Commercial Recreation Land Use designation." Ms. Nipe also suggested in her petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. I. The Subject Property. The property which is the subject of the Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), consists of 109 acres of real property located in the City of Hollywood, a city located in the County. The Property is located in the southeast section of the County. The Property is located east of Southwest 35th Terrace, south of Griffin Road, west of Southwest 31st Avenue and north of Stirling Road. The Property, and the property of which it is a part, is currently being used as a golf course. The golf course is named Oakridge Golf Course. Oakridge Golf Course is an eighteen hole course. Most, but not all, of the eighteen holes are located on the Property. The land use designation of twenty-nine acres of the parcel of property of which the Property is a part has been changed from Commercial Recreation to Commercial. The amendment changing the designation was adopted September 14, 1992 and has become final. The twenty-nine acres of commercial property include portions of four of the holes of Oakridge Golf Course. Oakridge Golf Course is the closest golf course to downtown Fort Lauderdale, a city located in the County; the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport; the Broward County Convention Center; Port Everglades, a port used by cruise ships; and several large hotels located in the eastern part of the County. Compliance with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. The City of Hollywood approved a Land Use Plan Amendment for the Property changing the land use designation of the Property to Low (3) Residential. The City's amendment has become final. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis to Support an Increase in Residential Property. The Land Use Plan includes the following Goal and Objective concerning residential use of property in the County: GOAL 01.00.00 PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITIES OFFERING CONVENIENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL SEGMENTS OF BROWARD COUNTY'S POPULATION WHILE MAINTAINING A DESIRED QUALITY OF LIFE AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. OBJECTIVE 01.01.00 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES AND PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. The Low (3) Residential land use designation is defined by the County Plan as permitting "up to three (3) dwelling units per gross acre." Page IV-23, Volume one, BC exhibit 1. There has been a decrease of 2,214 dwelling units in the southeast sector of the County while the County's projected population increase has been increased by 1,327 people. The evidence failed to prove that consideration of population needs of the southeast sector of the County is unreasonable or inappropriate. The evidence also failed to prove that consideration of the need for residential property by sectors is inconsistent with the County Plan or otherwise is unreasonable. The City of Hollywood currently has sufficient land for approximately six thousand housing units. The evidence, however, failed to prove that all of the land can be utilized to meet future housing needs. As stated by Robert L. Davis, the Director of Community Planning and Development of the City of Hollywood, "[i]t really to be perfectly understood you need to explore the locational aspects of where that area is, how large an area it is and what inducement it would have to really encourage the kind of investment we think is necessary." Pages 276-277 of the transcript of the final hearing. Ms. Nipe failed to present evidence to prove that the information submitted to the Department in response to the ORC as Attachment 8 to the Staff Report was inadequate to support the County's suggestion that the increase in residential property is necessary to accommodate projected population for the County. Ms. Nipe also failed to present evidence to refute the methodologies used by the County and accepted by the Department. Commercial Recreation Requirements of the Plan. The "Plan Implementation Requirements" of the Land Use Plan provides the following concerning the Commercial Recreation land use designation: Commercial Recreation areas are designated on the Future Broward County Land Plan Map (Series), consistent with Objective 02.03.00, to accommodate major public and private commercial recreation facilities which offer recreational opportunities to the residents and tourists of Broward County. Although some of these facilities operate as an adjunct to or an integral part of other types of development, most of these facilities were conceived as profit-making enterprises. Commercial recreation ventures in Broward County can be divided into two categories; golf courses and commercial recreation associated with structures and/or indoor facilities. Those uses permitted in areas designated commercial recreation are as follows: Outdoor and indoor recreation facilities such as active recreation complexes, marinas, stadiums, jai-alai frontons, bowling alleys, golf courses, and dog and horse racing facilities. Accessory facilities, including outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, that are determined by the local government entity to be an integral part of and supportive to the primary recreation facility (excluding residential uses). Hotels, motels and similar lodging ancillary to the primary commercial recreation use. Other active and passive recreation uses. Recreational vehicle sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the local land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such location is prohibited by the local land development regulations; subject to the allocation by the local government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. The following Objective and Policy relating to the Commercial Recreation land use designation is provided in the Land Use Plan: OBJECTIVE 02.03.00 COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE CATEGORY Establish within the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) a commercial recreation category which would encompass those public and private recreational facilities necessary within a resort area such as Broward County. POLICY 02.03.01 Permit those uses within designated commercial recreation areas which are identified in the Commercial Recreation Permitted Uses subsection of the Plan Implementation Requirements section of the Broward County Land Use Plan. Objective 02.03.00 merely requires the establishment of a "commercial recreation" category in the County Plan. It does not require that any specific amount of land be designated as commercial recreation or that, once so designated, the designation of a parcel of real property as commercial recreation should not be changed. Policy 02.03.01 merely requires that any parcel of real property classified as commercial recreation may be utilized for the purposes identified in the Commercial Recreation Permitted Uses subsection of the Plan Implementation Requirements section of the County Plan. This policy does not require that any specific amount of land be designated as commercial recreation or that, once so designated, the designation of a parcel of real property as commercial recreation should not be changed. The "Plan Implementation Requirements" of the Land Use Plan concerning the Commercial Recreation land use designation merely explain the purpose of the designation and identify the permitted uses within areas designated commercial recreation. There is no requirement contained in the Plan Implementation Requirements that a certain amount of land be designated commercial recreation or that, once so-designated, real property cannot be placed in a different category. The evidence failed to prove that the County Plan prohibits the reclassification of real property from commercial recreation to other categories. No provision of the County Plan has been referred to that establishes a minimum requirement for commercial recreation. The Property is not considered part of the parks and recreation property on the County. Therefore, the Amendment will not result in a decrease in the level of parks and recreation services available. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the County Plan as alleged in her petition. Degradation of School Services. The County Plan does not establish "levels of service" for schools or a methodology for determining schools that are "affected" by an amendment. Although the County has adopted goals, objectives and policies pertaining to educational facilities, those goals, objective and policies were not in effect at the time the Amendment was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that any school services will be degraded as a result of the Amendment or that the impact of the Amendment on school services was not considered by the County in adopting the Amendment. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with any portion of the County Plan dealing with school services. Degradation of Roads. There are a number of goals, objectives and policies contained in the County Plan which address the issue of traffic facilities and circulation. Ms. Nipe has failed to cite any of those provisions in support of her argument that the Amendment "would place additional trips on existing over capacity roads. The County and Swerdlow have cited a number of provisions of the County Plan that deal with transportation. Those findings (County 37 and 38) are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order. An analysis of the traffic impact of the Amendment was prepared by the Planning Council and presented to the County for consideration. That analysis addressed: the net difference between vehicular trips from the golf course and those expected from the new classification of the Property; the distribution of the projected increase in traffic to affected roads (Griffin Road in the north and Stirling Road in the south); the average daily traffic on affected roads after the increase in traffic; and the anticipated level of service of the affected roads in the years 1997 and 2010. The County's analysis indicated that the Amendment would not cause the affected roads to exceed the level of service contained in the County Plan in the short-term or long-term. The method used in the County Plan and utilized in conjunction with the Amendment is consistent with plan amendment data and analysis requirements of Rule 9J-5 and Rule 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. The only evidence offered by Ms. Nipe in support of her challenge concerning traffic impact is a memorandum from "Roy Groves" of the County Office of Planning. Mr. Groves did not testify in this proceeding. The comments made by Mr. Groves, therefore, cannot be relied upon to support Ms. Nipe's contention. Additionally, Mr. Groves' comments deal with a "compact deferral area" resulting from an over-capacity road segment of State Road 7 and U.S. 441. The evidence failed to prove that the roads impacted by the Amendment are part of a compact deferral area or that State Road 7 and/or U.S. 441 will be impacted. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the impact on traffic of the Amendment is inconsistent with the Act, Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code or the County Plan. The Applicant's Rationale for the Amendment. The Planning Council informed the County of the reasons advanced by the applicant for the Amendment. It was suggested that the proposed classification of the Property is consistent with the surrounding area and that the continued operation of the golf course is not longer financially feasible. The evidence failed to prove that the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, state and regional plans, or the County Plan require that applicants for County Plan amendments include a rationale or justification for the requested amendment. The evidence also failed to prove that the applicant's rationale provided formed the basis for the County's decision to adopt the Amendment. The Impact on Oak Hammocks. The Property does not include any oak hammocks. The evidence failed to prove that there will be any impact on oak hammocks as a result of approval of the Amendment. Enhancement to the County's Tourist Industry. The County Plan contains the following Goal, Objective and Policy relating to the tourist industry in the County: GOAL 03.00.00 ACHIEVE A MORE DIVERSIFIED LOCAL ECONOMY BY PROMOTING TOURISM AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND PROVIDING OPTIMUM PROTECTION OF THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTAINING A DESIRED QUALITY OF LIFE. . . . . OBJECTIVE 03.03.00 ENHANCE BROWARD COUNTY'S TOURIST INDUSTRY Increase Broward County's attractiveness to tourists through the establishment of a land use pattern and development regulations aimed at enhancing the area's natural and man-made environments such as beaches, shorelines and marine facilities. . . . . POLICY 03.03.03 Activities intended to diversify Broward County's economy should not adversely impact the quality of life of the County's permanent, seasonal, or tourist populations. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of the Goal, Objective or Policy quoted in finding of fact 78. There will still be three golf courses owned by the City of Hollywood and three privately owned golf courses open to the public in the City of Hollywood after the closure of Oakridge Golf Course. Although there was testimony concerning the proximity of the Property to various areas of the County, the evidence failed to prove that tourist are attracted to the Property or that the loss of the golf course on the Property will adversely impact the tourist industry in Broward County. There was also evidence that there are a limited number of commercial recreation uses of property such as golf courses in the County and that the establishment of additional commercial recreation golf courses is unlikely in urban areas. That evidence, however, failed to prove that the limited number of such uses is inadequate or that there is a need for additional golf courses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance 93- 42, is "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code (1993). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX Case Number 94-1610GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms. Nipe's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 35 and 36. Statement of law. 3 Accepted in 10, 20, 27 and 41-42. 4 Accepted in 20 and 27. 5-6 Accepted in 56. 7-9 Accepted in 55. 10-11 Accepted in 43. 12-13 Although true, Ms. Nipe failed to explain the relevancy of these findings. See 57-60. 14-18 Accepted in 45. Although true, Ms. Nipe failed to explain the relevancy of these findings. See 57-60. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21-23 Accepted in 78. 24 Not relevant. 25-26 Not relevant. These proposed findings pertain to arguments not raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 27 Accepted in 27. 28-29 Not relevant. 30-31 Accepted in 82. 32 Not relevant. These proposed findings pertain to arguments not raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 33-34 Hereby accepted. See 52. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The County's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 5 and 7. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 41-42. Not relevant. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19. 18-19 Accepted in 20. 20 Accepted in 25. 21-22 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 78. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 79. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 55. 31-32 Not relevant. Accepted in 49. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 49. Not relevant. Accepted in 67. To the extent relevant, accepted in 67. Not relevant. See 64. Accepted in 63. 41-45 Not relevant. The issue that these proposed findings relate to was not sufficiently raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 46 Accepted in 57-60. 47-48 See 65. 49 Not relevant. 50 See 65. 51 Not relevant. See 64. 52 Accepted in 76. 53-54 Not relevant. 55 Hereby accepted and see 36. 56-61 Not relevant. 62-63 Accepted in 74. 64 Accepted in 73. 65-66 Accepted in 21. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 29 and 51. Accepted in 31. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 53-54. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 68. 79-84 Hereby Accepted. Accepted in 68. Accepted in 70. Accepted in 71. 88-91 Hereby accepted. 92 Accepted in 72. 93-94 Not relevant. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1-2. 2 Accepted in 4. 3 Accepted in 3. 4 Accepted in 5. 4 Accepted in 6. 5 Accepted in 8. 6 Accepted in 9. 7 Accepted in 10. 8 Accepted in 11. 9-10 Volume 2 was not offered into evidence. 11-12 Accepted in 15. 13-14 Accepted in 56 and 78. Accepted in 57-58 and 79 Accepted in 26. Accepted in 35-36. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 38 and 40-41. The Property is not, however, in the unincorporated area. Accepted in 21-22. Accepted in 23-24. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 29 and 31. Accepted in 28, 70 and 72. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 32. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 53-54. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 65-66. Swerdlow's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 5 and 7. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 55. See 15. Accepted in 15 and 49. Accepted in 48. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 35-36. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 38-40. Accepted in 41. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 46. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 20. 30-32 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 21 Accepted in 21 and 23. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 228 and 32. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 29 and 31. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 33 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 53. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 36 and 55. 49-50 Accepted in 57-60. 51-56 Not relevant. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 63. See 64. Accepted in 65. See 65. Not relevant. Accepted in 65. Not relevant. Accepted in 36. 66-67 Accepted in 71 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 Accepted in 68. 71-73 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 67. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68-69. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68. Hereby accepted. 80-81 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68-69. Accepted in 67. 84-85 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 36. 89-90 Accepted in 74. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 76-77. Accepted in 79. Accepted in 81. Accepted in 80. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Chris Mancino, Esquire 1215 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tracy H. Lautenschlager Assistant County Attorney 115 South Andrews Avenue Room 423 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Barbara A. Hall, Esquire 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William S. Spencer, Esquire Post Office Box 6 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 John H. Pelzer, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
