The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, 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 24th day of February, 2004.
The Issue Whether Miami-Dade County’s (“the County’s”) comprehensive plan amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-47 on May 20, 2020, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner resides, and owns property, in the County. Petitioner made oral or written comments and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the time period between the County’s transmittal and adoption of the Plan Amendment. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty and authority to adopt and amend its Comprehensive Plan. See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Krome is a limited liability company, existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in the State of Florida. Krome owns the property subject to the Plan Amendment, as well as other property within the area affected by the Plan Amendment, and was the applicant for the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property and Surrounding Uses The Subject Property is 5.97 gross acres (approximately 4.6 net acres) of vacant land located outside of the Urban Development Boundary on the southwest corner of SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue) and SW 136 Street. It is the northeast corner of a larger 48.33-acre parcel owned by Krome (the “Parent Tract”). Adjacent to the north of the Parent Tract, across SW 136 Street, is a solar farm operated by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). To the east, across Krome Avenue, and to the south, including the remaining portion of the Parent Tract, are agricultural lands used for row crops. West and south of the Parent Tract (including the Subject Property), the land is developed predominantly with five-acre rural estates, interspersed with small residential farms and agricultural sites ranging between 10 and 30 acres in size. The Property is located within an approximately 11-mile stretch of Krome Avenue where there are presently no gas service stations. The nearest gas service station to the south of the Property is located approximately three miles away. The nearest gas service station to the north of the Property is located approximately eight miles away. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the Future Land Use (“FLU”) designation of the Subject Property from the “Agricultural” to the “Business and Office” land use category. The Business and Office category allows for development of a wide range of sales and services uses, including retail, wholesale, personal and professional services, call centers, commercial and professional offices, hotels, motels, hospitals, medical buildings, nursing homes, entertainment and cultural facilities, amusements, and commercial recreation establishments. The category also allows light industrial development, telecommunication facilities, and residential uses (stand alone or mixed with commercial, light industrial, office, and hotels). Krome sought the Plan Amendment for the ultimate purpose of operating a gas service station and other food and retail uses compatible with, and supportive of, the surrounding agricultural and residential community. In recognition that the “Business and Office” land use designation permits a wide variety of uses, Krome proffered to restrict the permitted uses on the Property by submitting a Declaration of Restrictions to be recorded as a covenant running with the land. County Consideration of Plan Amendment In October 2019, County planning staff issued its Initial Report and Recommendations, suggesting denial of the proposed Plan Amendment. The County’s Community Councils are tasked with providing recommendations on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The West Kendall Community Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Plan Amendment on December 16, 2019, at which members of the public commented on the proposal. A representative of Krome made a presentation at the public hearing and submitted presentation exhibits that included: (1) a proposed Declaration of Restrictions; (2) a County memorandum relating to a separate application to allow the establishment of a gas station at SW 177 Avenue and SW 200 Street in Miami-Dade County; (3) a letter from the Dade County Farm Bureau stating that it had no objection to the Application; and (4) a Petition of Support listing 105 members of the community that elected to express support and recommend approval of the proposal. At the conclusion of the December 16, 2019 hearing, the West Kendall Community Council voted to recommend that the proposed Plan Amendment be adopted with acceptance of the proffered Declaration of Restrictions. After previously deferring the matter at a hearing on October 29, 2019, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the “BCC”) voted on December 17, 2019, to adopt the Plan Amendment on first reading. The County’s Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) serves as the Local Planning Agency to review any matters referred to it by the BCC, pursuant to section 2-108 of the Miami-Dade County Code. On January 8, 2020, the PAB, acting as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing to address the proposal. Near the conclusion of the hearing, the chairman of the PAB proposed an amendment to the proffered Declaration of Restrictions such that the maximum gross square feet of enclosed, under-roof construction on the Property, excluding fueling islands, would be reduced from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Krome’s representative agreed to the proposed amendment. The PAB then voted to recommend that the BCC adopt the Plan Amendment with acceptance of the revised Declaration of Restrictions. After previously deferring second reading of the ordinance on January 23, 2020, the BCC voted nine-to-three to adopt Ordinance No. 20-47 on second reading at a public hearing on May 20, 2020. As part of its adoption of the Plan Amendment, the BCC accepted Krome’s proffered Declaration of Restrictions containing the provisions outlined below. The adopted Declaration of Restrictions states that it is a covenant running with the land for a period of 30 years, and thereafter automatically renews for 10-year periods. The Declaration of Restrictions expressly allows for “[a]ll uses permitted under Article XXXIII, Section 33-279, Uses Permitted, AU, Agricultural District, of the Miami-Dade County Code” along with an “Automobile gas station with mini mart/convenience store” with a maximum of 15 vehicle fueling positions. The Declaration of Restrictions further provides that “[m]echanical repairs, oil or transmission changes, tire repair or installation, maintenance, automobile or truck washing” are prohibited uses, and it limits the maximum gross square feet of enclosed, under-roof construction to 6,000 square feet. Petitioner’s Challenges In the Amended Petition, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance,” specifically contending that it: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with certain existing Comprehensive Plan policies, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9.; and (3) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Internal Consistency The Comprehensive Plan gives the County Commission flexibility to appropriately balance the community’s needs with land use, environmental, and other Comprehensive Plan policies. It is inherent in the comprehensive planning process that the Comprehensive Plan contains potentially competing goals, objectives, and policies, and that addressing them entails a balancing act rather than an all-or-nothing choice. The Comprehensive Plan expressly recognizes this balancing act in its Statement of Legislative Intent: The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and necessitate a choice between, different goals, priorities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the Land Use Element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board’s responsibility to provide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. * * * Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan must be read as a whole, and a plan amendment should not be measured against only certain policies in isolation. Krome’s expert, Kenneth Metcalf, opined that the Plan Amendment affirmatively furthers several Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies, including Land Use Policies (“LU”) 1G, 1O, and 8E; Conservation Policy (“CON”) 6E; Community Health and Design Policies (“CHMP”) 4A and 4C; Coastal Management Policies (“CM”) 8A and 8F; and Economic Policy (“ECO”) 7A. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with some of those same policies, as well as other policies. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1G, which states: Business developments shall preferably be placed in clusters or nodes in the vicinity of major roadway intersections, and not in continuous strips or as isolated spots, with the exception of small neighborhood nodes. Business developments shall be designed to relate to adjacent development, and large uses should be planned and designed to serve as an anchor for adjoining smaller businesses or the adjacent business district. Granting of commercial or other non-residential zoning by the County is not necessarily warranted on a given property by virtue of nearby or adjacent roadway construction or expansion, or by its location at the intersection of two roadways. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with the allowance in Policy LU-1G for small neighborhood nodes based on its relationship to the adjacent rural residential and agricultural community, especially given the evidence that such adjacent community lacks existing options for gas and convenience goods. He further explained that use of the word “preferably” in Policy LU-1G indicated a preference, not a bright-line rule or requirement, and that the Comprehensive Plan does not contain a definition of “small neighborhood nodes” or any interim step for designating such nodes. Further, the County’s expert, Alex David, opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-1G. He first noted that locating business developments in clusters or nodes is preferable, but not compulsory. In addition, he explained that the policy allows for small neighborhood nodes, and that this Plan Amendment fits the concept of a small neighborhood node in terms of its location, scale, and function: Location: The Plan amendment is limited to a portion of a quadrant of the intersection of two roads adjacent to a rural community, so it will not be linear development along the Krome Avenue corridor; Scale: The Plan amendment is considered “small-scale” under the Florida Statutes because it involves less than 10 acres in land area. In addition, the Declaration of Restrictions accepted by the County Commission restricts the extent of land uses (other than those permitted under the AU Zoning District) to a convenience retail limited to a maximum of 6,000 square feet and a gas station with 15 fueling positions; and Function: Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the County Code define the term “convenience store.” However, many other communities define this use as a small retail establishment intended to serve the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood population by offering for sale prepackaged food products, household items, over-the-counter medicine, newspapers and magazines, freshly prepared foods, and even access to an ATM. In rural neighborhoods such as those surrounding the location of the Plan Amendment, a convenience store associated with a gas station is often the only place nearby to buy such items. These stores often also serve as a community gathering spot. Based on these characteristics, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would create a small neighborhood node with a gas and convenience use for the surrounding rural farm community, similar to the nodes to the south along Krome Avenue that serve the surrounding communities there. Mr. David also contradicted Petitioner’s contention that the Comprehensive Plan contains a process for designating nodes. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1O, which states: “Miami-Dade County shall seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe in the Agriculture Areas outside the Urban Development Boundary, through its Comprehensive Plan amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with LU-1O because the development contemplated by the Plan Amendment is designed to serve the adjacent existing rural neighborhoods to the southwest that are in need of gas and convenience goods. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-1O. He explained that this policy aims to ensure that development does not happen in isolation and occurs, instead, where other development already exists. Because the Plan Amendment site is proximate to a contiguous, and nearly continuous grid of, existing development consisting of rural estate residential and small-scale residential farms, the Plan Amendment does not contravene this policy or its purpose. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1P, which states: While continuing to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County, Miami-Dade County shall explore and may authorize alternative land uses in the South Dade agricultural area which would be compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, and which would promote ecotourism and agritourism related to the area's agricultural and natural resource base including Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support the contention that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1P. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-1P because that policy allows for alternative land uses that are compatible with agricultural uses, such as Krome’s plans for the store to support local agricultural uses and agri-tourism by selling fresh fruit from local groves and diesel for smaller scale agricultural farmers, as provided in the Declaration of Restrictions. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with that policy. He explained that the Plan Amendment pertains only to a very small portion (less than six gross acres) of a larger agricultural site, which will continue to be actively used for agriculture, and there is no evidence that the Plan Amendment will impair the viability of the agricultural economy in the County. As Mr. David explained, the County previously determined that the amount of land that is needed to maintain a “viable” agricultural industry is approximately 50,000 acres, and according to the County, the County has about 55,206 acres available. The 5.97 gross acres (approximately 4.6 net acres) of land that the Plan Amendment directly impacts is miniscule in comparison. Mr. David also explained how the uses specified in the Declaration of Restrictions are compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, as well as promoting economic development in the County’s agricultural area. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1S, which states: The Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan includes Countywide community goals, strategies and key outcomes for Miami-Dade County government. Key outcomes of the Strategic Plan that are relevant to the Land Use element of the CDMP include increased urban infill development and urban center development, protection of viable agriculture and environmentally-sensitive land, reduced flooding, improved infrastructure and redevelopment to attract businesses, availability of high quality green space throughout the County, and development of mixed-use, multi-modal, well designed, and sustainable communities. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. Petitioner’s reliance on LU-1S is misplaced because that provision requires the Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around. As such, this policy is irrelevant to the Plan Amendment, as both Mr. Metcalf and Mr. David testified. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-2B, which states: Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial resources for services and facilities in Miami-Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. Second priority shall be given to serve the area between the Urban Infill Area and the Urban Development Boundary. And third priority shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs of these non- urban areas. Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-2B because that policy provides a specific exception for improvements that will serve “localized needs of these non- urban areas,” such as the proposed gas station and convenience store. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-2B because it does not request, require, or necessitate the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (“UDB”) or the Urban Expansion Area (“UEA”), nor does it involve or propose the extension of urban services or facilities outside the 2020 UDB or into the Agriculture and Open Land areas. Mr. David explained that gas stations and convenience stores are not “services or facilities,” as those terms are used in the Comprehensive Plan, nor would the gas station or convenience store allowed by the Plan Amendment be an “urban” use. Therefore, urban services and facilities that support or encourage urban development in Agriculture or Open Land areas will continue to be avoided. Mr. David further explained, as County planning staff recognized, the Plan Amendment will not impact key infrastructure and Levels of Service (“LOS”) that exist within the UDB (including, but not limited to, water and sewer, transportation, solid waste, etc.). Although County staff found that, under the Plan Amendment, fire and rescue services for the Property would not meet national industry standards, Mr. David refuted that concern, explaining that the Comprehensive Plan does not require compliance with national industry standards for fire and rescue, nor does the Plan Amendment violate a County LOS standard for fire and rescue. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective LU-7, which states: Miami-Dade County shall require all new development and redevelopment in existing and planned transit corridors and urban centers to be planned and designed to promote transit-oriented development (TOD), and transit use, which mixes residential, retail, office, open space and public uses in a safe, pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment that promotes mobility for people of all ages and abilities through the use of rapid transit services. The Plan Amendment is not located in an existing or planned transit corridor or urban center. Objective LU-7 is not applicable to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8C, which states: “Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, economic development, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Miami-Dade County shall continue to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Miami- Dade County.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-8C. He explained that the policy contained a general directive for the County to promote and protect agriculture, but did not prohibit small scale plan amendments that respond to the existing needs of the surrounding agricultural and rural communities, such as the Plan Amendment. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-8C. Again, he explained that the Plan Amendment pertains only to a small portion of the Parent Tract, which will continue to be actively used for agriculture; that the uses specified in the Declaration of Restrictions are compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses; and that those uses will promote economic development in the County’s agricultural area. He also explained that removing the Property from agricultural production would not reduce the number of acres in agricultural production below the threshold needed to sustain agriculture as a viable economic activity in Miami-Dade County. Mr. David further explained that there is no provision in the Comprehensive Plan categorically prohibiting the removal of agricultural land from agricultural production. Petitioner argued that the Plan Amendment would further degrade existing agricultural uses in the area because it could tempt ATV riders to trespass and ride their ATVs over nearby agricultural lands. Mr. David found that speculative concern immaterial to the analysis required by the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E, which states: Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated for consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU- 7, herein. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-8E. As an initial matter, Mr. Metcalf explained that this Policy only requires an evaluation of “the extent to which” the subparts are satisfied, and does not set a threshold or a specific methodology. Regarding subpart (i), Mr. Metcalf explained the Plan Amendment addressed an existing and future need for a gas station, convenience retail products, fresh food, and supporting products for the agricultural industry within the general area, which currently lacks these offerings. In addition, he opined that the gas station would respond to a critical need to reduce fuel shortages during hurricane evacuations. As to subparts (ii-iv), Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would not impede provision of services at LOS standards; would enhance hurricane evacuations; would be compatible with nearby uses because the Parent Tract would continue to be used for agriculture, which would serve as a buffer between the Subject Property and adjacent uses; and that the Subject Property does not contain any environmental or historical resources, features, or systems of County significance. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-8E. He explained, first, that Krome submitted with its application a Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation study prepared by Mr. Metcalf, establishing that the Plan Amendment will help satisfy an existing deficiency in the Plan map by facilitating a convenience retail opportunity to serve the needs of the local population, who currently must drive on Krome Avenue at least three miles one way south of this location to SW 184th Street, or more than eight miles north, and then east on Kendall Drive (SW 88th Street), to reach the nearest equivalent services. In addition, there was significant support for the application by area residents, as evidenced by the petition submitted by Krome and the public testimony in favor of the Plan Amendment. Second, he explained that the Plan Amendment will not impede the provision of services at or above adopted LOS standards, as County staff noted in its report. On the contrary, with regards to traffic, the Plan Amendment may facilitate a reduction in trip generation and vehicle-miles traveled (“VMT”) on Krome Avenue from the existing residential community to the west and south, by providing a nearby convenience that may be reached without driving several miles north or south on Krome Avenue. Third, he opined that the Plan Amendment is compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and would protect the character of established neighborhoods—the large-scale solar power facility to the north, and the remainder of the 50-acre parcel that will remain in agricultural use to the west and south—will provide an appropriate buffer for the surrounding rural estate residential uses. Krome Avenue at this location is a 4-lane divided arterial with a 40-foot median, which also provides a significant buffer between the Plan Amendment site and the uses across Krome Avenue. In its evaluation, County staff recognizes that the “Business and Office” land use designation and the proposed development could be “generally compatible” with the existing agricultural uses and FPL’s Solar Energy Center. Mr. David opined that the assertion that the land use re-designation “would set a precedent for the conversion of additional agricultural land to commercial uses” is speculative and not only unproven, but refuted by the existing commercial development along the Krome Avenue corridor. The existing isolated uses along Krome Avenue, some of which are the same or similar uses that would be allowed by the Plan Amendment, are long-standing and have not led to urban development or infill in the area. Mr. David also testified that there are “very stringent policies” that restrict further development from occurring along Krome Avenue in this area, including Policies LU-3N and LU-3O. Fourth, Mr. David explained that the Plan Amendment will not degrade historical or archaeological resources, features, or systems of County significance, which is further confirmed by County staff’s own analysis. Regarding impacts to environmental resources, before any development proceeds on the Subject Property, the applicant must apply to all relevant state, regional, and local agencies for the applicable and necessary permits and variances, and if the applicant is unable to obtain such approvals due to environmental concerns, the project will not be permitted to proceed. In other words, while there is no evidence of adverse environmental impacts at the plan amendment stage, the applicant will have to satisfy all environmental requirements in subsequent stages of the development process to proceed with the project. Lastly, Mr. David explained that the Plan Amendment site is not located in an Urban Center or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes; thus, the fifth and final consideration of Policy LU-8E is inapplicable to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G, which provides criteria for plan amendments that add land to the UDB. Because the Plan Amendment does not add land to the UDB, Policy LU-8G is irrelevant to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A, which states: “Promote increased production and expand the availability of agricultural goods and other food products produced in Miami- Dade County.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A because the proposed store would support the local sale and consumption of goods from the community. Similarly, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A. He explained that there is no metric associated with this aspirational policy, and noted that the approval of the Plan Amendment pertains only to a small portion of a larger agricultural site, the balance of which will continue to be protected and promoted for agricultural use. Moreover, he explained that the uses allowed by the Plan Amendment through the Declaration of Restrictions are limited to those permitted in the AU Zoning District, plus a fueling and convenience retail service use, which could support the sale and consumption of local agricultural goods. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-6D, which states: “Areas in Miami-Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without additional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the policy because it affects only a five-acre tract, and because the Plan Amendment was justified by the existing demand. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CON-6D. He noted, first, that according to the County, the Plan Amendment site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Second, he explained the Plan Amendment will not result in premature urban encroachment–i.e., a poorly planned expansion of low-density development spread out over large amounts of land, putting long distances between homes, stores, and work, and requiring an inefficient extension of urban infrastructure and services. According to Mr. David, the adopted Plan Amendment is the opposite of these characteristics because: a) it pertains to a very small site, with a range of permitted uses that is specifically limited by the accepted Declaration of Restrictions; b) it will reduce the distance between residents’ homes and local-serving convenience services; and c) it does not involve the extension of urban infrastructure and services. In addition, Mr. David opined that the term “premature” does not apply to the Plan Amendment, as evidenced by the public support of area residents for the gas and convenience uses and the applicant’s expert analysis of area need. Furthermore, Mr. David established that a gas station with a convenience store is not an “urban” use, and, therefore, the Plan Amendment does not allow “urban encroachment.” Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-6E, which states: “Miami-Dade County shall continue to pursue programs and mechanisms to support the local agriculture industry, and the preservation of land suitable for agriculture.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with Policy CON-6E because it affected less than five net acres, only 10 percent of the Parent Tract, and would provide convenience goods for the community and local farmworkers. He further explained, again, that the policy does not prohibit small-scale plan amendments that respond to a local need. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CON-6E. He explained that the Plan Amendment does not prevent Miami-Dade County from continuing to pursue programs and mechanisms to support the local agriculture industry and the preservation of land suitable for agriculture. Moreover, the addition of the permitted uses on a small portion of an otherwise agricultural site, which will continue to be used for agricultural production, is not inconsistent with this policy. Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, contrary to section 163.3177(6)(a)9, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would not constitute scattered or discontinuous development because, inter alia, it would introduce uses designed to serve the existing nearby community. Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would allow for non-vehicular trips due to the proximity of the rural neighborhoods and would internalize vehicular trips without requiring access to Krome Avenue, consistent with strategies to discourage urban sprawl. Finally, Mr. Metcalf opined that at least six of the eight criteria provided in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.B. were satisfied by the Plan Amendment. Specifically, he opined that: The Plan Amendment will not have an adverse impact on natural resources or ecosystems; The Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services because the subject property will not be served by public infrastructure and is already served by emergency services, and because it will reduce demand on roads from nearby neighborhoods, thereby reducing operational and maintenance costs; The Plan Amendment promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities by providing convenience goods and services within walking or biking distance to nearby residential neighborhoods and local farm workers; The Plan Amendment promotes the conservation of water and energy by reducing water demands as compared to the former use of the Property, and by reducing existing trip lengths otherwise required to access goods and services; The Plan Amendment indirectly supports the preservation of agricultural areas and activities by providing diesel fuel, selling locally grown produce and other agriculturally supportive products, and by maintaining the agricultural use on the remainder of the Parent Tract; The Plan Amendment creates an improved balance of land uses by providing convenience goods and gasoline/diesel fuel in response to the demands of the neighborhood residents and local farm workers; The Plan Amendment remediates the existing, single use, urban sprawl development pattern by providing a commercial use in a compact urban form at an intensity to allow residents and local farm workers to obtain goods, gasoline, and diesel fuel without leaving the neighborhood; and The Plan Amendment does not impact the criterion for open space, natural lands and public open space. Similarly, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would not result in the proliferation of urban sprawl; he analyzed each of the statutory indicators of urban sprawl in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.A. and found that none are present, meaning that the Plan Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. In addition, he found that four of the statutory indicators of the Plan Amendment that would discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, are present. He found that the remainder were not applicable. Specifically, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would meet the following four indicators: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. As Mr. David explained, agriculture is a human development activity. Therefore, the Parent Tract is not in a natural state, nor does it contain natural resources and ecosystems. According to County staff’s own report, the Subject Property does not feature native wetland communities, specimen trees, endangered species, or natural forest communities. There are no jurisdictional wetlands, no water courses, and no federally designated critical habitat on the Subject Property or adjacent properties. The Subject Property is not in a wellfield. Other environmental considerations, including water and stormwater management, and flood protection, are directed through the pertinent permitting agencies at the appropriate time to ensure that any future development minimizes adverse impacts on the general environment. Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. As Mr. David opined, the Plan Amendment does not involve or require the provision or extension of County-owned public infrastructure and services. This, therefore, meets the definition of the terms “efficient” and “cost- effective,” since the County will not have to invest time or funding in the extension of such infrastructure and services. The County staff’s own report finds, as a fact, that the amendment would not negatively impact existing infrastructure and service within the UDB. Moreover, the contention that fire and rescue services would not meet national industry standards is irrelevant because: (1) the Comprehensive Plan does not adopt the national industry standard as the LOS; and (2) the Plan Amendment would not negatively impact current estimated travel times for fire and rescue services. Further, as Mr. David testified with respect to the first set of urban sprawl indicators, the Plan Amendment would not disproportionately impact fire and rescue services. V. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. As Mr. David explained, the Plan Amendment preserves agricultural areas and activities because the balance of the Parent Tract will continue to be preserved as crop land, and because the uses allowed in the proffered Declaration of Restrictions include agricultural uses and a fueling station that could include the sale of diesel, which is in demand for agricultural uses. VII. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. As Mr. David opined, today the area does not have a balance of land uses, as it is entirely dominated by rural estate residential and agricultural uses. By introducing a gas and convenience use supportive of agriculture, the Plan Amendment will create a better balance of land uses in the area. Today, the local population does not have access to any type of convenience shopping in the vicinity of this location, because it is situated along an 11-mile gap between such uses on Krome Avenue. Contrary to the contention that the applicant failed to demonstrate the use is needed or required by residents, the applicant provided written evidence of support from over 100 neighbors about the need for the proposed nonresidential use and its benefit to their quality of life. Moreover, according to the public hearing record, many residents also attended the public hearings to express their support for the Plan Amendment. Further supporting the finding of need, the corporate representative of Krome testified in detail about the neighborhood’s need for a gas station and convenience store. Data and Analysis Finally, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment “is not based upon the relevant and appropriate data and analysis provided by the County planning staff at the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes.” Petitioner also alleges that the Plan Amendment is based on “the convenience of access to fuel for private property owners in the area and not on relevant data and analysis.” Petitioner’s allegations, both in the Amended Petition and the Joint Pre- Hearing Stipulation, are conclusory and do not supply any discernible rationale for why she contends the Plan Amendment is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support these contentions. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment is based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis” supporting the Plan Amendment contained in the record. Namely, the following sources constitute such “relevant and appropriate data and analysis”: Mr. Metcalf’s Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation, which contains 78 pages of comprehensive data and analysis supportive of his consistency findings; a petition of support for the Plan Amendment signed by over 100 members of the surrounding community; testimony from community members at various public hearings indicating a need for the Plan Amendment; and a letter from the Dade County Farm Bureau stating that the organization had no objection to the Plan Amendment Further, Mr. David also opined that the Plan Amendment is based on, and supported by, appropriate data and analysis. He explained that the video recordings and the legislative history of the adoption hearings related to the disposition of the Plan Amendment application clearly show that the County Commission duly considered the analysis provided by County staff before making a decision. Commissioners asked staff members thoughtful questions and discussed various findings of the staff report throughout the public hearings. Mr. David explained that County staff’s input is not the only criterion upon which elected officials may rely. Indeed, relevant data and analysis were also submitted by the applicant as part of the Plan Amendment application, including the Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation study prepared by Mr. Metcalf. The Consistency Evaluation study relies on professionally accepted data sources and Mr. Metcalf’s extensive expertise to provide a sound rationale for the requested Plan Amendment. The County Commission considered, and reacted in an appropriate way to, such relevant and appropriate data. The County Commission received and considered community input in the form of public testimony, much of which was in support of the Plan Amendment, as well as the applicant’s petition of support from members of the surrounding community expressing need for local gas and convenience uses. Finally, Mr. David’s expert report itself supplies further data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. Other Allegations Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment “depletes the Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Areas.” The Comprehensive Plan includes the UDB to distinguish the area where urban development may occur from areas where it should not occur. The Comprehensive Plan defines the UEA as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2020 UDB is likely to be warranted sometime between the year 2020 and 2030.” Petitioner fails to identify any inconsistency between the Plan Amendment and any UDB or UEA policies based on her assertion that depletion will occur. Moreover, there are no goals, objectives, or policies in the Comprehensive Plan that address the concept of “depleting” the UDB or UEAs. Petitioner also alleges that the County adopted the Plan Amendment “to benefit[] other private property owners and special interests.” Petitioner introduced no evidence to support this allegation, and the allegation is also irrelevant to whether the Plan Amendment is “in compliance.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by Miami-Dade County Ordinance No. 20-47, on May 20, 2020, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary K. Waters Post Office Box 700045 Miami, Florida 33170 Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Suite 2810 111 Northwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128 Alannah Shubrick, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. Third Floor 46 Southwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33130 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2021. James Edwin Kirtley, Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Mark E. Grafton, Esquire Shubin & Bass Third Floor 46 SW 1st Street Miami, Florida 33133 David Winker, Esquire David J. Winker, P.A. 2222 Southwest 17th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 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 8th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
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 FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, 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 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to the St. Johns County 2015 Future Land Use Map (FLUM), adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-31, is "in compliance" with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part, II, Florida Statutes. A second issue raised by St. Johns County (County) and The Estuaries Limited Liability Company (Estuaries) is whether, if the proposed amendment is not "in compliance," it is nevertheless valid and authorized pursuant to Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julie Parker, resides in St. Augustine, Florida, less than one and one-half miles from the proposed project site. Parker also owns other property in St. Johns County. Parker submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM Amendment and Ordinance No. 2002-31. The parties agreed that Parker has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The County proceeded with the evaluation and appraisal report process in 1997 and 1998. This process ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and Adopted EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment in May 2000 (May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment), which was subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department and found "in compliance." Estuaries owns the 9.99 acres (the Property) that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment. Estuaries also owns approximately 8.5 acres outside, adjacent to, and west of the Property. The 8.5 acres are subject to a Conservation Easement, which prohibits any development activity thereon. (The total contiguous land owned by Estuaries is approximately 18.5 acres.) The parties stipulated that the legal description of the Property attached to Ordinance No. 2002-31 contains less than 10 acres. Estuaries submitted comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM amendment. Estuaries has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. The Property The Property is part of a larger tract owned by Estuaries, i.e., approximately 9.9 acres out of a total tract of approximately 18.5 acres. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on Anastasia Island, a barrier island, which extends from the St. Augustine Inlet to the Matanzas Inlet. According to the 2000 Census, there are approximately 12,000 dwelling units on Anastasia Island. This includes condominium units and single-family units. The approximately 18.5-acre site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area under the County May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. The Property is part of Butler Beach (bordering the Atlantic Ocean), which is an historic area because it was settled in the early 1900's by black citizens and provided them with access to the beach, which was previously unavailable. However, no historic structures or uses have occurred on the Property. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on the south side of Riverside Boulevard. The Property is located approximately 300 feet west of Highway A1A South (A1A runs north and south). The Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River are west and adjacent to the 18.5 acres. The Estuaries site is also located adjacent to the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Property is vacant, partially wooded, and also consists of undeveloped wetlands. Of the 9.99 acres, approximately 6.7 acres are uplands and developable, and 3.29 acres are wetlands. As noted, the remaining approximately 8.5 acres of the Estuaries' property, and to the west of the Property, is subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of the County. The properties adjacent to the Property include the following: Single-family residential units are located along and on the north side Riverside Boulevard. The existing FLUM designations for this area are Residential Coastal Density A and C, with the existing zoning of open rural (OR). (Residential Coastal Density C permits 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre.) The Intracoastal portion of Butler State Park is to the south of the Property, with a FLUM designation of parks and open space and existing zoning of OR and is not in a conservation area. To the east of the Property is a utility substation site, Butler Avenue, various commercial uses, Island House Rentals or Condominiums (three-story oceanfront condominiums), and the Mary Street Runway. There is another condominium called Creston House, directly south of the Butler Park (ocean portion) area (distinguished from the Butler State Park), consisting of three stories. (Butler Park and Creston House are located east of A1A and southeast of the Estuaries property.) The existing FLUM designations are Coastal Residential Coastal Density A and C, and have existing zoning designations of Residential General (RG)-1 and Commercial General (CG). There are no Residential Density D FLUM land use designations in the contiguous area. In short, the Property is proximate to a state park, a densely developed area comprised of small residential lots of 25 by 100 feet lots, and the two three-story condominiums, which were built prior to the adoption of the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan and EAR-Based Amendments On September 14, 1990, the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan-1990-2005, with amendments (the 1990 Plan). Under the 1990 Plan, the Property was assigned a Residential Coastal-A land use designation under the existing FLUM, which meant that residential development was restricted to no more than one residential unit per upland (non-wetland jurisdictional) acre. Under this designation, approximately seven units could have been built on the Property. The zoning on the Property was and is RG-1. According to the County, at least as of a June 11, 1999, letter from the County's principal planner, Timothy W. Brown, A.I.C.P., to Kevin M. Davenport, P.E., the total units which would be allowed on the Property were 116 multi-family units, derived after making a detailed density calculation based in part on using 40 percent of the wetlands used for the density calculation. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Plan Amendment, with supporting data and analysis, which the Department of Community Affairs found to be "in compliance." As required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, this would have included data and analysis for the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of these plan amendments. This is part of the data and analysis which supports the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment continued the Residential Coastal A land use designation of the Property, which allows 0.4 to 1.0 units per acre. (Residential Coastal B allows 2.0 units per acre; Residential Coastal C allows 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre; and Residential Coastal D allows 4.0 to 8.0 units per acre.) The Residential Coastal A designation authorizes residential and non-residential uses, such as schools, public service facilities, police, fire, and neighborhood commercial. Restaurants and banks without drive-thru facilities, gasoline pumps, and professional office buildings are examples of neighborhood commercial uses. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment does not limit the lot size, subject to limitations on, for example, impervious surface ratios, which do not change regardless of whether the land use designation is Residential Coastal A or D. Also, any development would also have to comply with the textural provisions of the May 2000 EAR- Based Plan Amendment, including the coastal and conservation elements. The Circuit Court Litigation There are many documents in this case which pertain to the litigation between Estuaries and the County. The civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for St. Johns County, Florida, and styled The Estuaries Limited Liability Company v. St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CA-00271. On February 11, 2000, Estuaries filed a Complaint against the County "relating to certain representations made by the County in connection with the development of certain real property located south of St. Augustine Beach in St. Johns County, Florida." A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 30, 2001. Estuaries claimed that County staff made representations to Estuaries, which resulted in Estuaries having a vested right to develop its Property up to a maximum of 116 multi-family residential units. (The County took the position that Estuaries could build no more than 25 units on the Property.) Estuaries claimed that it had vested rights based upon a claim of equitable estoppel against the County. (One of Estuaries' claims was brought pursuant to the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, Chapter 70, Florida Statutes.)1 After discovery and the denial of motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Complete Release" (Settlement Agreement). The "General Terms of Settlement" in the Settlement Agreement provided in part: Estuaries shall prepare and file an application to amend the future land use map of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan to amend the designation of only that portion of the Property such that Estuaries may build 56 multi-family residential units on the Property and such that the amendment be a "Small-scale Amendment" as defined by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Estuaries agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns to build not more than 56 units on the Property. County will waive or pay the application fee and will expedite its processing. The parties will forthwith prepare and submit to the Court a joint motion for the approval of this Agreement pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, §70.001(4)(d)2. During the review and consideration of the amendment application, the County will expeditiously process the Estuaries' revised construction plans and, in connection therewith, the construction codes in effect as of November 13, 2001 (to the extent the County may do so without violating county, state or federal law), the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land Development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply. In all other respects, the revised construction plans shall comply with all other Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances and regulations. On or about November 16, 2001, counsel for the parties signed a Joint Motion, requesting the circuit court to approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.001(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes. On November 16, 2001, Circuit Judge John Michael Traynor, entered an "Order Approving Settlement Agreement pursuant to Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act." Judge Traynor stated in part: The central issue in this litigation has been the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the Property. The issues in the case are legally complex and, although the credibility of the testimony and authenticity of the exhibits expected to be introduced was not expected to be substantially in dispute or challenged, the meaning of the testimony and the meaning and inferences to be drawn from such evidence was very much in dispute. The issues included the extent of vested rights, the extent to which estoppel may be applied to the County, contractual liability, and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act . . . and the relief requested included the request for a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to build up to 116 dwelling units on the Property and damages against the County. Judge Traynor also "Ordered and Adjudged," in part: Pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(a) & (c) and applicable law, this Court finds that proper notice of a Bert Harris Act claim was timely provided to the County, and other governmental entities, and the County did make a written settlement offer to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Bert Harris Act, that was accepted by Plaintiff. Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c) permits, inter alia, for an adjustment of land development provisions controlling the development of a plaintiff's property; increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development; the transfer of development rights; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; issuance of a development order, a variance, special exceptions, or other extraordinary relief; and such other actions specified in the statute. While the parties may dispute whether an amendment is necessary to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the parties have agreed that the Plaintiff shall submit a small-scale amendment to the County for consideration and approval pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; without waiver of either party's rights to contest and defend the necessity of submitting such an amendment, in light of this Court's approval of the settlement agreement pursuant to the Bert Harris Act and applicable law. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release is fair, reasonable and adequate; is in the best interests of the parties and protects the public interest served by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the County's regulatory efforts from inordinately burdening the Property with regard to density, impact on public services, the environment and the public health, safety and welfare of the community and the rights of individuals to reasonably utilize their property and to rely on the representations of government, taking into consideration the risks that both parties had in this litigation. This litigation has been ongoing for more than 18 months, and substantial discovery and record has been presented to the Court that provides ample basis for this Court's approval of this settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate and appropriate under the Bert Harris Act. There is no evidence before the Court that would suggest that the proposed settlement is the result of any collusion among the parties or their counsel. In fact, the record is to the contrary, whereby counsel on both sides have aggressively and zealously pursued the interests of their respective clients. . . . Judge Traynor directed the parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "subject to the right of the public to comment at an appropriate public hearing pertaining to the above referenced small scale amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and shall cooperate to accomplish in good faith the responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release." There is no evidence that Judge Traynor's Order has been rescinded or otherwise modified. There is no statutory authority to collaterally attack Judge Traynor's Order in this proceeding nor is there any authority which provides that this Order can be ignored. Also, this is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether Estuaries has, in fact, vested rights. Accordingly, Judge Traynor's Order, approving the Settlement Agreement, is accepted as binding authority. The Small Scale Development Application In compliance with Judge Traynor's Order and the Settlement Agreement, on March 26, 2002, Estuaries filed a "Small Scale Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form" with the County. Estuaries requested a change in the Property's FLUM designation from Residential Coastal A, Zoning RG-1 to Residential Coastal D, Zoning RG-1. Estuaries represented, in part, that the Property consisted of 9.99 acres of vacant land, including 3.2 acres of wetlands and approximately 6.7 acres of developable land (uplands) "which will be developed into a 56 unit Multi-Family Condominium." County staff reviewed the application and recommended approval. As part of the agenda item for consideration by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, County staff, in light of the criterion of "Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, State Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Florida Regional Policy Plan," stated: "[t]he approved Settlement Agreement was filed pursuant to Chapter 70.001." With respect to "Impacts on Public Facilities and Services," County staff stated: "The project has received a Certificate of Concurrency addressing the impacts on transportation, water, sewer, recreation, drainage, solid waste and mass transit. The Certificate of Concurrency is based on impacts of 84 multi-family dwelling units. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the project contains 56 multi-family dwelling units. St. Johns County provides central water and sewer." With respect to "Compatibility with Surrounding Area," County staff stated: "The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, park (Butler Park), and vacant land of various zoning." According to Mr. Scott Clem, the County's Director of Growth Management Services, County staff felt that there were adequate public facilities for a 56-unit project, because Estuaries had previously demonstrated that facilities were available for an 84-unit project. However, County staff expressly noted in the Planning Department Staff Report submitted to the Planning and Zoning Agency that "[t]here are no development plans included in the Application. However, all site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the Development Review Process to ensure that the development complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits shall authorize development prior to compliance with all applicable regulations." At this point in time, County staff were "analyzing the potential for 56 units to be on the property. It was a site specific analysis at that point." On April 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. After a properly noticed public hearing, on May 28, 2002, the County approved the FLUM Amendment in Ordinance 2002- 31. In Ordinance 2002-31, the County approved the FLUM Amendment at issue, which changed the FLUM land use classification of the Property from Residential Coastal A to Residential Coastal D. Ordinance 2002-31 also provided: "The Land Uses allowed by this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height." The Challenge Parker filed an Amended Petition challenging the lack of data and analysis to support the FLUM Amendment; challenging the increase in density of the Property located in a Coastal High Hazard Area; challenging the internal consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment; challenging the decision by the County to process the application as a small scale development amendment; and challenging the failure to provide Parker with adequate notice of a clear point of entry to challenge Ordinance No. 2002-31. Notice The County provided notice, by newspaper, of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 28, 2002. Before this meeting, a sign was placed on the Property, providing notice of the meeting. Parker personally attended the May 28, 2002, meeting and addressed the Commission regarding the FLUM Amendment. Ordinance No. 2002-31 provided: "This ordinance shall take effect 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this ordinance shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted small scale amendment is in compliance." This Ordinance does not advise a person of the right to challenge the Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Rules of Procedure, or Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This type of notice is not required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Does the FLUM Amendment, covering 9.99 acres, involve a "use" of 10 acres or fewer, pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes? "A small scale development amendment may be adopted only [if] [t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes.2 In the Amended Petition and in her Prehearing Stipulation, Parker contends that the "use," which is the subject of the FLUM Amendment, relates to more than the 9.99 acre parcel and, therefore, the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment defined in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker contended that because the FLUM Amendment authorizes a maximum of 56 residential units to be developed on the Property, and the maximum density under the Residential Coastal D and RG-1 zoning designations is 42.12 units, using the on-site wetlands density bonus, that Estuaries "must be using the off-site wetlands that are contained within the 18.5 acre parcel to obtain the density credit necessary to reach 56 units for the site under" the FLUM Amendment. The 56 residential unit maximum was the product of the circuit court litigation and Settlement Agreement, as approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences between the County and Estuaries regarding the maximum residential density which could be authorized on the Property. Parker also contended that because Estuaries may use a proposed lift station owned by the County off-site, that this causes the proposed "use" of the Property to exceed 10 acres. It appears that at some prior time in the "vesting rights" chronology of events, Magnolia S Corporation, in order to downscale the project, agreed to sell a 40' by 80' parcel to the County, located adjacent to the Property and in the northeast portion, to expand the existing County lift station on Riverside Boulevard. There is a lift station adjacent to the Property that serves as "a repump station that serves the development along Riverside [Boulevard] west of the lift station and serves all the development in St. Johns County on the island south of Riverside Boulevard." It is proposed that sewage effluent from development on the Property would be deposited on site and then pumped into an adjacent force main which eventually ends up in the station. According to Mr. Kevin Davenport, Estuaries' civil engineer, "56 units added to that pump station would be extremely miniscule in the overall amount of sewage that goes through it." Thus, Estuaries anticipates having their own on-site lift station, which "would be pumped through a pipe to the Riverside right-of- way, where it would connect to an existing county-owned pipe which currently goes to the lift station." Mr. Clem stated that "[u]tilities are very commonly done off site where water or sewer distribution or transmission lines are constructed to the site." This would include the use of off- site lift stations. However, the proposed use of the lift station does not necessarily compel the conclusion that the FLUM Amendment exceeds 9.99 acres. If this were so, any proposed use of any off-site utilities would cause a pro rata calculation and increase of the size of the site providing the service, then be added to the 9.99 acres. This is not a reasonable construction of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also claimed that when the Estuaries granted the County a Conservation Easement for the approximately 8.5 acres (out of 18.5 acres) of wetlands adjacent to the Property, Estuaries "used" this property to secure the FLUM Amendment, and therefore, exceeded the 9.99 acres. The Conservation Easement precludes development activity on the approximately 8.51 acres. ("The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property." Prohibited uses include "[a]ctivities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.") The "use" of the 8.51 acres as a potential visual amenity for potential residents on the Property is not a "use" within a reasonable reading of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also suggested that Estuaries will need to improve Riverside Boulevard (paving and drainage) and the public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, which is not owned by Estuaries. It appears that Riverside Boulevard is already open, improved, and paved. Also, Mr. Clem stated that it is common to have off-site improvements associated with a project, which might include intersection or roadway improvements that are not on or within the project site. Mr. Clem opined that while these improvements would be required for the project, they would have been off-site. Some improvements, such as improvements to Riverside Boulevard, would most likely benefit the general public, and not be limited to the future residents on the Property. It is common for local governments to require improvements to public infrastructure as a condition of development. These off-site improvements do not necessarily make the "development activity" larger than the size of the landowner's site, here the Property. Data and Analysis Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As noted herein, Estuaries sought approval of a FLUM Amendment for its Property, i.e., a land use change to the FLUM. No text (goals, objectives, and policies) changes to the May 2000 EAR-Based Amendment were requested nor made. This is normal for a "site-specific small scale development activity." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes. Consideration of the FLUM Amendment in this proceeding is unusual for several reasons. First, the necessity for the FLUM change arose as a result of the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences existing between the County and Estuaries regarding the number of units which could, as a maximum number, be developed on the Property. Second, the data and analysis, which normally is presented to the local government, here the County, at the time the plan amendment is adopted, is not in its traditional format here, largely, it appears, because of the manner in which consideration of the FLUM Amendment arose. Nevertheless, this situation is not fatal for, under existing precedent, see, e.g., Conclusion of Law 96, data, which was in existence at the time the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the County, may be considered in determining whether there is, in fact, adequate data supporting the FLUM Amendment. The data relied on by the County and Estuaries to support the FLUM Amendment was compiled and initially presented to the County on or about July 6, 1999, when Estuaries sought authorization from the County for a proposed project to construct 84 multi-family residential units on the same general area as the Property. This started the County's development review process. Estuaries began the process at this time, believing that it had "vested rights" to develop the Property. Mr. Clem explained that the development review process is "extremely detailed. It involves 11 or 12 different programs within the [C]ounty, looking at everything from the actual site plan itself, water and sewer provision, for all the things that would go into site construction, roadway design, the environmental considerations. We basically look at how this site will be developed in accordance with the land development code and any other regulations. We ensure that the water management district permits are obtained, if applicable, or other state agencies." This record contains County Department comments which pertain to a host of issues, including but not limited to, drainage, traffic, fire services, urban forestry (trees and landscape on-site), utilities, zoning (e.g., buffers, setbacks), concurrency requirements, etc. County staff raised questions (identified as submittals) on at least four separate occasions followed by written responses by the applicant on at least three occasions. However, not all issues were resolved. A July 1999, Land Development Traffic Assessment, prepared by Beachside Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted to the County as part of the request for a concurrency determination. The analysis "indicates that the roadway segments within the impact area will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS through the construction of this project." The "Summary" of the assessment states: "This project meets traffic concurrency standards, as defined by the St. Johns County Concurrency Management Ordinance, for all roads within the traffic area." "Stormwater Calculations" for the 84-unit, multi-family housing development were also provided in a report dated July 7, 1999. The applicant also furnished the County with a "geotechnical report," which analyzed the soil conditions related to storm water ponds and to the placement of the buildings and the support of the buildings on the site. Soil borings and other testing revealed the capabilities of the soil for, for example, percolation rates for the storm water ponds. There is no evidence that there are any specific historic buildings or geological or archeological features on the Property. In July 1999, the applicant submitted an application for concurrency. At that time, County staff analyzed this information to ensure that public facilities and services were in place to serve the project. This application was reviewed in relation to the County's concurrency management provisions of the County's Land Development Code. On September 3, 1999, the County's Planning Department prepared a report regarding this application and recommended "approval of a Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions for the development of 84 residential condominium units." (Staff made findings of fact, which included a discussion of traffic, potable water/sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, and mass transit.) On September 8, 1999, the Concurrency Review Committee met and adopted the Staff's Findings of Fact with conditions, including but not limited to, the applicant providing a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection permits "necessary for connection to central water and wastewater service prior to Construction Plan approval," and "[t]he applicant receiving approval of construction/drainage plans from the Development Services Department prior to commencement of construction." The Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions was issued on October 1, 1999, and was due to expire on September 8, 2001. However, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, that "the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply." (Emphasis added.) (Ms. Teresa Bishop's (County Planning Director) November 7, 2001, letter indicated, in part, that Estuaries' request for "tolling [of the Final Certificate of Concurrency] cannot be reviewed until the outcome of the pending litigation is known. . . . After the litigation is concluded, your request for tolling may be resubmitted for review." The Settlement Agreement post-dates this letter.) In evaluating a small scale plan amendment, County staff evaluates the availability of public services which, according to Mr. Clem, is "one of the major components," and County staff "is looking at virtually the same issues that [the County] would look at in concurrency to evaluate and make recommendations on small scale amendments." Mr. Clem also advised that the County's analysis of the 84-unit project did not involve, and was not based on, "a specific site plan with buildings at a certain location or parking in a certain location. It was more an 84- unit project with certain data and analysis associated with that site or project." By letter dated October 4, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated that it had received a "Notification for Use of the General Permit for Construction of an Extension to a Drinking Water Distribution System" submitted for the Estuaries project. The Department stated further: "After reviewing the notice, it appears that your project will have minimal adverse environmental effect and apparently can be constructed pursuant to a general permit as described in Chapter 62-555, F.A.C." The permit expires on October 4, 2004. This permit allows the applicant to demonstrate that it will offer a central water service, available to be served through the County's utility department. This would ensure that there is sufficient potable water available. By letter dated October 6, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection also issued a permit for the construction of a sewage collection/transmission system (domestic waste). By letter dated November 11, 1999, the St. Johns Water Management District issued a "formal permit for construction and operation of stormwater management system." This permit authorized "[a] new stormwater system with stormwater treatment by wet detention to serve Estuaries Multi-family Development, a 5.88 acre project to be constructed as per plans received by the District on 7/12/1999." This permit did not relieve the applicant "from the responsibility for obtaining permits from any federal, state, and/or local agencies asserting concurrent jurisdiction over this work." Mr. Clem believed that this permit was evidence that "the state agencies ha[d] considered the environmental issues relating to storm water and all the issues that they deal with in issuing a permit." The Property is located in a "development area boundary" as indicated on the FLUM, which means that these areas allow "development potential." Other areas, such as rural silviculture and agricultural lands, are outside the development area and only limited and low density development is allowed. Conservation areas are also designated on the FLUM. Given the location of the Property within the development area boundary, the County thereby eliminated the necessity of producing some of the data normally required.3 Mr. Clem explained: So by being within a development area boundary it's in essence already had rights to develop, depending on the classification what those rights are, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial. So by virtue of the fact that this site [the Property] was already in the developmental boundary, we didn't deal with issues such as need, which is a big issue in the county when we add developmental boundary. Is there need for additional residential units, and so forth. So that is one part of the answer. The other part is when we're looking at changing from one residential classification to another, we're not dealing with the same issues we might have if it was going from residential to commercial or residential to industrial. So in the context of a plan amendment like this, we're looking at what can this land support in terms of density and are there public facilities available? Is it generally compatible with the surrounding area? What are the potential impacts to natural resources? So those things are still analyzed, but they're done in a probably more confined context. And then the other factor is this being a small scale amendment further reduces the amount of data that is typically done. And if it was a major amendment, there's a whole new range of issues when we deal with major amendments. By definition, they can cause more of an impact. For Mr. Clem, the data and analysis which was generated during the concurrency process for the proposed 84-unit project was significant and would be applicable to a proposed 56-unit project. Mr. Clem opined that the data for this small scale amendment was "[f]ar in excess of anything [he had] seen in the county." Environmental Impacts of the FLUM Amendment The area on and around the Estuaries' property is an area of tidal marsh intermixed with upland scrub. Many wildlife species have been seen utilizing the wetlands on and adjacent to the Estuaries' site (the 18.5 acre parcel). These include woodstorks, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, little blue herons, tri-colored herons, white ibis, and ospreys. Owls, foxes, raccoons, opossums, fiddler crabs, clams, fish, shrimp, and turtles also frequent the area. Parker's environmental scientist and ecologist, Mr. Robert Burks, testified to the environmental effects of any development of the Property subject to the FLUM Amendment. Mr. Burks has worked with American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) designated planners, providing them with opinions with respect to environmental issues. But he is not an expert in land use planning. The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. It is a program to do research and education on estuarine systems. The estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers has been designated as a NERR. There is testimony that development and increases in population in the area, in general, have been responsible for, for example, the decline and closure of shell-fishing and decline of water quality in the area. Conservation Goal E.2 provides: The County shall conserve, utilize, and protect the natural resources of the area, including air, water, wetlands, water wells, estuaries, water bodies, soils, minerals, vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and other natural and environmental resources, insuring that resources are available for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 provides: Native Forests, Floodplains, Wetlands, Upland Communities, and Surface Water The County shall protect native forests, floodplains, wetlands, upland communities, and surface waters within the County from development impacts to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitats. Policy E.2.2.5.