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 EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 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 30th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Kathleen Burson owns property and resides at 2950 Knox McRae Drive in Titusville. Her residence is located near the land affected by the FLUM amendment. Petitioner submitted comments and objections regarding the amendment to the Titusville City Commission. The City of Titusville is a municipality 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. Intervenor Ravi Shah was the applicant for the comprehensive plan amendment and a companion zoning change. He signed a contract to purchase the property affected by the amendment. At the time of the hearing, the contract's expiration date had passed. However, Intervenor is pursuing mediation under the terms of the contract to contest and prevent the termination of his right to purchase the property. The Amendment The amendment changes the FLUM designations for a portion of a 18.17-acre parcel of land ("the property") located at the intersection of State Road 405 (South Street) and Fox Lake Road. The amendment was formally approved by Ordinance 72- 2007, issued by the City on December 11, 2007, and was designated Small Scale Amendment 15-2007. The property had two FLUM designations before the amendment, Residential High Density and Conservation. The amendment changes a portion of the Residential High Density area to Conservation. It changes an area formerly designated Residential High Density and Conservation to Commercial Low Intensity. It changes an area formerly designated Conservation to Residential Low Density. Respondent's Exhibit 10 and Petitioner's Exhibit 50, respectively, depict the "before" and "after" land use designations. Concurrent with the comprehensive plan amendment, the City approved a rezoning of the property. Petitioner and the City presented evidence related to the rezoning and to Intervenor's proposed development of a drug store and other retail shops on that portion of the property now designated Commercial Low Intensity. However, most of this evidence was irrelevant to the issue of whether the comprehensive plan amendment is "in compliance." The Property and Surrounding Land Uses The property is currently vacant. A wetland covers 3.71 acres in the southern portion of the property. The boundaries of the wetland were used to define the area designated Conservation by the amendment. It was the City's intent for the amendment to place in the Conservation designation on any part of the wetland that was not previously designated Conservation and to remove from the Conservation designation any land that was not part of the wetland. The upland portion of the property is used by wildlife, but it is not known to be used by any threatened or endangered wildlife species other than the gopher tortoise, which is a threatened species. Several gopher tortoise burrows were found and at least one burrow was "active." Petitioner claims that the amendment would destroy the rural character of the area. The City disputed that the area has much rural character. The property is bounded on the west by South Street, which is an arterial road. The land across South Street to the west includes commercial and industrial uses. The land on the northwest corner of the intersection of South Street and Fox Lake Road is designated Commercial Low Intensity and the City has approved a gas station/convenience store for the site. The property is bounded on the north partly by Fox Lake Road, a collector road, and partly by a small parcel which is designated Residential High Density. This small parcel has existing dwellings and has non-conforming density. Across Fox Lake Road to the north is land which is designated Residential High Density. To the east of the property, between the property and the neighborhood where Petitioner resides, is land which is designated Residential Low Density and is zoned for single- family homes on lots of at least one acre. Petitioner's neighborhood comprises 14 homes on lots that generally range in size from one acre to 4.5 acres, with one 10-acre lot. No other homeowners in Petitioner's neighborhood challenged the amendment, even those persons who live closer to the property than Petitioner. The southern border of the property is bounded by Commercial High Intensity, Conservation, and Educational land uses. The Education designation covers the site of Apollo Elementary School. The property has access to urban services, including public utilities. The land uses designations created by the amendment are compatible with the surrounding land uses. More specifically, the Commercial Low Intensity designation is compatible with Petitioner's neighborhood because the neighborhood is separated from the commercial use by almost 300 feet, with other residential land uses between. The Conservation Designation Petitioner's challenge to the amendment focuses primarily on the change in the area previously designated Conservation. She contends that the area should remain Conservation because she relied on the designation, and the former Conservation designation protects upland wildlife. When it adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1988, the City designated Conservation areas on the FLUM to correspond with wetlands as depicted on a 1988 National Wetland Inventory map prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From time to time since 1988, the City has modified the boundaries of Conservation areas depicted on the FLUM when, in the process of reviewing land development proposals, the City has received more current and detailed information about the boundaries of particular wetlands. Petitioner claims that it is wrong for the City to use wetlands, alone, as a basis for designating Conservation areas. She cites statements made by the City in 1988 as evidence that the City intended for the Conservation designation to cover some upland areas as well as wetlands. Goal 1, Objective 6, Policy 3 in the Conservation Element states that "at a minimum," the 1988 Wetland Inventory Map will be used to define Conservation areas. Policy 3 allows the City to designate Conservation areas to correspond only with wetlands, and that has been the City's consistent practice. It is reasonable for the City to continue that practice in the adoption of the amendment at issue in this case. The amendment is consistent with this policy. Protection of the Wetland's Functional Values Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with comprehensive plan policies and with Florida Administrative Code 9J-5.013(3), related to protecting the functional values of wetlands. Petitioner did not present competent evidence that any functional values of the wetland on the property would be adversely affected by the amendment, but she does not think an adequate functional value assessment was done for the wetland. Goal 1, Objective 6 of the Conservation Element is to "encourage preservation/protection of wetlands according to their function." Policy 1, Strategy 1 states that "The protection of wetlands shall be determined by the functional value of the wetland." Other related policies and strategies in the Conservation Element indicate that this objective is to be accomplished in part through land development regulations. For example, Policy 3, Strategy 6 states that "Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands which possess significant functional value, as determined by a functional value assessment, will be addressed in the land development regulations." Florida Administrative Code 9J-5.013(3)(a) states: Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved. The adequate and appropriate protection and conservation of wetlands shall be accomplished through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and which is based on supporting data and analysis. The City interprets its comprehensive plan policies as satisfied if wetland impacts are avoided. The wetland analysis conducted for the amendment at issue in this case was adequate because the entire wetland is included in the Conservation designation and, therefore, appropriate planning level protection is provided for the wetland. The adjacent Commercial Low Intensity designation, standing alone, does not mean that adverse impacts to the wetland will occur. Intervenor's proposed development, for example, provides a buffer from the wetland and does not propose to have an impact to the wetland. The City's interpretation and application of the comprehensive plan objectives and policies related to protecting wetland functional values was not shown to be unreasonable. The amendment was not shown to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan nor with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(3)(a). Compatibility Petitioner contends that the amendment also violates Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(b) because it directs incompatible land uses into wetlands. The amendment places all of the wetlands on the property under the Conservation land use designation. Neither the Residential Low Density designation nor the Commercial Low Intensity designation is placed in the wetlands. The amendment eliminates an incompatible Residential High Density designation that was formerly in the wetlands. Petitioner failed to show that the amendment directs incompatible uses into the wetlands. Petitioner contends the amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.13 and Policy 1.13.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which require compatibility with "environmentally sensitive areas;" and Policy 1.6.1 which requires elimination or minimization of negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas caused by commercial land uses. "Environmentally sensitive areas" are not defined in the comprehensive plan, but discussed in the Conservation Element are (1) habitat for threatened and endangered species, (2) important natural resources, (3) critical habitat, and (4) streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and wetlands. The types of "environmentally sensitive areas" on the property are wetlands and habitat for a threatened species, the gopher tortoise. As found above, the amendment does not direct commercial uses into the wetlands. Petitioner did not show where the gopher tortoise habitat is located on the property but claims that Intervenor’s proposed commercial project fails to protect that habitat. The property has not been designated as critical habitat for the gopher tortoise. In fact, no critical habitat has been designated in Florida for the gopher tortoise because there are many areas in the state that provide suitable habitat for this species. In Florida, it is common for land developers to seek and obtain approval from state and federal regulatory agencies to remove and relocate gopher tortoises to other areas which have suitable gopher tortoise habitat. Developers also have the option to build near the burrows as long as they are not disturbed. Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2, Policy 3 of the Conservation Element states that "any public or private use of land greater than three (3) acres in area shall require a management plan designed to minimize harm to the species and its habitat.” Such a management plan, however, would be submitted as part of a re-zoning or development proposal and, therefore, the adequacy of any management plan submitted by the Intervenor in this case is not a relevant inquiry. Petitioner argues that the relocation of the gopher tortoises to other suitable habitat would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan's policy to protect habitat. For threatened and endangered species ("listed species") other than the gopher tortoise, relocation might be impracticable or inappropriate, and, therefore, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. However, for gopher tortoises, their relocation is often determined to be practicable and appropriate, and it has been the practice of the City and of the state and federal regulatory agencies to allow their relocation. There is no policy in the comprehensive plan that clearly requires gopher tortoises and their habitat to be managed differently in Titusville than in other areas of the state. A local government's future land use designation has no effect on the regulation and protection of listed species, including gopher tortoises, afforded under state and federal law. Any land use, including a single-family residence, has the potential to disturb the habitat of gopher tortoises. Although Petitioner is correct in her view that the Conservation designation is more likely to avoid habitat disturbances and the need to re-locate gopher tortoises on the property than the Commercial Low Intensity designation, that factor, standing alone, does not require a finding that the amendment is not in compliance. Restricting Development Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.6.1 E because the City did not impose conditions regarding hours of operation, visual impacts, and privacy factors on the Intervenor's proposed development in the Commercial Low Intensity area. This policy only requires that such matters be considered. The City approved the concurrent rezoning of property with a condition that a six-foot wooden fence be placed along the boundary between the commercial project and the adjacent residential area. The City also required Intervenor to place the wetland under a conservation easement, to provide a buffer zone around the wetland, and to prepare and submit a gopher tortoise management plan prior to development of the property. Petitioner failed to show that controls were not considered by the City or that the amendment is incompatible due to the lack of adequate controls. Road Access Petitioner contends the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.6.1 A, which states that sites for commercial development at collector/arterial intersections are appropriate "provided minimal access is necessary on the collector street." The site plan for the proposed commercial development shows a primary entrance on South Street, an arterial road. A secondary, side entrance is on the collector street, Fox Lake Road. Petitioner failed to show how the amendment was inconsistent with Policy 1.6.1 A. Open Space and Recreation Zoning Petitioner contends the amendment violates the City's land development regulations (LDRs) because the LDRs place an Open Space and Recreation (OR) zoning classification on all Conservation lands on the FLUM, and describe OR as a "permanent" classification. This argument is not persuasive, because the characterization of the OR zoning classification as "permanent" in the LDRs is merely to distinguish OR from certain other classifications which are used as "holding" or temporary classifications. The word "permanent" in this context merely means that the OR classification is treated the same way as normal zoning classifications, which are "permanent" unless there is a re- zoning by the City. The City has modified or eliminated OR districts many times in conjunction with updated wetland delineations. Market Analysis Petitioner contends the amendment in inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.6.1 I because a market analysis was not conducted. The policy states: Commercial land use shall be limited to those areas designated as commercial or mixed use on the Future Land Use Map except as may be permitted by the Planned Development Regulations. Requests to increase and/or convey commercial land rights to an alternate site must be accompanied by adequate analysis to prove necessity for such request. The applicability of this policy was not shown. The first sentence of the policy appears to be self-evident; limiting commercial uses to land designated for commercial uses. The meaning of “Planned Development Regulations” was not explained. Perhaps it is a typographical error and was intended to refer to “Land Development Regulations.” The meaning intended for the term “commercial land rights” was not explained, nor was it explained how this amendment involves a request to increase or convey commercial land rights to an “alternate” site. A market analysis is more typically associated with a specific development proposal, because that allows the analysis to be focused on a particular service or product. Petitioner argues that the policy requires a market analysis for any FLUM amendment that creates a new commercial land use designation. If she is correct, the market analysis would necessarily be a more general one. The City conducted a general market analysis and determined that the residential development in the surrounding area provided a market for a commercial use on the property. That is a reasonable conclusion. If FLUE Policy 1.6.1 I is applicable to this amendment, the amendment is consistent with the policy. Archaeological Resources Petitioner amended her petition to allege that the amendment was improper because it was incompatible with the protection of an Indian mound on the property. However, no admissible evidence was presented to show that an Indian mound exists on the property, where it is located, or how the amendment would cause it to be disturbed. As with listed species, a local government's land use designations have no effect on the state regulation and protection of archaeological resources.
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 amendment is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2008.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a development order (building permit) issued by Monroe County to John and Alice Scott, Owners, and Hugh E. Rhodus, General Contractor, for the construction of a vertical seawall/dock on Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision, Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida, is consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The Property Respondents John and Alice Scott are the owners of two canal front lots known as Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision, Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Lots 31 and 32 were acquired in 1968 and 1970 and are undeveloped. The subject lots are in incorporated Monroe County, Florida, and are zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). The Scotts reside on a third lot facing the bay that is across the street from the subject lots. Respondents' lots are within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The land where the White Marlin Beach subdivision is located was at one time all mangroves and other trees. The subdivision was created in 1955-56 by means of dredge and fill activities. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the shorelines of Lots 31 and 32 were even with an existing bulkhead on an adjacent lot. Very small mangroves were beginning to revegetate the shorelines. By 1979-1980, some shoreline erosion had occurred on the lots, estimated at 5-6 feet. At some unknown time thereafter, additional shoreline erosion occurred, estimated at its greatest point to be approximately 10 feet from the original platted fill line. At the time the permit application was considered and at the time of the hearing, the revegetated mangroves had grown into a substantial fringe of high complexity, running the entire 117-foot length of the two lots and varying from 5 to 15 feet in width. Some of the trees are as tall as 12 feet. The area in which the mangroves have revegetated slopes gently toward the canal. It constitutes a shallow water habitat which, in addition to the mangrove vegetation, supports crabs, juvenile fish, algae, and seagrasses. The expert witnesses of both Petitioner and Respondent testified that the mature mangrove fringe on the two lots has stabilized the land area adjacent to the canal. Landward of the mangrove fringe, the lots are comprised of unconsolidated sand used to create the lots. The edges of the fill material form a gentle slope from as low as six inches up to 24 inches at one extreme. Upland erosion is occurring along the edge of the unconsolidated fill, washing down the slope of the fill into the mangroves. Erosion of the edges of upland fill is a common occurrence in the Florida Keys. 10 The unconsolidated fill material where the erosion is occurring constitutes the uplands portion of the lots and is caused by weather events (wind and rain), rather than by tidal or wave action. There is active boating traffic on the subject canal; many large commercial and pleasure boats use the canal. Marine fuel and supplies are sold at Angelo's. There is a commercial fishing "village" located at and around Angelo's. To reach open water, i.e., the Gulf bay, boats must pass lots 31 and 32 after leaving Angelo's. Most of the other lots on the same canal as lots 31 and 32 are primarily protected by seawalls. The Scotts, under the subject seawall permit, are seeking to tie in to the adjoining seawall for consistency in community character and appearance. The adjoining property owners and many of the neighboring property owners want the mangroves removed and a seawall built to protect lots 31 and 32. Permit Application and Issuance On March 11, 1992, the Scotts applied to Monroe County for a permit to construct a seawall on Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision. The Scotts' seawall permit application was denied by Pat McNeese, the Monroe County Environmental Resources Director, based upon her conclusion that erosion was not occurring on the lots and thus a seawall was not allowed under the Monroe County land development regulations. The Scotts appealed Ms. McNeese's decision to the Monroe County Planning Commission. As part of their evidence, Respondents offered a certified land survey conducted on November 1, 1992, which shows that the approximate shoreline of the property is at its greatest point roughly 10 feet landward of the platted shoreline. After hearing, the Planning Commission upheld Ms. McNeese's decision to deny the permit. The Scotts then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. The Board overturned the Planning Commission. The Board found that the Scotts are entitled to a permit to develop a seawall for erosion control under the provisions of Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(b), Monroe County Code. On April 19, 1993, Monroe County issued building permit number 9230005939 which is the subject of this proceeding. The permit was rendered to the Department on April 21, 1994, and was appealed by the Department 45 days thereafter. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan contains various policies directed toward preservation or conservation of the Keys environment and maintenance of water quality. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, states, in part, that: The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique, oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. * * * POLICIES 1. To prohibit land uses that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. * * * To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitats of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated Aquatic Preserves under Ch. 253.39 et seq. the [sic] Florida Statutes. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Sec. 2-115 entitled "Enforcement" provides: A major component of any future land use element is the need to strictly enforce implementing regulations. If Monroe County is to achieve the promise of this Plan, it is essential that all persons involved in the land development process adhere to the requirement of this Plan and that the integrity of the development review process be protected. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Volume II, Natural Vegetation Management Policies provides: In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. * * * 3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree possible. * * * 8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. * * * Of all the natural landforms and features which must be given due consideration in their protection, protection of the shoreline is of prime concern. . . . Chapter VII, Coastal Zone Protection Element, Marine Resources Management Policies section, Future Land Use Element, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, states that: Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in the local economy, the protection, conservation, and management of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the County's utmost attention. In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources, emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine eco-system. 1.2. To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation; and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of the marine system. Utilization of marine resources will be judged sound or unsound from the standpoint of whether or not a permitted use insures conservation and long-term maintenance of the resource. * * * Land and water activities which are incompa- tible with the preservation of marine resources because of their potential adverse effects will be prohibited, restricted, or carefully regulated depending upon the nature of the activity and the extent of potential impact. Development of bulkheads (the vertical component of a seawall) is characterized in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as "shoreline modification" and is addressed in Volume II as follows: Shoreline Modification Shoreline generally requires some degree of modification before it can be utilized for development of any sort. But such modification, unless carefully planned, can have adverse effects far beyond the area directly altered for development. For this reason, all shoreline modifications are subject to close scrutiny and regulation by local, State and Federal agencies. The following guidelines should be used at the local level to minimize the impact of shoreline modifications of different types. Bulkheads and Bulkhead Lines Bulkhead lines should be set at, or landward of, the mean high water line or the landward boundary of the shoreline protection zone, which- ever is applicable. Where possible, sloping rip-rap structures and coastal vegetation should be used rather than vertical seawalls. The Monroe County land development regulations provide in pertinent part: Sec. 9.5-288. Bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and fences. Bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and fences may be allowed as principal uses where it is demonstrated that their purpose is for erosion protection or upland protection (except for the Big Pine Area of Critical County Concern). Seawalls, in any configuration to include integral steps, ladders, platforms, quays, wharfs, and integral docks landward of seawalls, are permitted, with or without a principal building, in all land use districts for the purpose of erosion control. . . . Riprap placement is permitted without a principal structure for erosion control. * * * Sec. 9.5-335. Purpose of environmental perform- ance standards. It is the purpose of this division to provide for the conservation and protection of the environmental resources of the Florida Keys by ensuring that the functional integrity of natural areas is protected when land is developed. * * * Sec. 9.5-345. Environmental design criteria. (m) Mangroves and Submerged Lands: Except as provided in paragraph (3), only piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways shall be permitted on mangroves and submerged lands; All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: All structures shall be constructed on pilings or other supports; Bulkheads and seawalls shall be permitted only to stabilize disturbed shorelines or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads and seawalls; * * * d. No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists; No fill shall be permitted in any natural water body; No fill shall be permitted in any manmade water body unless the applicant demonstrates that the activity will not have a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. * * * Sec. 9.5-4. Definitions. (W-1) Water at least four (4) feet below mean sea level at mean low tide means locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off- shore resources of particular importance. For the purpose of this definition, "off-shore resources of particular importance" shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. The land development regulations must be implemented in a manner consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Seawall The shoreline is generally the area between mean high water and mean low water. For regulatory purposes, the "shoreline" is considered to be mean high water. While a seawall will protect shoreline property, there are negative impacts associated with development of seawalls which merit consideration. In this case, development of the permitted seawall would involve elimination of the existing mature mangrove fringe, which filters upland runoff, and filling in the shelf, including submerged lands, which provides habitat for juvenile fish, crabs and algae. Water quality in the White Marlin Beach canals will deteriorate as additional seawalls are constructed. Wave force is increased as waves bounce off one seawall and then another, which in turn brings up sediments which may contain pollutants. Increased wave force also draws sediments out from under existing bulkheads, causing or contributing to their deterioration and adding to the suspended sediments in the canal. Riprap and coastal vegetation absorb rather than intensify wave energy. While some amount of shoreline erosion occurred on Lots 31 and 32 during the 1970s and at some time thereafter, the shorelines on Lots 31 and 32 are now stabilized by the existing mangrove fringe. Since the shorelines of Lots 31 and 32 are not presently eroding, that portion of the permit which authorizes the removal of the shoreline vegetation and development of a vertical seawall is not consistent with the Monroe County land development regulations. Rip-Rap Even if shoreline erosion were occurring, a seawall or bulkhead to stabilize the shoreline would still not be authorized under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. The shoreline on Lots 31 and 32 is gently sloping, with only about 1-1/2 feet of silt over the bedrock within the mangrove fringe. Rip-rap would be feasible on Lots 31 and 32 if shoreline erosion were to be currently taking place. Upland Erosion The Scotts are experiencing some erosion on the edges of the upland fill on Lots 31 and 32, caused by wind, rain, digging crabs, and the spreading roots of mangrove trees. Such erosion on the edges of upland fill is common in the Florida Keys. Construction of a vertical seawall, which is a shoreline stabilization technique, is not appropriate to address an upland erosion problem. Erosion of upland fill material is commonly addressed by use of a retaining wall landward of the shoreline. Development of a retaining wall on Lots 31 and 32 would not necessitate removal of the existing shoreline vegetation and placement of fill on submerged lands as authorized under the subject permit. Fill Behind Seawall The plans approved with the subject permit authorize the placement of fill behind the seawall. A portion of the proposed fill would be placed below mean high water on submerged lands. Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(4), Monroe County Code, prohibits the placement of fill in a manmade water body unless the applicant demonstrates that the activity will not have a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. The mangrove community and submerged shelf that exist on lots 31 and 32 are natural marine communities. The permanent obliteration of the shoreline vegetation and elimination of the submerged lands that presently exist on Lots 31 and 32 would be a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. Accordingly, the placement of fill on the submerged lands on Lots 31 and 32 is not authorized under the Monroe County land development regulations. Docks Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(d), Monroe County Code, requires that docking facilities be developed only where a water depth of at least minus four feet mean low water (-4 MLW) exists. The plans approved under the subject permit show a water depth of zero (0) feet MLW at the waterward extent of the proposed seawall/dock. The Scotts' intention is to align the seawall spanning Lots 31 and 32 with a seawall on an adjacent lot. Water depth in that approximate location, which differs from the approved site plan and is therefore not authorized by the permit, is 1.6 feet at low tide. There is not adequate water depth at the waterward side of the proposed seawall/dock, as shown either on the approved plan or as described in testimony, to accommodate a docking facility on Lots 31 and 32. Further, because the dock has a vertical seawall component, it is not designed to be constructed on pilings or other supports, as required by Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(a), Monroe County Code. Accessory Use The Monroe County land development regulations define an accessory use or structure as a use or structure that serves a principal use and is located on the same lot or lots under the same ownership and in the same land use district as the principal use or structure. The regulation specifically prohibits the establishment of an accessory use prior to the principal use to which it is accessory. Accessory uses are generally regulated based upon whether the accessory use is located on the same property as the principal use. Under the County definition of accessory use, when dealing with a single lot, the principal use must be established first. The reference to the plural "lots" accommodates larger projects which typically encompass more than one lot, such as hotels and multifamily projects. It would also encompass an individual's residence where the lots were aggregated for development. The intent of the regulation is not to restrict the accessory uses to any one of those individual lots, but to recognize that the accessory use can also extend and cover all of the lots where the principal use is located. The regulation was adopted to cure an ongoing problem in the Keys of speculative development where shoreline improvements were developed without the establishment of principal uses to increase the value of saleable lots. In this case, the principal use (the Scotts' residence) is not located on either of the two lots for which the permit was issued. To allow development of those properties prior to the establishment of principal uses on them would be inconsistent with the Monroe County land development regulation and the purpose for which it was adopted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying permission to develop the vertical seawall/dock authorized under Monroe County building permit number 9230005939 and denying all other relief requested by the Respondents. It is further recommended that such final order specify those items set forth in paragraphs 45 and 46, Conclusions of Law, as changes in design and circumstances necessary to enable the Scotts to obtain a permit to stabilize the upland fill on the lots and entitle them to a permit or permits for docking facilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: With the one exception mentioned immediately below, all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been accepted, with occasional editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. The one exception is paragraph 25, which was rejected as unnecessary repetition or summary of findings already made. Findings proposed by the Respondents: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the de novo nature of this proceeding. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There is conflicting evidence on this subject. The testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses is found to be more persuasive than the version put forth by the Respondents' witnesses.) Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 15 and 16: Both of these paragraphs are rejected as too overly broad and imprecise to be meaningful in the context of the issues in this proceeding. More precise and detailed findings have been made regarding the nature of past and current erosion on the subject property. Paragraph 17: Rejected as too narrow a statement to be accurate. As noted in the findings of fact, other factors are contributing to the upland erosion. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although there is some testimony along the general lines of what is proposed in this paragraph, that testimony appears to be more nearly hyperbole than hard science. Paragraph 19: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the last sentence of this paragraph is a conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument and proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 21: First two sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the requirements of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. Last sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected in part as not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and in part as irrelevant. (The water being too shallow, it does not particularly matter why it is too shallow.) Paragraph 23: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the requirements of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance with some editorial language omitted. Paragraphs 25 and 26: Rejected as constituting conclusions that are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Carol A. Scott, Esquire KUBICKI, DRAPER, GALLAGHER & MCGRANE, P.A. 1200 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 James T. Hendrick, Esquire 617 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department as the State Land Planning Agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Comprehensive Plans submitted by local governments. Following such review conducted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Department is to determine whether the plan submitted is "in compliance" or "not in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules employed in the review process. McIntosh is a local government which adopted its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The McIntosh Comprehensive Plan was adopted was received by the Department on July 24, 1992. On September 4, 1992, the Department published Notice of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules. McIntosh is a town of approximately 450 acres in size, which had a residential population in 1990 of 411 and was projected to increase population by the year 2000 to 418 people. Single family residential and agricultural land uses are the predominant land uses in the community. Petitioner Harris owns property within the incorporated limits of McIntosh. He owns and operates Sportsman Cove, a business located on Orange Lake. Portions of Orange Lake are found within the corporate limits of McIntosh where Harris conducts his business. Harris owns blocks 35 and 36 and portions of blocks 37, 53 and 54 within the corporate limits. His business involves 49 licensed mobile home sites and a number of "RV" sites located on approximately 4.648 acres along the shore of Orange Lake. He also operates a fish camp there. When the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared Harris submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations pertaining to the plan. He is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Colwell owns property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. She owns and operates the McIntosh Fish Camp which has 8 mobile home sites and 5 "RV" sites along the shore line of Orange Lake within the town limits. Colwell submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the process of review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Colwell is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The fish camp operations and "RV" sites of Harris and Colwell are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as lakefront commercial. The Stott's own property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. That ownership includes blocks 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 constituted of 13.6 acres, a portion of which is located on the shore of Orange Lake. In 1986 part of their property was used as a restaurant for about a year. The Stott's engaged in a bait business for approximately a year beyond that point. In the past prior to the plan adoption, there had been a fish camp located at blocks 1 and 15 with cabins and camper sites. These blocks are located adjacent to Orange Lake and are classified lake front residential in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of hearing the property was not being operated as a fish camp. In the past lots 2, 13 and 14 had been used by the Stott's for unspecified light industry. The Stotts submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption process. The Stotts are persons affected by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The notice that was provided on September 4, 1992 concerning the intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" made mention that the adopted plan would be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, with the exception of legal holidays. The location contemplated for inspection was the McIntosh Town Hall, Clerk's Office, at 5975 Avenue G, McIntosh, Florida. A problem arose concerning the opportunity to inspect the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The problem was occasioned by an illness to the Town Clerk. This influenced petitioners' ability to review the adopted plan and to timely submit their challenges to the decision to find the Plan in compliance. Under the circumstances a slight delay in conforming to the 21 day requirement for filing the petitions in challenge to the Comprehensive Plan is acceptable. With some inconvenience to Petitioners, persons other than the Town Clerk offered assistance in making the adopted plan available for inspection. Nonetheless, petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to apprise themselves concerning the contents of the adopted plan when considered in the context of their participation in the overall process for adopting the McIntosh Comprehensive Plan. The complications experienced in reviewing the adopted Comprehensive Plan did not compromise the ability of these petitioners to advance their claims in a setting in which other procedural requirements for plan adoption, review and approval have been met. The inconvenience experienced by the petitioners in reviewing the adopted plan do not evidence a quality of prejudice that should form the basis for deciding that the plan is not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When the Town Council adopted the plan and established Policy 2.1.4.5 it intended to use the word "abandonment" where the written text found within the adopted plan at Page 2-23 uses the word "suspension." This mistake is evidenced by the minutes of the meeting for adoption where a motion was made to change the word "suspension" to "abandonment." In the course of the hearing the attorney for McIntosh stipulated that this was an error and that the written text would be changed to reflect the proper wording. With that change Policy 2.1.4.5 would read: Provisions in the Land Development Regulations shall discourage the continuance of existing inconsistent land uses within designated land uses. These provisions shall limit the expansion of inconsistent land usage and, upon a 90 days abandonment of the incompatible land use, require reversion to designated land uses. Petitioner Harris is not satisfied that the Figure 2-6, Page 2-11, which is a map of the wetlands within the incorporated town limits, in the Comprehensive Plan, is accurate. He claims that a lobe, which is an RV site on his property known as site 9C is not within the wetlands as shown on that map. He also takes issue with the designation in Figure 2-9, page 2-17, of the future land map which shows this lobe of property as conservation/open space. He perceives this property at site 9C to be uplands. By virtue of his own activities in May 1991 in which he arranged to have a survey performed on his property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh, Harris asserts that site 9C was not found to be wetlands then and is not wetlands now. When McIntosh designated the wetlands in the community through the use of the wetlands map and identified conservation/open space in the future land use map it was acting in accordance with legal requirements incumbent upon it in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. The specific designations of wetlands and conservation/open space areas are based upon appropriate data and analysis. The data was taken from a professionally accepted existing source and was the best available data. The work that was done in preparing the wetland mapping requirements was done by the same consulting firm which Harris had employed in May 1991, that is to say Environmental Service and Permitting, Inc. In preparing the wetlands survey for McIntosh the private consulting firm used ground-truthing, as well as a review of wetland mapping data sources to delineate the wetlands. The data consulted included the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Marion County, U.S.G.S. Quadrangle maps for the Town of McIntosh, as well as a review of the McIntosh Land Planning Agency Drainage Map. Although Harris takes issue with the clarity of some of the maps depicting the lobe of property for his site 9C, the adopted plan is acceptable as it describes wetlands and conservation/open space to include his site 9C. Objective 7.1.1 at Page 7.4 establishes wetland setbacks within the town where it states: The Town of McIntosh shall protect the natural drainage features within and adjacent to the Town limits, by the establishment of the wetland setbacks, and compliance with State Water Quality standards, to be a part of the Land Development Regulation. In furtherance of this Objective, Policy 7.1.1.1 is set out at page 7- 4 where it states: Setbacks shall be established from the limit of wetlands landward to buildings, septic tanks and land coverage. The following setbacks shall be a part of the Land Development Regulations. Buildings shall be set back at a minimum of 75 feet. Septic tanks and drain fields shall be set back at a minimum of 200 feet. Impervious areas shall be set back at a minimum of 50 feet. Drainage Retention Areas shall be set back 25 feet. These set backs were arrived at by the Town Council having heard from the petitioners. In the face of remarks by the petitioners made in the adoption process the council reduced the set backs. While no specific data and analysis was offered to support the set backs, they are within limits which would be recommended by the Department to protect the wetlands resources. According to the Department, from a planning viewpoint, the mere existence of wetlands is sufficient to promote protections through the use of set backs. The set backs found within this Comprehensive Plan are appropriate. Moreover, the set backs associated with the protections of wetlands have the additional benefit of protecting Orange Lake, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water Body, entitled to special water quality protection. Protection of that water body is the responsibility of McIntosh in its comprehensive planning, together with other local governments and environmental regulators. Future land use classifications in the Comprehensive Plan are set out at Page 2-14. Property which abuts Lake Orange is classified as lake front residential and lake front commercial. Lake front residential is defined as: [T]his category allows a maximum of 2 units per acre. Dwelling units includes: single family houses and mobile homes. Maximum coverage of 35% and maximum building height of 35 feet. Lake front commercial is defined as: this category allows fish camps, marinas, and recreational vehicle parks. Maximum coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of 35 feet." These classifications and densities protect natural resources to include the wetlands and Orange Lake and are appropriate. Petitioners Harris and Colwell may take advantage of the lake front commercial for their fish camp operations and "RV" sites. Stott is not entitled to take advantage of the lake front commercial classification in that her property did not include a fish camp and recreational vehicle operations at the time the plan was adopted. Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the adopted Comprehensive Plan is not "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules concerning the issues raised in the challenges to the determination to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance."
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the Town of McIntosh Comprehensive Plan to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Harris' Facts: This paragraph is not relevant in that it was not alleged in the petition. This paragraph in its various parts concerning available low and moderate income housing and the densities is rejected in its suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan is not acceptable. This paragraph is rejected in its suggestion that the seasonal population for dwelling units affiliated with fish camp operations should cause a reconsideration of the classifications and densities for land use. This paragraph is ejected in its legal conclusion. 5-8 These paragraphs are not relevant in that these issues were not set out in the petition. 9, 10 To the extent that paragraphs 9 and 10 describe concerns about the treatment in the Comprehensive Plan of wetlands and comment critically on wetlands protections, the proposed findings of facts are rejected. Colwell's Facts: The unnumbered facts proposed are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the changes in Orange Lake described even if true do not persuade that the wetlands protection of Orange Lake contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate. Stott's Facts: 1-2 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. 3-5 Constitute legal argument. 6 It is acknowledged that the Orange Lake is used for fishing. 7-11 To the extent that paragraphs 7 through 11 suggest inappropriate identification and protection of the wetlands through the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the proposed facts are rejected. McIntosh's Facts: A-E, A-C, A-E Are subordinate to facts found with exception that the word "increase" in fact should be "decrease" when describing residential density. Department's Facts: 1, 2 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception that the reference to the property being within "unincorporated" limits should read "incorporated" limits. - 6 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception to the suggestion that the petitioners had to contact city council members to obtain a copy of the adopted plan in the absence of the clerk. - 20 Subordinate to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. - 26 Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jerry Harris P. O. Box 107 McIntosh, FL 32664 Anna Colwell P. O. Box 135 McIntosh, FL 32664 Thomas C. Stott Marie Stott P. O. Box 551 McIntosh, FL 32664 David Wilcox, Esquire 425 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the City of Panama City's (the City) Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 04-20S adopted by Ordinance No. 1985 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether the petition challenging the Plan Amendment should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Robert E. Moore owns a home and resides at 1310 Kristanna Drive, Panama City, Florida. The northwestern property line of Mr. Moore's home is adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Property. JE 7; PE 98-B at RM.2 There is an approximate 100-foot-wide Bay County maintained canal or drainage ditch (canal) that forms the northern boundary of the Property, see Endnote 1 and PE 50 at 7, which runs in an east-to-west direction at the northern portion of his home. This canal eventually leads to North Bay to the west.3 Goose Bayou is located south of the Property. Mr. Moore taught respiratory care at Gulf Coast Community College for approximately 23 years and is retired. His residence was affected by a hurricane which passed through the area in September 2004. He noticed water appearing half-way up his driveway, which is not on the canal. He is concerned with the placement of additional homes in this area in light of his experience with the water level after the recent storm event. (Generally, Mr. Moore stated that there is a two- foot difference between low and high tide in this area. T 133, 137.) Mr. Moore, as well as the other Petitioners, made oral and written comments to the City Commission during the Plan Amendment adoption hearings. See City's Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation at 5, paragraph E.4.; T 213. The St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) was established in 1986 and is a citizen's organization devoted to the preservation of the quality of St. Andrews Bay and its surrounding ecosystems. T 194. (St. Andrews Bay is a larger body of water which includes North and West Bay and Goose Bayou. See generally JE 12, Map 1.) The RMA has approximately 100 members. The RMA uses, but does not own, an office on the Panama City Marine Institute campus located within the City. The RMA occasionally conducts seminars or conferences and offers several programs for citizens, e.g., sea turtle nest watch, a water sampling program (Baywatch), and a sea grass watch program. The RMA meets every month except during the summer. T 195-196. The RMA opposes the Plan Amendment, in part, because of concerns with the effect of development on what Ms. Shaffer characterized as the "pine islands." Linda Anne Yori owns and resides in a house at 908 Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, which is "just off Kristanna" Drive and to the east. See PE 98-C at the blue X. She teaches middle school science at a local public school. She has observed the Property, and generally described the Property, and vacant property to the north, as "upland hammock with salt marsh." T 209. In general, Ms. Yori opposes the Plan Amendment because she "believe[d] the environmental impact would be too great." Mary Rose Smith owns and resides in a house on Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, two houses away from Ms. Yori's residence. Ms. Smith regularly jogs throughout the neighborhood. She believed that there are approximately 400 homes in Candlewick Acres and six vacant lots remaining. T 214- 215. As a result of recent hurricanes in the area, she observed flooding approximately half-a-mile upland along Kristanna Drive from the west-end to the east (half a mile to the turn off to Ashwood). PE 98-D at the blue 1/2 designation and blue line. While she cannot say for certain where the water came from, she believed the water "came from the bay or the bayou." T 220. The Bay County Audubon Society (BCAS) conducts membership and board meetings within the City limits and also owns a piece of property in the City. BCAS has approximately 400 members. Members live within the City. BCAS is concerned with the environment and with "the density of the proposed development" and "access to the pine islands." T 409-411. The City is the local government unit responsible for approving the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. § 163.3187(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The Application, Review, and Adoption of the Plan Amendment On or about May 11, 2004, James H. Slonina, P.E., the president of Panhandle Engineering, Inc., filed an application on behalf of Robert H. and Barbara B. Hansman, requesting the City to annex "approximately 9.9 acres including lots, paved roadways and bridged drives" and further requested a land use designation to allow proposed residential development." The Property, see Endnote 1, is designated on a Bay County parcel map. A flood zone map is also included, but lacks clarity. The Property is vacant. JE 13. The purpose of the annexation and request for land use designation "is to accommodate the development of a 13+/- lot single-family residential waterfront development adjacent to North Shore Subdivisions." The application also stated: To support the residential home sites, there are adequate adjacent public roadways and utilities. Due to the unique physical configuration of the property, traditional RLD lot standards may not [sic] applicable. While we would prefer to pursue an RLD-1 designation, the application is submitted contingent upon confirmation of an appropriate land use designation and an approval of the proposed project. If another course of action is available, which would allow for the development of 13+/- single-family residential lots on 9.9 acres, please advise. JE 13. (It is represented throughout this record that the land use designation is requested for approximately 6.8 acres rather that approximately 9.9 acres. See, e.g., JE 7 at 1; JE 11 at 12-13.) The application was reviewed, in part, by Mr. Thomasson. JE 7. The staff report4 dated July 30, 2004, stated that the request is to amend the City's FLUM from Conservation (as previously designated by Bay County) to RLD with a Zoning District classification of RLD-1. (The staff report referred to several permitted uses under RLD-1. JE 7 at 2. The permitted uses for RLD-1 are those contained in the City's "Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code (LDRC)" at section 4-6.1.2.a. JE 4 at IV:8-9. However, the propriety of the RLD-1 Zoning District classification for the Property is not at issue in this proceeding. T 266.) The staff report also stated that the Property "is currently zoned conservation, abuts property to the North that is designated conservation Land Use category in the County and is just North of an existing Special Conservation Treatment Zone," which is indicated on a map on page 1 of the staff report. JE 7 at 1. The staff report stated that "[w]ater and sewer infrastructure and other urban services are available to this property." See T 286-287, 301-303, 307-308; JE 7 at 1. Under the background section, it is stated that "[t]he property has been seen as environmentally significant and has been the object of an effort to purchase for perpetual protection by a local land trust organization. It is adjacent to an existing development to the East." Id. The Plan provides that an RLD land use district "is intended to provide areas for the preservation of development of low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family dwelling units on individual lots" with a density of "[n]o more than five dwelling units per acre." The allowed intensity is "[n]o more than 40% lot coverage as determined by dividing the impervious areas by the gross area of the site or lot." JE 3 at 1-2. The staff report contained findings of fact with citations to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Conservation Element. References to the LDRC are also provided. See also T 285-311, 315-317, 320-321; JE 7 at 2-3. Thereafter, specific findings are made: Staff finds that this property, as a part of the St. Andrews estuary, serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding and refuge are for numerous marine creatures, birds and upland wildlife. The three pine and oak hammacks [sic] are a few of a rare estuarian resource. The marsh throughout the area serves as home for seagrass and other marine organisms that are integral with the biodiversity of the estuary. There also exists a [sic] archaeological sites [sic] consisting of an ancient Indian midden that has already been classified by the Director of the Florida State Division of Historical Resources as deservant [sic] of mitigation and potentially eligible for the National Historic Registry (see attached documentation). The site overall has a biotic community of nearly 90% of it [sic] total area. Staff findings are that this proposed Land Use Amendment is inconsistent with the above listed mandates of the Comp Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed Land Use is inconsistent with the LDR Code, in that it is not in harmony with the Comp Plan (Subsection 2-5.5.6.e. above), as well as the requirements of the environmental protection standards of Section 5-5. This decision hinges on the whether the City intends to enforce it's [sic] environmental protection standards of the Comp Plan and the LDR Code and if the site is seen as environmentally significant. JE 7 at 4 (italics in original). Ultimately, staff recommended approval only with the following conditions: 1.) that the fullness of the subject property be designated as a Conservation Special Treatment Zone [CSTZ][5] and that the pine and oak hammacks [sic](as referred to as "Pine Islands" in the Bay County Comp Plan) are prohibited from being developed; and 2.) that the area of the subject property that is beyond the mean high tide of the mainland portion, which specifically means the marshes/wetlands and the oak and pine hammacks [sic], shall be placed in a conservation easement and dedicated to either the City, or a third-party land trust or conservancy. JE 7 at 4. (Mr. Hammons, the City Manager, disagreed with the staff report, in part, because there was no data to support several findings. T 119-124.) On August 9, 2004, the Planning Board of Panama City met in regular session to consider the application. The request was to approve a small scale land use amendment to the FLUM of the Plan from Conservation (under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan) to RLD with a zoning classification of RLD-1 for the Property. JE 11 at 2. But see Finding of Fact 15. Mr. Fred Webb and Dr. Frasier Bingham were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Webb advised that the Bingham's and the Webb's owned the property which consisted of approximately 6.5 acres of uplands. But see Finding of Fact 29 regarding the ownership of the Property. In part, Mr. Webb stated that the grass beds would not be impacted and that there was no legitimate environmental complaint. Dr. Bingham stated that he is an ecologist, specializing in shallow water ecology. JE 11 at 3. He said his family had purchased the upland property in 1948 and the submerged land in the 1960s. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Bingham stated he tried to get the government to purchase the property, but to no avail. He also recounted attempts to obtain permits from DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See, e.g., PE 60, 63-64.6 He believed that the bridge problem, identified by the Corps had been solved. JE 11 at 3 and 13. (There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the Corps has approved any permits for development of the Property.) Mr. Webb stated that all maintenance to the bridges and other utilities would be the responsibility of the association (for the developed Property) and not the City and that the City would only be responsible for police and fire. Id. at 4. Mr. Thomasson addressed the Planning Board. JE 11 at The staff report previously mentioned is incorporated in the minutes. Staff felt that the CSTZ designation would be the most appropriate designation due to the environmental issues and that the RLD-1 designation would be the least intense land use available under the Plan. Board member Pritchard inquired whether the application was incomplete "as it doesn't address the environmental issues." Mr. Thomasson stated the applicant did not believe there would be any environmental impact, while staff believed the property to be environmentally significant. JE 11 at 8. Dr. Bingham again addressed the Planning Board to refute the staff's findings of fact. Dr. Bingham said that "the wetlands would not be impacted, the grass beds would not be impacted, and the stormwater runoff already goes into the grass beds, which are, in his opinion, fine grass beds" and that "that 13 houses would not have any significant impact." He indicated that soils were not at issue and that the "property is sandy, not special." Id. at 9. Mr. Webb indicated that "they had evaluated the environmental aspects and added the raised bridges, swales, etc." JE 11 at 9. Numerous individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Apparently, by a show of hands "a large majority of those present were in opposition to the request." JE 11 at 12. It appears that two persons spoke in favor of the request. Id. at 9-11. Mr. Webb confirmed that the application requested approval of the land use designation and annexation for 6.8 acres. JE 11 at 12. He also advised that a limited liability corporation owned the 6.8 acres, while there are different owners of other parcels. Mr. Webb indicated that "only the uplands on the islands were being annexed," although "he was not sure the properties were 'islands' in legal terms." Id. at 13. Mr. Webb indicated that he was willing to indemnify the City against any legal expenses arising from this request. Id. The requested land use change was approved by a vote of three to two. Id. at 14. On September 28, 2004, the City Commission considered Ordinance No. 1985 pertaining to the requested land use designation change and Ordinance No. 1995 pertaining to the annexation of the Property. These Ordinances were read by title only as a first reading. JE 10 at 293-294. During this meeting, the minutes (JE 10) reflect that Mr. Webb stated that they would only be developing the upland islands and proposed to use bridges, which he says "the environmental regulatory community has considered to have almost no environmental impact. He said that the addition of thirteen single family residential homes to an area that has seven hundred homes will not materially affect level of service." JE 10 at 289. Several of the people who appeared before the Planning Board also appeared opposing the application for annexation and land use designation change. JE 10 at 290. Mr. Martin Jacobson, Planning and Zoning Manager for Bay County filed a formal letter of objection to the annexation. Id. Mr. Fred Beauchemin opposed the annexation and responded to eleven items which were discussed by Mr. Webb and Dr. Bingham during the Planning Board meeting, including representations of impacts to grass beds, wildlife resources, and soils. JE 10 at 290-292. Mr. Webb continued to feel that there would not be any destruction of the marshes. Id. at 292. Dr. Bingham again noted that he is a shallow water marine ecologist and felt that he was informed about the environmental situation on the Property. Id. at 293. After brief discussion by some of the Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995 were approved by a vote of three to two. JE 10 at 293-294. By a letter dated November 9, 2004, Daniel Shaw, A.I.C.P., memorialized the October 5, 2004, Bay County Commission's unanimous decision to contest the potential annexation of and land use change to the Property, referring to several provisions of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. T 228; PE 69. Mr. Shaw opined that "[c]learly, development proposed for the annexed Pine Islands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan." PE 69 at 2. He further stated: What's more the proposed annexation also violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Policy 5-5.2, 5-5.3 related to preservation of Environmentally Significant Resources would prohibit the proposed development. The property is a part of the St. Andrews estuary, and serves as a breeding/refuge area for numerous marine creatures, birds and wildlife. The three pine and oak hammocks are a truly rare estuarine resource for Bay County and for the State of Florida. The marshlands contain valuable sea grass beds and are home to numerous marine creatures, which are integral to the biodiversity of the estuary. Finally, the property contains valuable archeological sites, consisting of ancient Indian middens that are classified by the State Division of Historical resources, and potentially eligible for the National Historic Register. I would concur with staff's memorandum of August 9, 2004, which cites numerous other examples of where the development would violate the City's plan. PE 69 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Shaw also stated that the Property is located in the coastal high hazard area, within a "V" zone for flood regulations.7 He stated that "[t]hese designations argue for prohibiting development for public safety and infrastructure investment purposes." Again, Mr. Shaw stated that Bay County opposed the potential annexation and subsequent land use reclassification. PE 69 at 3. Mr. Shaw also testified during the final hearing and reaffirmed his prior position. T 232-245. Mr. Shaw stated that the Property, prior to annexation by the City, was designated Conservation under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, which allows for limited residential use and the preservation of pine islands (an outright prohibition).8 He was not qualified, however, to make a determination whether any portion of the Property is a pine island. T 247. Mr. Shaw thinks that Bay County allows up to 15 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. T 254. On November 9, 2004, the City Commission met and considered a final reading of Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995. Several people appeared opposing both ordinances including Mr. Moore, Ms. Smith, Ms. Yori, and others. JE 8 at 3-14; JE 9 at 3-5. Mr. Webb again addressed the City Commission and stated, in part, that "nothing in the marsh would be touched." He also indicated that he would fully indemnify the City in the event of a lawsuit. JE 8 at 14-21; JE 9 at 5. Dr. Bingham also addressed the Commission. JE 8 at He stated that he has designed an environmentally friendly community of 13 home sites. He indicated that he had a Ph.D. in shallow water marine ecology and attended Florida State University and the University of Miami. He said that he was thoroughly familiar with the Panama City area and had worked with a large list of groups as an ecologist. He reiterated that the homes sites will take up 6.8 acres and will be entirely uplands and no marshes or swamps. He said that he is trying to use one fifth of the property that he owns and "there are no wetlands involved in this particular operation that will be damaged." JE 8 at 23. He also indicated that there will be raised bridges constructed on the Property, and according to him, were suggested by the Corps. Id. After brief comments by several Commissioners, the Commission approved the annexation and land use designation change by a vote of three to two. JE 8 at 26-27, 30-31. Toward the end of the November 9, 2004, hearing, the City Attorney, Rowlett Bryant, advised that the minutes of the September 28, 2004, Commission meeting would be included with the minutes of the November 9, 2004, public hearing. In other words, the November 9, 2004, Commission meeting was the public hearing held on the application for the annexation and the land use designation change. JE 8 at 27-30. Mr. Bryant also noted that the Ordinance No. 1985, related to the land use designation, would be RLD-1 and that the prior reference to Special Treatment Conservation Zone in the title of Ordinance No. 1985, considered on September 28, 2004, was a recommendation of staff and was deleted from Ordinance No. 1985, which was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2004. JE 8 at 31-32. Ordinance No. 1985, in fact, changed the land use designation of the Property (approximately 6.8 acres) "from Conservation (a Bay County Land Use designation) to Residential- Low Density-1 as described in Small Scale Amendment 04-S20." JE 1 at 2. However, Petitioners and the City agree that "[t]he city assigned a future land use map designation to the parcel of Residential Low Density in Ordinance No. 1985." See T 11, lines 10-23; Petitioners' Prehearing Stipulation at 2, IV.2. Data and Analysis As more fully discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the capability of uses on lands adjacent to or closely approximate to military installations; and, in rural communities, the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2) provides for "land use analysis requirements" and requires, in part, that the future land use element "be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2) F.A.C." Subsection 9J-5.006(2)(b) requires "[a]n analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in paragraph (1)(b); 2. Soils; 3. Topography; 4. Natural resources; and 5. Historic resources." Further, "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, finding and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a)(emphasis added). "Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(c). Petitioners question whether the record contains relevant and appropriate data, which was existing and available on or before November 9, 2004, to support the Plan Amendment. Petitioners further question whether the analysis of that data is adequate. The application, JE 13, requested approval of annexation of and a change in the land use designation for, as amended, approximately 6.8 acres. Aside from identifying the parcel in question, in relation to Goose Bayou and the subdivision to the east, the application does not contain adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment. Mr. Slonina, a professional engineer and expert in civil engineering, testified during the final hearing as to the due diligence he and his firm performed in support of filing the application with the City. T 424. Mr. Slonina has been on the Property many times. T 456. As part of the due diligence, Mr. Slonina analyzed the area proposed for development on the Property, which are the upland areas, and, in part, stated that these areas are primarily free draining sands and have fairly high percolation rates. T 425, 453. He also characterized upland areas as fairly clean sands and satisfactory for development in this area based on his experience. He also examined the upland and wetland soils to determine suitability for a "post and beam timbered bridge system" that would be pile supported over the wetlands bridging upland areas. He opined that the soils on the uplands were nothing unique and were suitable for low density residential and suitable to support the bridge system he described. T 428, 442, 458-459. See also P 50, Attachment A. Regarding utilities which might be available to the Property, during the due diligence phase, he identified, from utility maps, the location of the closest water and sewer which could serve the Property, adjacent to the Property to the east. He also analyzed the ability of fire protection to be provided to the Property and concluded that it was feasible. T 428-432, 460-461. See also JE 7 at 1 regarding "utility and other urban services availability" and P 50 at 14-16 for a discussion of "utilities." Mr. Slonina also opined that a stormwater system could reasonably be designed for the Property and that it was feasible to design a stormwater system that would capture stormwater runoff before it went into the bayou. T 432-435. Mr. Slonina examined flood zone information and determined that the Property was "very typical" and that the flood zone information available would not preclude residential development on the Property. T 434-435, 450. But see Endnote 7. From a traffic concurrency standpoint, he examined traffic engineering data on trip generation for 13 single-family homes and determined that there was adequate capacity for that additional loading on "the only roadway that connects to the [P]roperty." His traffic impact analysis was limited "through the residential streets." T 435-436, 439-441. Mark O. Friedemann, is the executive vice-president at the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. T 466. Mr. Friedemann was retained on or about January 7, 2005, by the City's counsel for the purpose of "doing a basic assessment of the property and whether it was suitable for some type of development, residential in particular." T 474-475. Prior to conducting a survey of the Property, aerial photographs, data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and various maps were reviewed. Id. Mr. Friedemann and an assistant conducted a field survey of the Property on January 12, 2005. They collected basic water quality data, observed wildlife, conducted several soil observations pits, looked for scat, and examined the vegetative community on the Property. T 476. For the purpose of the survey, the Property was divided into areas 1 through 4, which are labeled on CE 5, Figure 2. T 478. These upland areas were the major focus of the assessment along with the interior (wetland/marsh) areas. T 478, 565. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. Mr. Friedemann and his assistant arrived on the Property at approximately 9:00 am on January 12, 2005, during low tide. They left the Property as the tide was starting to return. T 517, 532, 548. Area one is a rectangular portion of the Property, which runs north to south and forms most of the eastern boundary of the Property and is adjacent to Candlewick Acres. Area two is another upland area which is in the northwest portion of the Property and west of area one. Area three is in the southwest portion of the Property and southwest of area two. Area four is a small upland portion, which is almost due south of area one in the southeastern portion of the Property. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2; see also Endnote 6. Mr. Friedemann accessed area two from area one by walking along a path/spoil pile, which runs east to west and forms part of the northern boundary of the Property (the approximately 100 foot canal is north of and adjacent to the path/spoil pile). He walked to area three by stepping across a small rivulet of no more than a foot in width. He walked to area four from area three, stepping over another small tidal- influenced rivulet that passed between areas three and four. He approached area one from area four walking across "a rather high area." Mr. Friedemann "did not get the impression that area two was surrounded" by wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 479-481, 500, 517, 556-557. He stated that area three would be surrounded, but was unsure about area four. T 556-559. Some of the areas photographed would be potentially inundated during high tide. T 521-525. Mr. Friedemann's report also contained, in part: water quality data taken on January 12, 2005; and a list of species seen on the same date; a recent undated aerial of the Property and surrounding area, downloaded from the DEP website, which was also magnified; and several aerials (dated 1953, 1962, 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1986) of the Property including the surrounding areas. Mr. Friedemann opined, based on his review of aerials, that there may have been a timber operation ongoing on the Property in the past although he would not hazard a guess. T 540. The report also included several photographs taken of the four areas, during the site visit on January 12, 2005. CE 5 at x-xxii. Although he did not "review any set of plans," or have any opinion regarding any specific development proposal, Mr. Friedemann opined that based on his observations in the field, "there is a viable project that could be built on this parcel."9 T 482, 501-502, 511, 520. Mr. Friedemann provided an analysis of the Property by and through his testimony regarding photographs taken of the Property during his site visit. From a biological or ecological perspective, he did not observe anything on the Property which would preclude residential development. He further opined that what he observed was not unique in the panhandle of Florida. T 501-502. Mr. Friedemann did not conduct a wetland delineation of the Property. T 556. However, the record contains an infrared Conceptual Site Plan dated October 22, 2002, indicating vacant land to the north of the Property, and residential areas to the east of the Property and east of the vacant parcels to the north. This particular site plan provided for the approximate wetland boundaries of the Property identified as south parcel (4). PE 98-D and PE 50 at Exhibit 1. Mr. Friedemann indicated that he had not observed the Property during a hurricane, during periods of high wind, or during periods of a combination of high wind and high tide. He agreed that the tides in the United States can be lower during the winter than they are during the spring and that the highest tides may be experienced during the spring called neap tides. T 532-533. Mr. Friedemann was also referred to a December 30, 2004, document apparently prepared by Panhandle Engineering, Inc., sheet number 2 of 4, CE 16, which delineated 13 lots. T 533. See Endnote 6. (City Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence as an authentic document; however, there was no testimony regarding the preparation of this document. T 535-537.) Comparing sheet 2 of 4 with Figure two of CE 5, area two is depicted as being surrounded by rush marsh and connected to area one and area three by drawn-in bridges. Compare PE 50, Attachment E, Sheet 1 of 2, dated July 31, 1998, depicting the Property with 13 lots configured, interspersed with a "conservation area" designation and Attachment A, Figure 4., Project Base Map, depicting upland areas on the Property, interspersed with a "marsh" designation with PE 98-D south parcel (4) and "approximate wetland boundary. See also Endnote Mr. Friedemann stated that the indication of rush marsh on sheet number 2 of 4 did not comport with his observations of the Property during his site visit. He was unaware of this drawing. T 534-538. Gail Easley, A.I.C.P., an expert in urban and regional planning, opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with various provisions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Regional Strategic Policy Plan. She also opined the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the Property for the RLD land use designation. In support, Ms. Easley stated in part: Understanding that the amendment is not really permitting the use, but understanding that the amendment establishes the uses that are allowed as I testified earlier, the suitability data that is available in addition to the data and analysis here in the Comprehensive Plan includes the information from Panhandle Engineering about, more specifically about the availability of facilities and services and the suitability of soils for use of residential low density, as well as the analysis contained in Mr. Friedemann's report regarding environmental issues and the suitability of this site for residential low density. So I found plenty of evaluation of suitability. T 586. See also T 610-611. Ms. Easley also opined that the Plan Amendment does not threaten coastal and natural resources in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.012, and 9J- 5.013, and Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, because she considered the data and analysis in the Plan, "as well as the suitability and capability [sic] analysis that were submitted by Panhandle Engineering and Mr. Friedemann demonstrated that there was not a violation of these provisions." T 617. Ms. Easley also stated that there was adequate data to support a need for residential (RLD) development on the Property. See, e.g., T 584-585, 621-622, 629-630, 632-634. See also JE 3 at Future Land Use Data, 1-1 - 1-10. During cross-examination, Ms. Easley was asked to identify the particular Panhandle Engineering report which she reviewed to support her opinion. The report is not in evidence. However, Ms. Easley stated: "It was a report that they prepared that addressed issues of suitability of the site with regard to the availability of water, the availability of sewer, the capacity for water and sewer, soil conditions on the site, and traffic situations on the site. I'm sorry, I do not recall the date of that particular suitability analysis, but it was prepared by Panhandle Engineering, and I reviewed it as a part of my analysis." T 626. Ms. Easley was also asked to provide the source of her data and analysis about environmental conditions on the site and she replied: "Two places, there is information in the City's data and analysis with regard to the vacant land analysis, as well as general environmental conditions in or around the City, I reviewed that data and analysis that I mentioned earlier. I also saw information specific to this parcel from Mr. Friedemann's report." T 627. Ms. Easley indicated that there was no specific data and analysis contained in the City's Plan about the Property, although the Plan referenced areas adjacent to the City. T 628. Ms. Easley reiterated that natural resources are considered during the plan amendment process. It also occurs during permitting. T 642. She again stated: "The suitability analysis was contained in two different reports. As I testified earlier, Mr. Slonina's report from Panhandle Engineering addressed soils and soil suitability. And Mr. Friedemann's report looked at other kinds of environmental issues. I reviewed both of those reports and determined that suitability analysis had been preformed to support the plan amendment." T 643. According to Ms. Easley, if there were environmental reasons creating an inconsistency with Rule 9J-5, then such reasons could serve as a basis for denial. T 643. (Ms. Easley also opined that a land use change to the FLUM "is an assignment of a land use category and the associated density and intensity, it is not a development activity." See T 587, 651.) Mark Llewellyn, P.E., is the president of Genesis Group. In October 2002, Genesis Group completed a planning and engineering analysis (Genesis Report)10 for Chandler and Associates, who, in turn, had a contract with the DEP to prepare an appraisal report for the Goose Bayou Marsh Property.11 The Goose Bayou Marsh Property included four parcels, including the south parcel (4), which is the Property in question, two north parcels (2 and 3), and the middle parcel (1), which is north and northeast of and adjacent (the west one- third) to the Property. All the parcels are vacant. See PE 98- D, which also appears at PE 50, Exhibit 1. Mr. Llewellyn identified three peninsular islands on the Property (south parcel 4)(PE 98-D at the blue X's), which roughly correspond with areas one and two in Mr. Friedemann's report at CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. T 160-161. See also Endnote 6. The two eastern peninsular islands (area one) are connected to the upland to the east, Candlewick Acres. The third peninsular island, located in the northwest corner of the Property, can be accessed, according to Mr. Llewellyn, by a berm or other geographical feature to the north of the Property and south of the drainage canal. Id. See also T 397. There is one larger upland island and a smaller upland island toward the southwest and southern portions of the Property, which appear to be surrounded by wetlands, waters of the state, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 160-164. Each peninsular island and upland island is less than 20 acres. Mr. Llewellyn's analysis is consistent with the approximate wetland boundaries identified in the Conceptual Site Plan, PE 98-D. Mr. Llewellyn opined that the Property could be developed as a single-family development without having an impact on the Property if it is designed and maintained properly. T 157, 172. See also Endnote 6. The Genesis Report provided an analysis of the four parcels. Apparently the south parcel (4), the Property, contained approximately 16.2 acres as follows: wetlands 9.8+/- acres; upland islands 3.5+/- acres; peninsula uplands 2.9+/- acres; or 6.4+/- acres of total uplands. T 163; PE 50 at 12. Parcels 1-4 are analyzed in light of several factors, including but not limited, to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan as applied to the north parcels (2 and 3): The Bay County Comprehensive Management Plan identifies the North Parcel's Future Land Use Designation as Conservation. The purpose of this land use is to identify public and private lands held for conservation of natural features. Allowable uses for this designation are natural resource protection, flood control, wildlife habitat protection, passive of recreation, silviculture and residential densities up to 2DU/acre. Commercial development is prohibited for properties with this land use designation. Additionally, the upland islands located on these parcels fit the definition for "Pine Islands" as defined in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. A Pine Island is defined as a small upland area generally 20 acres or less, usually characterized by typical pine flatwood vegetation, which are surrounded by waters of the State, wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. The Bay County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development on any "Pine Island". This means that it will be extremely difficult to develop the upland areas located on this parcel. PE 50 at 2. See also PE 50 at 2 (II.B.) and 13 (IV.B.) regarding the Panama City Future Land Use. (The Genesis Report was prepared approximately two years prior to the City's annexation of the Property. The City did not annex the vacant land to the north (parcels 1-3), which is part of the subject of the Genesis Report.) Regarding the analysis of parcels 1, and 4, the Property, and referring to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan, it is noted that "[t]he same issues apply to this parcel." PE 50 at 7 and 13. The Genesis Report discussed wetlands on the Property: The wetlands within the property consist of estuarine salt marshes, which are connected to Goose Bayou and West Bay. According to an environmental assessment prepared by Biological Research Associates (BRA) the marshes are tidally influenced and dominated by black rush. Other species include seaside goldenrod, seashore dropseed grass, sea purslane, glasswort, salt grass, marsh hay cord grass, sea lavender, Chinese tallow, saw grass, cork wood, and saltbrush. Additionally, the salt marsh is habitat for two listed bird species; the snowy egret and the little blue heron (see Attachment A). As previously stated, a wetland delineation has been completed for this parcel and accepted by FDEP and ACOE. PE 50 at 13. The Genesis Report also provided a brief discussion of flood plain and cultural resource considerations, and also provided an analysis of site planning and engineering, including access, utilities, owner site plan/lot lay out, and probable development costs. PE 50 at 13-15. Regarding south parcel 4, the Property, the Genesis Report concluded, in part, that "[t]his parcel has limited development potential." A cost estimate is provided. It is also concluded that water and sewer could be provided without incurring significant increases in development costs. "Development of the upland islands would require bridges, which significantly increases the development cost. There is no guarantee that the development within the wetlands would be permitted at this time." PE 50 at 16. The Genesis Report also included a report prepared by Biological Research Associates, which appears as Attachment A to PE 50. Mark Andrew Barth, vice president/senior ecologist for Biological Research Associates, was one of the two signatories to a section of the Genesis Report and also testified during the final hearing. T 175; PE 50, Attachment A. He reiterated that they prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for a proposed acquisition by a State agency. T 176, 180. (While unclear, it appears that his study area included the approximate western one-third of the Property, see, e.g., T 189; PE 50, Attachment A, Figures 1, 3-4, although other portions of the Property were studied. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 93.) Referring to PE 98-C and the Property (outlined in black) and the vacant land to the north outlined in red, Mr. Barth testified that they are "mainly comprised of salt marsh and scattered pine dominated islands." According to Mr. Barth, the term "pine islands," "describes isolated upland patches within the salt marsh." T 177. The salt marshes consist of vegetation that extends beyond the water level usually in very shallow water. T 178. The Property is part of an estuary system, Goose Bayou, for example. Id. See also T 381; JE 12 at IV-14-16 and Map 1. The salt marsh is inundated by saline or marine water as opposed to fresh water. T 178. One of the most significant features of an estuary system "is providing nursery grounds and habitat for marine and estuarine fish and wildlife." T 179. Mr. Barth considered the Property, south parcel 4, PE 98-D, to be environmentally sensitive in light of the combination of estuarine and upland areas which are undisturbed. T 185-186. Mr. Barth did not have enough information to assess specific impacts to the surrounding salt marsh and water in light of a proposed development on the Property. He felt it depended on the type of development. T 182. "Middens" have been found on the south side of the Property, in and around area 3 (CE 5 at 2, Figure 2). See, e.g., T 558-559; PE 50, Genesis Report at 13 and Attachment A at 6-7 and Attachment E, Figure 4, Project Base Map and Figure 5, PBY139 Base Map. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Data and Analysis Ultimately, whether the Plan Amendment is based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis is a close question. This is particularly true here where critical portions of Mr. Friedemann's analysis are based on information, e.g., Mr. Friedemann's photographs, collection of water quality samples, and observations of the Property (species seen and terrain), which post-dated the City's adoption of the Plan Amendment on November 9, 2004. As a result, his analysis of this information has been disregarded, notwithstanding the lack of an objection to the admissibility of his report, CE 5. See Conclusions of Law 110-114. (Mr. Friedemann also provided several aerials of the Property and surrounding area which pre-date the date of adoption of the Plan Amendment and have been considered along with his analysis of this data.) Also, to the extent that Ms. Easley relied on Mr. Friedemann's report (CE 5) and the post- adoption information collected by Mr. Friedemann and his analysis of that information, her opinions have also been disregarded. Nevertheless, Petitioners have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, which Petitioners have not done. Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, it is ultimately concluded that the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, except as otherwise stated herein. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2), and 9J-5.012-.013. Consistency with the City's Plan, the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's Plan: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1.10; Coastal Management Element Goal 1, Objective 5.1, and Policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.3.3, and Goal 3; and Conservation Element Goal 1, Policies 6.6.2, 6.6.2.3, and 6.6.2.4. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDRC: subsections 2- 5.5.6, 5-5.1, 5-5.2, 5-5.3, and 5-5.6.3.e. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation on the Property to RLD. The Plan Amendment is not a development order. See Strand v. Escambia County, Case No. 03-2980GM, 2003 WL 23012209, at *4 (DOAH Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Jan. 28, 2004), aff'd, 894 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). It does not authorize any development to occur on the Property. Further, a special treatment zone, as used in the City's Plan, is not a FLUM land use district. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the various Plan provisions at issue, the Plan Amendment does not alter or interfere with the City's ability to maintain the quality of coastal resources; restrict the City's ability to maintain regulatory or management techniques intended to protect coastal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources, for example, or prohibit the construction of docks, piers, wharves, or similar structures; interfere with the City's ability to provide for or have available adequate areas for public waterfront access or to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation, protection, and use of natural resources; or interfere with the City's ability to enforce guidelines in its LDRCs related to, for example, the protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, estuarine shoreline, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or flood zones. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with cited portions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the City's LDRCs because it is not the subject of "in compliance" review.12
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 concluding that the Plan Amendment, adopted by the City of Panama City in Ordinance No. 1985, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 6th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the Metropolitan Dade County comprehensive plan adopted as Item No. 6, Ordinance No. 94-192, is "in compliance", as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Village of Key Biscayne (hereinafter referred to as the "Village"), is a local government (a municipal corporation) located within Dade County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department, among other things, is charged with responsibility for the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Respondent, Metropolitan Dade County (hereinafter referred to as "Dade County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Dade County is responsible under the Act for the preparation, processing, and review of land use plans and amendments thereto within its jurisdiction. Intervenor, Marine Exhibition Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Marine"), is the applicant for the amendment which is at issue in this case. Marine is the owner of the Miami Seaquarium (hereinafter referred to as the "Seaquarium"), a saltwater oceanarium and tourist attraction located in Dade County, Florida. The Village's Standing. The Seaquarium is located on Virginia Key, an island located in Biscayne Bay. The Seaquarium is connected with the mainland of Dade County by the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Village is located on Key Biscayne. Key Biscayne is an island located in Biscayne Bay. Key Biscayne is connected to Virginia Key. Key Biscayne is connected with the mainland of Dade County through Virginia Key. The Rickenbacker Causeway runs through Virginia Key, past the Seaquarium, over a bridge onto Key Biscayne. The Causeway becomes Crandon Boulevard, which runs to and through the Village and ends at Cape Florida, at the southeastern corner of Key Biscayne. Virginia Key and Key Biscayne are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County. The closest Village boundary to the Seaquarium is located approximately 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 miles from the Seaquarium property. The Village is located completely within Dade County's jurisdictional boundaries. The Village, therefore, owns property located in Dade County. The Village conducts all of its business within its city limits, located on Key Biscayne. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the plan amendment at issue in this proceedings will "produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure" of the Village or will create a "substantial impact on areas designed for protection or special treatment within the [Village's] jurisdiction." See Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Village raised objections by oral and written comments concerning the proposed amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Amendment"), at public hearings during the period of time commencing with the transmittal hearing and ending when the Proposed Amendment was adopted by Dade County. The Village's objections and comments did not include objections or comments concerning density and intensity standards. The Seaquarium. The Seaquarium is located on thirty-seven acres. The property is owned by Dade County and has been subject to a long-term lease to Marine. Dade County also owns all structures erected on the site and all marine mammals. The Seaquarium has been in operation at its present site since 1954. The Seaquarium has a history of providing entertainment, educational and recreational uses to residents and visitors to Dade County. Existing uses of the Seaquarium include approximately ten marine mammal exhibits and corresponding shows featuring these mammals, a marina, theme-oriented gift shops and restaurants. Educational activities at the Seaquarium include: (a) a program to train teachers in marine science and student field trips (over 75,000 students attend the past year) in cooperation with Dade County and Broward County, Florida; (b) the largest manatee rehabilitation and recapture program in the United States; (c) an internship program with the Mast Academy, a magnet school for gifted high school students; and (d) research and development exchange programs with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter referred to as "NOAA"). Florida Quality Development Designation. Marine decided to improve its facilities at the Seaquarium through a project it labeled "Seaquarium Village." Marine initially sought and obtained a designation from the Department of the Seaquarium Village as a Florida Quality Development (hereinafter referred to as "FQD"), pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Seaquarium Village project was subsequently challenged by the Village pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. The Village alleged that Seaquarium Village was not consistent with Dade County's comprehensive plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Third District Court of Appeal entered an opinion on November 9, 1993, finding that the project was inconsistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. den., 639 So.2d 976 (1994). The Proposed Amendment. The Plan includes a Land Use Element. The Land Use Element identifies locations in Dade County where various land uses, including intensities of use, will be allowed during the period for which the Plan applies. The land uses are also depicted on the Future Land Use Map. One of the land uses provided for in the Plan is the "Parks and Recreation" land use. The Seaquarium is located within the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category of the Plan. The Plan includes the following descriptive text concerning the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category: Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational, entertainment or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Marine filed an application in November of 1993 with Dade County seeking approval of a modification of the "Parks and Recreation" land use category for the site of the Seaquarium. The proposed modification ultimately adopted by Dade County, after Dade County and Marine cooperated to agree on the proposed language, provides for the addition of the following language immediately after the descriptive text quoted in finding of fact 24: [Included in the category is the Seaquarium, a unique tourist attraction with a long history of educational, entertainment, and recreational benefit both to residents of Dade County and to visitors. Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation section of the Land Use Plan Element, in order to continue and to enhance its contributions to the community, this facility may be authorized to renovate, expand, and increase the variety of its educa- tional, recreational and entertainment attractions. Accordingly, the following additional uses may be permitted at the Seaquarium site: recreational and educational uses, restaurants, gift shops, marine or water amusements, and environmentally- related theaters.] 1/ The Proposed Amendment does not apply to any Parks and Recreation site other than the Seaquarium site. Following transmittal of the Proposed Amendment to the Department, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), on or about September 1, 1994. In the ORC the Department objected, in relevant part, to the lack of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of the Proposed Amendment with the surrounding land uses and raised questions concerning whether the proposed project was in a Coastal High Hazard Area. In response to the ORC, Dade County provided the following information to the Department: (a) the record of the transmittal and adoption hearings; (b) Chapter 9J-11 deliverables; (c) information on the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Seaquarium; (d) the Seaquarium FQD; (d) the Seaquarium ADA; and (e) information concerning coastal high-hazard area. The proposed Seaquarium modification of the Parks and Recreation Land Use Element was adopted by Dade County on October 13, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94- 192. In December, 1994, after review of the Proposed Amendment and the additional information provided by Dade County, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Find the Proposed Amendment in Compliance. The decision of the Department was challenged by the Village on or about December 30, 1994. Intensity or Density of Use. The Act provides the following regarding the Future Land Use plan element required to be included in all comprehensive plans: . . . designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. . . . Each land use category shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or intensity of use. . . . Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code. The requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, concerning densities and intensities applies to all comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. "Densities" and "intensities" are objective methods of determining the extent to which land may be utilized. "Densities" are usually expressed in terms of the number of units allowed per acre of land. Rule 9J-5.003(33), Florida Administrative Code, defines "density" as "an objective measurement of the number of people or residential units allowed per unit of land, such as residents or employees per acre." This definition of "density" was first adopted by rule in 1994. Densities are usually associated with residential uses. "Density" requirements are not relevant to the Proposed Amendment because it does not involve residential use of land. "Intensities" are most often expressed in terms of spatial uses, such as the amount of allowable floor space, lot coverage, or height. Rule 9J- 5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code, defines "intensity" as "an objective measurement of the extent to which land may be developed or used, including the consumption or use of the space above, on natural resources; and the measurement of the use or demand on facilities and services." This definition of "intensity" was first adopted by rule in 1994. The purpose of requiring density and intensity standards is to promote intelligent planning which allows for the measurement of developments on natural resources and infrastructure capacity, and allows the evaluation of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Initial Approval of the Plan. The Plan was submitted to the Department for initial review in 1988. The Plan was one of the first comprehensive plans reviewed pursuant to the Act by the Department. At the time of the Department's initial review of the Plan, there was no definition of density or intensity provided by rule. The definitions of density and intensity included in Rules 9J-5.003(33) and (63), Florida Administrative Code, were not adopted until 1994. The Parks and Recreation category of the Plan, when originally submitted for review, was required to include an intensity standard. The Plan's definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category did not, however, contain a specific restriction on intensity of use such as a floor area ratio, maximum lot coverage, or height restriction. Rather than include a specific intensity restriction in the Plan, Dade County elected to describe the types of nonresidential uses which would be allowed under the Parks and Recreation land use category. Dade County restricted allowable uses to those which are complementary to the site and its natural resources. Dade County believed that its description of allowable uses constituted an adequate intensity standard, providing an objective measurement of the extent that land could be developed, the use and demand on natural resources, and the use and demand on facilities and services. Dade County is the largest county in Florida. It includes approximately 2000 to 2100 square miles. Dade County, therefore, elected to emphasize its natural resources and public service impacts on a "macromanagement" basis. The Parks and Recreation land use category included in the Plan allows a wide range of park and recreational uses, including "neighborhood parks, area parks, metropolitan parks, regional and state parks, including Everglades National Park, [and] tourist attractions such as the Seaquarium, Metro Zoo, [and] Viscaya . . . ." Transcript, Vol. III, Page 402. The Department approved the Plan without objection, recommendation or comment with regard to the definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The "Baby Seal Policy". The Department's policy concerning the application of the Act to growth management plans has evolved since the initial plans were reviewed. The Department has recognized that some of the plans it initially approved may be "less than perfect". In recognition of this problem, the Department found it necessary to develope a policy to deal with plans that do not comply with the Department's interpretation of the Act now that the Department has more experience interpreting and applying the Act. The Department's response to the problem of dealing with plans that may not comply with the Act, but have previously been approved, is referred to as the "Baby Seal Policy". This policy has been described as follows: Local government A's comprehensive plan provides that ten baby seals may be killed over the planning period while local government B's plan provides that no baby seals may be killed. Both plans are initially approved by the Department. Subsequently, the Department adopts a rule that prohibits the killing of baby seals. Local government A then amends its plan to allow the killing of eight baby seals rather than ten. Local government B also amends its plan to allow the killing of two baby seals. In applying the "Baby Seal Policy" the Department would approve local government's amendment because it moves local government A's plan closer to complying the prohibition against killing baby seals. Local government B's amendment would not be approved, however, because it moves its plan further from complying with the prohibition. The Department's Baby Seal Policy was developed so that the Department can comply with the requirement of Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, that the Department consider as part of its review of plan amendments whether an amendment makes substantial progress towards consistency with applicable requirements of the rules and the Act. Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration during the review of a proposed plan amendment of the following: Whether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, the State Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Regional Policy Plan and this Chapter, where the existing provisions are in a plan or plan amendment previously found in compliance. The Department's "Baby Seal Policy" encourages local governments to adopt amendments to previously approved plans (which may not be in compliance with all provisions of the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code), which bring those plans closer to being in compliance with the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. I. Application of the Baby Seal Policy to the Proposed Amendment. The Department recognizes that the Parks and Recreation land use category of the Plan may not be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, because it does not provide for the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment, however, continues Dade County's choice of describing the Parks and Recreation land use category by specifying the types of allowable uses at the Seaquarium. There is no doubt that the Proposed Amendment includes uses allowable on the Seaquarium site which, when read alone and without regard to the Plan's overall definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category, are broad. The Proposed Amendment clearly does not include the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment does, however, provide more detail as to the allowable uses on the Seaquarium site than currently included in the Parks and Recreation land use category. Consequently, the Proposed Amendment does provide greater certainty for indentifying the potential impacts of development at the Seaquarium site than the current definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The Proposed Amendment does, therefore, move the Plan in the direction of compliance with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in furtherance of the Baby Seal Policy and as required by Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Internal Consistency. Internal consistency between and within elements of a growth management plan is required by the Act. Internal consistency must be maintained when a plan is amended. Without consistency in the provisions of a plan, it will not be clear what actions are allowable and unallowable under a plan. The Proposed Amendment provides that certain modifications of the Seaquarium site will be allowable under the Plan "[n]otwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation Section of the Land Use Plan Element . . . ." This language creates a clearly designated exception to, or deviation from, other requirements of the Land Use Plan Element. A clearly specified exception to, or deviation from, a provision in a plan does not create an inconsistency. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the Plan. Data and Analysis. Plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis. Rules 9J- 5.005(2) and 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Dade County provided, in addition to information concerning the surrounding area and coastal high hazard areas requested by the Department, the FQD and the Application for Development Approval (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), to the Department in support of the Proposed Amendment. While the FQD and the ADA pertain to a specifically proposed development, these documents contain data concerning the Seaquarium site, the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. Although the Proposed Amendment is not limited to the project approved in the FQD or the portion of the ADA which relates expressly to the project approved in the FQD, the ADA contains information concerning the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. That information, or data, and the analysis thereof is relevant to a determination of whether the Proposed Amendment should be approved. The information contained in the ADA is useful in estimating the impacts of the types of development that are permissible pursuant to the Proposed Amendment and not just the impacts of the development addressed in the FQD. The FQD and the ADA also provide information concerning what type of project may reasonably be expected at the Seaquarium site. Much of the pertinent data contained in the ADA also constitutes the best information available concerning the Seaquarium site and, therefore, the subject of the Proposed Amendment. While the only expert witness called by the Village, Mr. David Russ, opined that the FQD does not constitute the data and analysis required in support of the Proposed Amendment, Mr. Russ did not give a similar opinion concerning the ADA. Nor had Mr. Russ read the ADA. Non-development specific data provided to the Department in the ADA included information concerning services and facilities related to development at the site. In particular, data is included in the ADA concerning traffic and emergency services (proposed traffic improvements, trips, the existing roadway network, the applicable level of service and projected background traffic). Data was also provided in the ADA concerning wastewater, drainage and potable water (existing water distribution and transmission systems, pervious and impervious conditions), and solid waste. Data and analysis concerning the natural resources of the Seaquarium site was also included in the ADA. Existing on-site vegetation and wildlife are inventoried and information concerning air quality and wetlands is provided. Data and analysis concerning historical and archeological resources is also provided in the ADA. Question 12 of the ADA provides information concerning the need for renovation and expansion of the Seaquarium site. Data and analysis concerning the need for redevelopment of the site was unrefuted by competent, substantial evidence. The Department was also provided with data and analysis concerning the area which surrounds the site. Surrounding uses included the University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, the United States National Marine Fisheries Laboratory Station and offices, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration offices, the Mast Academy, the City of Miami Marine Stadium and the Metro Dade County Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Seaquarium and redevelopment which would be allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment are compatible with these surrounding uses. The Village's suggestion that the data and analysis provided to the Department in the FQD and the ADA (which had not been read by the Village's expert witness) was not sufficient because the FQD pertains to a specific project is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The FQD and, more importantly, the ADA contain sufficient data and analysis to support the allowable land uses of the Proposed Amendment. In addition to suggesting that the data and analysis provided to the Department is insufficient because the data and analysis relates to a specific project, the Village has argued that insufficient data and analysis has been provided with regard to intensity of use. This argument is essentially an extension of the Village's argument concerning the lack of an intensity standard. There is as much, or more, data and analysis provided with the Proposed Amendment concerning intensity of use as there is to support the existing Parks and Recreation land use category. The data and analysis to support the Parks and Recreation land use category which is presumed to exist, may also be relied upon in reviewing a plan amendment. Additionally, the data and analysis provided as a part of the ADA is sufficient to support the maximum intensity of use allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment. The evidence failed to prove that there was not adequate data and analysis to support a determination that the Proposed Amendment is "in compliance".
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 dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, filed by the Village of Key Biscayne. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1996.*
The Issue The issue is whether an amendment to the comprehensive plan of the City of Cocoa Beach is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 1996, Respondent City of Cocoa (City) adopted Ordinance 1100 to amend the future land use map (FLUM) of the City’s comprehensive plan (Plan). The amendment affects about three-quarters of an acre designated as Parcels 2 and 5 in the subdivision recorded at plat book 21, page 9, public records of Brevard County, Florida. Parcel 2 is 0.18 acres of privately owned submerged bottom. Parcel 5 is 0.57 acres of uplands, of which 0.48 acres is road right-of-way. The affected area is adjacent to and in the Banana River and adjacent to the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. The amendment changes the future land use designation of each parcel to Moderate Density Residential. The amendment as to Parcel 5 is unconditional and took effect upon the adoption of the ordinance. The amendment as to Parcel 2 is conditional. The ordinance provides that the designation of Parcel 2 changes “only upon issuance of a dredge and fill permit by the City.” Prior to the amendment, the future land use designation of part of the land within Parcel 5 was General and the remainder was undesignated. Prior to the amendment, the future land use designation of the submerged bottom of Parcel 2 was Conservation. There is some dispute as to the designation of Parcel prior to the amendment. Petitioner contends it was Conservation; Respondents contend it was undesignated. The submerged bottom is white on the FLUM, and white designates Conservation. Although the FLUM also depicts roads in white, they are obviously not Conservation uses. The plan states that the Conservation designation is intended “primarily”--though not exclusively--for islands in the Banana River. There is nothing unusual in designating as Conservation submerged bottom in the Banana River and adjacent to the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. Respondents have not presented sufficient evidence to overturn the evident and logical designation of Parcel 2 as Conservation, prior to the present amendment. The area in question is bordered on the west and south by the Banana River and the east and south by roadways. To the north lies a 90-foot wide vacant lot. Surrounding land-use designations are Moderate Density Residential and Single Family Residential. To the north and east of the vacant lot is a three-story, 18-unit condominium. To the south of the road adjoining the south border of the subject area are numerous single family residences on lots ranging from 90-125 feet wide. Across the road intersection due east of the subject area is another condominium development. The area south of the subject area is general single family residential. The City’s analysis accompanying the redesignation of Parcels 2 and 5 explains that Parcel 2 “used to be dry land but has eroded away. At present, no use can be made of the property.” The analysis notes that the maximum allowable use under the Medium Density Residential designation would be 3/4 of an acre times 12 units per acre, for a total of 9 units. Without any explanation, the independent planning consultant employed by the City asserted that “[t]here are no environmental concerns on the upland, nor wetlands.” The consultant noted that the State of Florida was responsible for issuing dredge and fill permits. At the invitation of all the parties, the administrative law judge visited the site in the presence of all the parties. Consistent with all of the documentary and testimonial evidence, he found Parcel 2 under 1-2 feet of the water of the Banana River. The Conservation Element of the Plan contains data and analysis stating that seagrasses and algae in the lagoon provide nursery and breeding grounds for shellfish and finfish, and the “entire Banana River Lagoon has been designated as a critical habitat necessary for [the] survival [of the West Indian manatee].” The Plan notes that the lagoon is a feeding area for manatees, a source of detrital food, vital nursing habitat for larval and juvenile stages of marine life, and a contributor to water quality. The Plan notes that [u]rban development activities associated with the use of coastal lands are primary problems to the maintenance of [the] City’s natural resources. Many functions of vital estuarine areas have been impaired or threatened by encroaching development. These losses, in most cases, cannot be reversed and have contributed to declining fishery productivity as well as to other coastal resource related problems. The western edge of Cocoa Beach lies on the Banana River Lagoon. The Lagoon is a low flow system with negligible tidal exchange and little fresh water input other than runoff, discharge, and precipitation. Its naturally poor water circulation has been compounded by man- made alterations and the Lagoon has little capacity to handle pollutants. State Road 520 and the Minuteman Causeway have slowed the flow of water in the Lagoon, as have the numerous finder canals. Urban runoff, storm drain discharge, and discharge from various treatment plants near Cocoa Beach, in the surrounding municipalities and County areas, are the primary sources of pollution and are a cause of the Lagoon’s “poor” water quality, primarily in the form of high nitrogen and chlorophyll readings. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 1 is to adopt and modify land development regulations to manage future growth in the City. FLUE Objective 16 is to encourage the use of innovative land use regulations as to areas in need of redevelopment. Conservation Objective 1 is to require “positive siting and land management techniques . . . to maintain or improve estuarine environmental quality.” Conservation Objective 2 is for the City to provide, by the end of 1990, criteria for setting priorities for shoreline uses so as to give priority to water-dependent uses. Conservation Objective is to “protect species that are listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies.” As set forth in Section 187.201(16)(b)3 and 6, the third and sixth policies of the land-use section of the State comprehensive plan are to Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping, and recreational activities. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of Parcel 5 is unsupported by the data and analysis, including land use suitability analysis; is internally inconsistent with any provision of the Plan or the FLUM; or inconsistent with any provision of the State comprehensive plan. The designation of the uplands is consistent with the surrounding land uses and is not contraindicated by any data and analysis, especially given the small area involved. Petitioner has shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of Parcel 2 is unsupported by the data and analysis, is internally inconsistent with the cited objectives of the Conservation Element, and is inconsistent with the sixth policy of the land use portion of the State comprehensive plan. These findings are independent of the current designation of Parcel 2. If Parcel 2 is designated Conservation, as has been found, its redesignation as Medium Density Residential is also inconsistent with the FLUM, which more sensibly designates the submerged bottom as Conservation. Designation of submerged bottom for Medium Density Residential is unsupported by the data and analysis concerning the values of the Banana River in providing water quality and habitat values. Designation of submerged bottom for Medium Density Residential conflicts with the cited Conservation objectives and the sixth policy of the land-use section of the State comprehensive plan. This is not a case in which the designation of submerged bottom serves some rational purpose, such as facilitating water-dependent or public-facility uses. The only apparent purpose of designated the 0.18 acres of submerged bottom as Medium Density Residential is to allow greater density on the adjoining uplands. Under the facts of this case, designating 0.18 acres of submerged bottom--even though privately owned--as Medium Density Residential makes no sense.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendment as to Parcel 5 is in compliance and submit this recommended order to the Administration Commission for a final order determining that the amendment as to Parcel 2 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Moehle 65 Country Club Road Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 William Weller Rose & Weller Post Office Box 321255 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932-1255 Shaw P. Stiller Assistant General Counsel Stephanie Crossman Eligible Law Student Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Bram D. E. Canter 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephanie Gehres Kruer General Counsel 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James F. Murley, Secretary 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