(a)(1)(b) provides: The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternate types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and modify buffers between the wetlands/ OFW/ estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: * * * Except a minimum of a 50 ft. natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development areas and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams and other interconnecting water bodies. Policy E.2.2.13(b)(6) provides: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: (b) The County shall recognize the following vegetative natural communities as Significant Natural Communities Habitat. Due to the rarity of these vegetative communities, a minimum of 10 percent of the total acreage of the Significant Natural Communities Habitat (excluding bona fide agriculture and/or silviculture operations) shall be preserved and maintained by the development. * * * (6) Scrub. Where on-site preservation of the native upland communities are not feasible, the County as an alternative shall accept a fee in lieu of preservation or off-site mitigation in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burks opined that "generally," and if Goal E.2 is read "literally", the FLUM Amendment did not meet this Goal and afford protection for wetlands, vegetative communities, estuaries, wildlife and wildlife habitat. He perceives that "[a]nytime there's a development there will be impacts to the estuarine--the water bodies because of surficial runoff from the parking lots, from the impervious surfaces, and it will carry pollutants into those areas. And that includes soils also. . . . As far as upland habitat, when you develop an area like this, unless you leave certain parts, the upland habitat will be negatively impacted obviously. There won't be the trees there, the vegetation that was normally there before the development." For Mr. Burks, any development of the Property would generally be inconsistent with the Plan provisions recited above. But, his opinion is specifically based on how each system or plan for the site, or here, the Property, is actually designed--"it would depend on the design of the housing structures themselves and where they were placed. If you design anything in a manner which is going to protect that buffer and literally protect the water quality and the runoff in that area, then you may--it may not violate it." For example, if the Property were developed with 25-foot buffers instead of 50-foot buffers, Mr. Burks says that, from an ecology standpoint, there would be insufficient protection for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. He offered the same opinion if the FLUM Amendment did not require a minimum ten percent set aside of the total acreage for significant natural communities habitat on the Property, such as, scrub of approximately 6.7 acres, a protected vegetative community existing on the upland portion of the Property. Furthermore, Parker introduced into evidence proposed site plans for the Property dated May 24, 2002, which show, in part, a 25-foot buffer, not a 50-foot buffer.4 Parker contends that these site plans are the best available data and analysis regarding whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance." However, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance," not whether specific draft, and not approved, site plans are "in compliance" with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment or the LDRs. If site plans are approved and a development order issued by the County, Parker, and any other aggrieved or adversely affected party may file a challenge pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. But, this is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge proposed site plans. This is not to say that proposed site plans cannot be considered data and analysis; only that they are not incorporated in the FLUM Amendment and are not subject to challenge here. See The Sierra Club, et al. v. St. John County, et al., Case Nos. 01- 1851GM and 01-1852GM (Recommended Order May 20, 2002; Final Order July 30, 2002). Internal Consistency Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. Some of these issues have been discussed above in Findings of Fact 68 to 80, pertaining to environmental considerations. Another issue is whether the FLUM Amendment, which changes the maximum density on the Property, is inconsistent with Policy E.1.3.11 which provides: "The County shall not approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increase the residential density on the Future Land Use Map within the Coastal High Hazard Area." See also Policy A.1.5.6 which offers almost identical language. The FLUM Amendment changes the land use designation of the Property, and allows a land use "limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height," and thus allows a potential increase in the density of the Property, located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. This resulted from the Settlement Agreement. In Policy A.1.11.6, [t]he County recognizes that the Plan's Objectives and Policies sometime serve to support competing interests. Accordingly, in such instances, and in the absence of a mandatory prohibition of the activity at issue, it is the County's intent that the Plan be construed as a whole and that potentially competing Objectives and Policies be construed together so as to render a balanced interpretation of the Plan. It is the further intent that the County interpretation of the Plan, whether by County staff, the Planning & Zoning Agency, or the Board of County Commissioners, shall be afforded appropriate deference. County interpretations of the Plan which balance potentially competing Objectives and Policies shall not be overturned in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the County interpretation has misapplied the Plan construed as a whole. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment Goals, Objectives, and Policies must be read in their entirety and individual provisions cannot be read in isolation. Objective E.1.3 requires the County to engage in "post disaster planning, coastal area redevelopment, and hurricane preparedness. The County shall prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards." Mr. Clem opined that Policy E.1.3.11, see Finding of Fact 81, expressed "the general intent of limiting population increases that would result in adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation of the coastal areas," and, in particular, the "barrier islands." (Policy E.1.9.5, under Objective E.1.9 Hurricane Evacuation Time, provides: "St. Johns County shall attempt to limit the density within the Coastal High Hazard Area as allowed by law.") Mr. Clem further stated that the FLUM Amendment, which restricted the Property to a maximum of 56 residential units, from a possible 116 unit maximum, was consistent with the Policy which restricts density within the coastal hazard zone. In rendering his opinions, Mr. Clem balanced the above- referenced Policies with Objective A.1.16, pertaining to "private property rights." When these May 2002 EAR-Based Plan Amendment provisions are read together, it appears that Mr. Clem's interpretations are not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that the FLUM Amendment adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2002-31 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment No. 04-2 (Plan Amendment) to the City of Cocoa's (City) Comprehensive Plan (Plan), adopted by Ordinance No. 39- 2004, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing The Hunters own and reside on property located on Friday Road in the unincorporated area of the County. Their property abuts on two sides of the northeastern portion of the subject property. FSNE 47 at "H." The Kellgrens own and reside on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Friday and James Road in the unincorporated area of the County, abutting the southeast corner of the south Plan Amendment parcel. FSNE 47 at "KR." The Kellgrens also own and operate two businesses on Cox Road located on property they own which is located within the boundaries of the City. FSNE 47 at "KB." The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City is a municipality located within the County. The DCA is the state land planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. FSN and Hagen-Nicholson are Florida limited liability companies and are the owners of the subject property voluntarily annexed by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 31-2004 and is subject to the Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 39-2004. All Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment on August 24, 2004, and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment on December 14, 2004. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the Petitioners are "affected persons" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, with standing to participate as parties in this administrative proceeding.3 See Endnote 17. The Challenges Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: lack of need, urban sprawl, inadequate data and analysis relative to traffic and land use need, violation of the intergovernmental coordination element of the City's Plan, incompatibility, internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with the Regional and State Plans, and failure to provide for adequate public participation during the transmittal hearing. The Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 39-2004 makes two changes to the Plan. First, the text of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan was amended to establish a new future land use category called "very low density residential areas." 4 Second, the FLUM was amended to change the designated future land use from "Residential 1 and Neighborhood Commercial (County)" to "Very- Low Density Residential (City)." FSNE 52 at Section 5. The Plan Amendment covers approximately 605.16 acres, although the City annexed approximately 766.27 acres, which included "both real property and rights-of-way." Id. at page 1 of 4; PE 8.f. at page 3 of 18. See also DCAE 2. The Subject Property The subject property consists of a rectangular parcel adjacent to and north of State Road (SR) 528, bounded by Interstate 95 (I-95) on the west; a triangular parcel adjacent to and southeast of the north rectangular parcel and similarly bounded on the south by SR 528; and a second rectangular parcel, due south of the north parcel and adjacent to and south of SR 528 and bounded by I-95 on the west and James Road on the south and a portion of Friday Road on the east. PE 17. There is no direct access from the subject property to I-95 and SR 528. The future land uses north of the subject property include Residential 1:2.5 (County); Residential 1 (County) to the south; Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the east of the north parcel; Residential 1 (County) to the east of south parcel; and Planned Industrial Park (County) and Industrial (City) further to the east; and Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the west of I-95. PE 80. The existing land uses to the north and south are single-family residential and vacant land; to the east, vacant land, heavy and light industrial uses; and to the west, I-95, single-family residential, and vacant land. Prior to being annexed by the City in August 2004, the subject property was located in the unincorporated portion of the County. The two rectangular portions (approximately 560.95 acres) were designated as "Residential 1" on the County FLUM, allowing one unit per acre. The approximate eastern half of the triangular portion (44.21 of acres) was designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." PE 80. There is an existing borrow pit (approximately 19-20 acres) located on the eastern one-third of the triangular portion. PE 17. Approximately 145.35 acres of wetlands, now designated Conservation, permeate the subject property. PE 8.F., page 4 of 18 and Exhibits 3 and 4; FSNE 52. There are approximately 459.81 acres (605.16 total acres - 145.35 acres of wetlands) of developable upland on the subject property. See DCAE 2. The Plan Amendment proposes a maximum development potential of approximately 1,839 dwelling units (459.81 acres X 4 dwelling units).5 There is a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential maximum development of the subject property under the County Plan. The City suggested approximately 2,358 dwelling units. See PE 8.f. at pages 4-6 of 18. The City's analysis yielded a maximum of 701 dwelling units for the portion of the subject property designated as Residential 1 and 1,657 dwelling units (including application of the density bonus) for that portion of the subject property designated "Neighborhood Commercial." The City assumed there could be 37.5 units per acre (which included a density bonus) developed on the 44.21 acre tract designated "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Petitioners suggested a maximum of approximately 817 dwelling units could have been built on the subject property if the subject property were developed with the "density bonus" under the County's Plan. See Petitioners' Joint Proposed Recommended Order at 21, paragraph 25 and n.5. There is also a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential development of commercial uses (under the County's Plan) on the portion of the triangular parcel designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Based upon conflicting evidence, it is resolved that the maximum potential number of dwelling units which could have been developed on the subject property under the County's Plan is overstated. However, this finding does not alter the ultimate findings made herein regarding whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." Need The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[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 [and] the projected population of the area . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule which provides that "[t]he comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e). Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) requires "[a]n analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: [t]he categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use; [t]he estimated gross acreage needed by category; and [a] description of the methodology used." Also, "need" is one of the factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. On December 14, 2004, the City adopted the Plan Amendment and responded to the objections raised in the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report.6 During the plan amendment review process, the proposed residential land use density for the subject property was reduced from up to seven dwelling units per acre as originally proposed to "four units per acre with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) bonus of up to five units per acre," and, ultimately as adopted by the City Council, to "[a] maximum density of 4 units per acre." FSNE 52, Exhibit A; T II 631-632. The City has two needs -- a need for vacant developable land, and a need for middle-income housing. The City differs from many other municipalities in the County because the City's population declined almost 7.4 percent from the period of 1990 to 2000.7 Every city in the County, with the exception of the City of Cocoa and one other city, has experienced population growth. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the City had become hyper-inelastic -- it had stopped growing, and started shrinking. In response to this problem, the City adopted goals in 2002 which included annexation, housing, and residential development. Because of the goals that had been adopted and implemented, from 2002 to the time of the administrative hearing, the City's population rose approximately 7.25 percent. With the Plan Amendment, the City could capture increasing populations in the surrounding areas. In the summer of 2003, the City held a housing task force with private developers. The private developers explained that they were not developing in the City because even though there was vacant land, there were environmental constraints on the land. The vacant land consisted of large amounts of wetlands, with some of the wetlands located in flood plains. In the comprehensive plan adoption package sent to the DCA, the City included a map indicating the vacant land and a map indicating the extensive wetlands located on the vacant land. (The vacant land analysis identified the amount of land potentially available for development, without stating the specific number of available acres. Based upon the testimony at final hearing, excluding the subject property, there are approximately 223-230 acres of developable land within the City limits.) Furthermore, the City provided the DCA with population figures based on BEBR. Rule 9J-5 does not provide a specific requirement as to how a local government must demonstrate how much vacant land is located within its boundaries. Rather, Rule 9J-5 permits a local government to demonstrate how much vacant land is located within it boundaries in several ways, i.e., textually, raw data, or graphically. The DCA used the maps submitted by the City as well as the information submitted that the City's population was declining to make a determination that the City had demonstrated a need for the property. A needs analysis typically consists of an examination of the projected population over the planning time period, the land uses that exist within the local government, the amounts of the land uses, and then a determination of whether the local government has enough land to meet the projected population. However, a quantitative analysis is not the only way to perform a needs analysis. A city's plan for its future and the way it wants to grow is also considered. The City's use of population figures based on BEBR estimates and a map which demonstrated the vacant land was professionally acceptable. In other words, by using BEBR estimates and a map, the City did not use a "methodology" without approval by the DCA. If a plan amendment area had been surrounded by vacant land, then the issue of need is more prevalent. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert performed a needs analysis. The calculation of the need is done with supply and demand. Supply is land, and demand is population growth. At the time the City began the plan amendment process, the City had approximately 223-230 acres of low-density residential land available. For demand, he determined that over the past three years, there were 113 building permits issued for new homes. The mathematical computation provides for the vacant land to be fully utilized within 5.9 years at an allocation of 1:1. Using the 1:1 ratio is not necessarily a practical ratio because there may be property that is not on the market for sale. When applying a vacant-land multiplier that is used in Orange County -- 2.4, the City would only have a three-year supply of vacant land. When dealing with a comprehensive plan, there should be a 10- to 20-year supply of land. The City's housing element provides that the City is required to provide housing for all current residents as well as anticipated future residents. As of 2002, 94 percent of its housing stock was valued at $100,000 or less, and 47 percent was valued at $50,000 or less. Accordingly, the City does not have adequate available middle-income housing and the Plan Amendment may meet this need. Urban Sprawl The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment constitutes urban sprawl. This contention is primarily based upon the assertion that the Plan Amendment is located in a rural area, and the assertion that the Plan Amendment triggers several of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111) defines "rural areas" as "low density areas characterized by social, economic and institutional activities which may be largely based on agricultural uses or the extraction of natural resources in unprocessed form, or areas containing large proportions of undeveloped, unimproved, or low density property." As noted herein, the subject property is vacant and, prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was designated as "Residential 1" (and a portion as "Neighborhood Commercial") under the County's Plan. It is surrounded by developed residential lands and infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads. The surrounding areas are not undeveloped or unimproved. The area is a low density, but it is an urban low density, not a rural low density. FSN's expert planner, Gerald Langston, performed a study of the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Plan Amendment site (study area), including the unincorporated area of the County. Although the lands immediately to the north and south of the parcels are designated one unit per 2.5 acres and one unit per one acre, respectively, under the County's Plan, approximately 49 percent of the parcels in the study area are between one and 1.25 acres in size and approximately 30 percent are a little less than an acre. Three percent are over five acres. In other words, approximately 80 percent of the parcels are less than 1.25 acres in size. T III 819-820. Mr. Langston also studied census data and determined that the demographics of the area are not rural. It is a very rapidly growing area, with an urban development pattern that is basically built-out. (Within the study area, after deducting the 605 acres of the subject property, approximately 21 percent of the acreage is vacant or undeveloped. Stated otherwise, approximately 80 percent is developed. T III 827.) One of the County's experts, Edward Williams, did a general analysis of the lot sizes in the area. He testified that the area is rural with lot sizes of one unit per 2.5 acres. He reviewed photographs of the area and pointed out the lack of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and lack of quarter-acre lots. However, he did not obtain any census data specific to the Plan Amendment property or to the surrounding area, and could not describe the percent distribution of lot sizes in the surrounding area. He believed that the area is agricultural and rural, but did not analyze the social and economic characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property.8 According to the County's Plan, the subject property is located in an area where the County is planning to provide future water and sewer. Additionally, a map in the County's Plan suggests that the area is actually not suitable for well and septic tanks. The subject property is within the City's water and sewer area and the City has adequate water and sewer capacity to service the subject property. The area surrounding the subject property is not rural under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111), but rather consists of urban low-density residential development. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. Indicator 1 is not implicated. The subject property is surrounded by developed residential land and is not a substantial area of the City. The subject property will have a single use, but the introduction of another land use or mixed- use development would be incompatible with the surrounding area and not appropriate. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Indicator 2 is not implicated, as the area is urban, and the Plan Amendment is not leaping over undeveloped lands. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)3. Indicator 3 is not present. The subject property is an area of vacant land surrounded by developed lands. The subject property is infill development. The Plan Amendment does not promote, allow or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns emanating from existing urban developments. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)4. Indicator 4 is not present. The subject property is not a rural area with agricultural uses, and the wetlands on site are designated as Conservation and thus are protected. The Plan Amendment is not premature or poorly planned, as the surrounding area is already developed and the property is infill. The subject property is surrounded by infrastructure including water and sewer, and roads. The City has the capacity to provide water and sewer to the site. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)6. Indicator 6 is not present, as water, sanitary sewer, and reclaimed water lines have already been extended to the area. The Plan Amendment will add customers to facilities that have the capacity to handle them. By increasing the number of users in the system, the operational efficiency is increased. Therefore, the Plan Amendment maximizes the use of existing public facilities and services. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)7. The Plan Amendment does not fail to maximize the use of future public facilities and services. The facilities that exist in the area were built for future growth, and not connecting to them would be a failure to maximize the public investment that has already been made. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)8. Extending existing facilities and services to the property covered by the Plan Amendment will increase costs, but not disproportionately so. Water and sewer are close to the subject area, and the roads have capacity. Extending water and sewer at one unit per acre would be more costly and less efficient than for four units per acre. With respect to law enforcement, fire and emergency response services, this indicator is present to some extent. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Indicator 9 does not apply, as there are no rural or agricultural uses in the area. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)10. The City has adopted a community redevelopment plan in the downtown neighborhood. The City can promote middle income housing with the Plan Amendment while at the same time pursue redevelopment in the downtown area. The two are not mutually exclusive. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)11. The Plan Amendment provides for a single residential use and does not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. However, putting commercial or industrial uses on the subject property does not make good planning sense as the area is not appropriate for a mix of uses. In summary, the Plan Amendment does not meet the definition of "urban sprawl." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.003(134). The Plan Amendment is not in a rural area; it is surrounded by residential development. Public facilities are very close, and the Plan Amendment is within the City's service area. The Plan Amendment does not "leapfrog" since there are no large tracts of undeveloped land between the City and the Plan Amendment property. It is not scattered development; it is infill. While it is true that it is a low density use and a single use, the area is not appropriate for mixed-use, retail, commercial or an extremely high residential density. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 requires a consideration of the context in which the plan amendment is being proposed. Land use types within the jurisdiction and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction will be evaluated. Local conditions, including the existing pattern of development and extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics, should be considered as well. The consideration of the parcels surrounding the Plan Amendment was important. The City considered the fact that other cities and the County as a whole are experiencing population growth. In considering how the City has grown in the past and its development pattern, how the area around the City has grown and its development pattern and population projections, the Plan Amendment is not urban sprawl. Transportation Facilities The City submitted data and analysis relative to traffic impacts in a study prepared by Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. (TPD). PE 83. The TPD traffic study was accomplished in accordance with the County's concurrency management procedures and based on adopted Levels of Service (LOS). After the City's re-submittal to the DCA, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had no comments or concerns about transportation impacts. DCAE 2, FDOT analysis. Although the Plan Amendment would allow for more traffic to be generated, increased traffic does not necessarily render a plan amendment not in compliance. A broad brush approach is taken at the comprehensive planning stage. A compliance determination does not consider details such as the design of the roads, or whether roads have guardrails. The issue is whether there is enough capacity to maintain the adopted LOS. Adequate Capacity There is adequate capacity on the surrounding roads to accommodate the trips generated by the Plan Amendment. The TPD traffic study forecasted traffic demands and the impact on available capacity along roadways affected by the subject property and concluded that "all road segments will operate within their adopted LOS with excess traffic capacity available for future development" and "there will be adequate capacity to accommodate the trip generation" contemplated by the Plan Amendment. PE 83. The projected traffic generated by the subject property between now and the year 2010 will not cause any of the roadways to exceed capacity. Based on the TPD traffic study, the County agreed that the anticipated trips generated would not exceed the adopted LOS and that there is available capacity on the road segments affected by the project. Although Petitioners raised multiple traffic issues in their respective amended petitions, Petitioners mainly presented testimony that anticipated development of the subject property will cause increased traffic on County roads which will lead to increased safety concerns. Safety Concerns on James Road The County presented evidence regarding existing and potential safety concerns on several road segments including James Road, which may result from anticipated development of the subject property. The County's main safety concern (with development of the south parcel) is the segment of James Road between Friday Road and Cox Road because of a steep canal that runs along mainly the north side of James Road for approximately one mile. The County's safety concerns relating to James Road only apply to the southern property; thus any increase in traffic on the northern property, including the triangular portion, does not impact safety on James Road. The safety problems relating to James Road exist currently and existed in 2004. Mr. Denninghoff testified that the anticipated increased traffic as a result of the Plan Amendment will expose additional traffic to the existing hazardous conditions on James Road beyond what was planned. The safety concerns with James Road could be resolved by installation of a guardrail, improved and additional street lights, and rumble strips on the road before the stop signs. The County has not added guardrails to James Road. These safety improvements are needed now. Maintenance Costs for County Roads Besides safety, another issue raised by the County during the hearing regarding transportation issues was the anticipated increase in wear and tear on the County roads resulting in increased costs to the County. Residents of the subject property will pay impact fees, which may be utilized for improvements to capacity, operational improvements at intersections, including the safety improvements mentioned above, for new facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, but not maintenance. The impact fee is paid directly to the County. By ordinance, the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners approves the expenditures of the impact fees collected. The County will receive approximately $2.6 million in impact fees from the development of the subject property. The impact fees collected by the County could be utilized to fund safety measures because they are related to capacity improvements. No development was approved by the Plan Amendment. Pursuant to the City's Code and Plan, traffic impacts of a development are reviewed in more detail after the plan amendment process, specifically, during the development process. Petitioners' concerns are premature. Development orders are the result of the subdivision and site plan approval process. Prior to the approval of the final PUD, or the issuance of building permits, the City will examine whether the necessary public facilities are operating within the adopted levels of service. When the developer applies for permits to develop the subject property, the City will review issues concerning traffic. The developer will submit an updated traffic study, which will be reviewed by the City and the County. The County is responsible for issuing driveway permits. Transportation Element Objective 2.3 of the City's Plan provides that "[d]evelopment shall bear the full burden of the cost of roadway improvements necessitated by impacts to the roadway network caused by traffic generated by said development through the adopted site approval process." The City's Plan also provides that new development will not be permitted unless mitigative measures are undertaken to address level of service impacts caused by development. Intergovernmental Coordination The City's Plan contains an Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). The Plan Amendment does not make any changes to that element. Petitioners presented documentary evidence through Mr. Williams' report alleging that the City violated the ICE in its Plan. However, the evidence shows that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with any intergovernmental coordination requirements in the City's Plan. Intergovernmental coordination does not mean that one local government must acquiesce to a request from an adjacent local government. Intergovernmental coordination requires information sharing, and there are numerous objectives and policies in the City's Plan addressing the City's responsibility to coordinate with the County regarding development impacts at the appropriate time. Most of the policies and requirements for intergovernmental coordination in the City's Plan are driven by the subdivision site plan approval process. The City coordinated with the County, as the City provided a copy of its annexation report to the County in July of 2004. The City manager invited the County manager to discuss the report with City staff, but the County did not respond. The City also used the County's concurrency management procedures in analyzing traffic, and reduced the density from seven to four units per acre based in part upon the County's comments during the review process. Compatibility With Surrounding Areas Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) provides: "[c]ompatibility means a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The residential development contemplated by the Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject property is surrounded by urban residential development and existing public infrastructure. The City studied the area surrounding the Plan Amendment, and determined that it was developed in an urban and suburban manner. To be compatible with the surrounding areas, the City developed the VLDR category allowing four units to the acre on the subject property. The County's future land use for the property to the north of the Plan Amendment is designated residential to be developed at one dwelling per 2.5 acres. However, Hagen- Nicholson's expert testified that it has been developed more intensely, with some lots developed at less than an acre. The County's future land use to the south of the Plan Amendment is one unit an acre. The area to the south, however, is less intensely developed -- it is developed at 1.5 units to the acre. The County allowed areas of three units to the acre and five units to the acre to be developed in the middle of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert testified that the County's planning of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment is the cause of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows a hole in the donut to be filled in so that in the future, there is not pressure to develop homes in a leapfrog fashion two to three miles away. In this case, residential next to residential is compatible. The Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent development. Internal Consistency Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not internally consistent with several provisions of the adopted City Plan. Specifically, the report of Petitioners' planning expert alleges that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with the City's Policies and/or Objectives 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.8, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.5, 1.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.5.2, 4.2.6.3, 4.3.4.1, 9.4.4, 9.8, 9.8.1, and 9.8.2. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the City's Plan and that Petitioners' expert was applying the site plan approval process to the Plan Amendment. The majority of the policies or objectives cited in the report of Petitioners' expert pertain to later stages of the development process, not the plan amendment process. For instance, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because there is no mention in the development agreement concerning who is responsible for the costs of providing the extension of lines, alteration of lift station and the cost of plant capacity for providing wastewater service. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because the developer's agreement for the subject property provides that the developer is required to comply with all city, local, county, state, and federal requirements. Additionally, allegations concerning Policies 1.1.2.5, 1.1.2.6, 2.4.1, and 2.4.5 are premature because they pertain to setback requirements and issues which pertain to later stages of the development process. Policies 4.2.4.4 and 4.2.5.2 pertain to septic tanks and locating waste water package plants. These Policies do not pertain to the Plan Amendment. FSN's planning expert testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's Plan and that the Plan Amendment will benefit the City as a whole. The DCA's senior planner also testified that several of the Policies which Petitioners alleged that were inconsistent with the Plan Amendment were premature because they pertain to the development stage, not to the plan amendment stage. The Plan Amendment is consistent with Policies and Objectives 1.1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.9.1, 2.9.3, 4.1, 4.1.1.5, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.5, 9.4.4, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 9.8.1, 9.8.2, and 9.8. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions they cited. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Strategic Regional Policy Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) is based on an assessment of the SRPP as a whole. § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioners did not present evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. Petitioners' expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with certain provisions of the SRPP. The report only discussed several policies in an isolated fashion and did not consider the SRPP as a whole. Nevertheless, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP as a whole, and is consistent with the specific provisions with which Petitioners' report alleged inconsistencies. Specifically, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the SRPP Policy 6.1 because the area is already urban. Additionally, the Plan Amendment is in an area that has existing commercial uses nearby. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policies 6.4 and 6.5 because both of these policies pertain to rural areas. The subject property and the surrounding areas are not rural. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.16 because it is based upon area-wide projections and forecasts. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.17 because it does not adopt a policy providing that there shall be no informal mediation processes, or that informal mediation shall not be used. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.19 regarding the encouragement of public participation. Overall, the City encouraged public participation. The City has the capacity and ability to develop its downtown area and to promote infill at the same time. Accordingly, the Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.21. The Plan Amendment concerns the issue of deciding a future land use. SRPP Policy 5.17 1.a., which pertains to addressing transportation impacts of a development project in one jurisdiction on an adjacent jurisdiction, will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the development process. SRPP Policy 5.23 pertains to equitable cost participation guiding development approval decisions. It does not pertain to the Plan Amendment because there is no transportation capacity improvements required by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 7.3 because the area encompassing the Plan Amendment is already included in the City's approved future service area. Petitioners' report set forth an allegation that SRPP Policies 7.5, 7.9., 7.10, and 7.19 "would all be in conflict with the city of Cocoa proposed amendment." The Plan Amendment is consistent with these SRPP Policies. FSN's planning expert testified that the SRPP uses directive verbs that are intended to be suggestions and recommendations to a local government, not requirements. He provided testimony that since the subject area is urban, and not rural, the SRPP does not impact this Plan Amendment because it provides for protection of regional natural resources, and promotes intergovernmental coordination. Hagen Nicholson's expert also testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council did not raise any concerns to the Plan Amendment violating the SRPP. Finally, the Plan Amendment actually furthers SRPP Policies 4.23, 4.2.4, 6.1.4, 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5. State Comprehensive Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) is based on an assessment of the State Plan as a whole. Petitioners alleged in paragraphs 39, 46, 59, and 65 of the Amended Petition that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21) of the State Plan. However, they did not present persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Plan as a whole, and, in particular, Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment furthers the State Plan goal to "increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons. . . ." See § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. It furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(9), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment protects the wetlands by designating them as Conservation areas. Finally, it furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(15), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment preserves environmentally sensitive areas. Public Participation9 Petitioners alleged that public participation was not provided with respect to the August 24, 2004, transmittal hearing, primarily because the City allegedly refused to allow citizens access to the hearing and the opportunity to speak during the hearing. At the administrative hearing in this matter, following denial of the DCA's motion in limine, the issue was narrowed to the question of whether the August 24, 2004, hearing was the type contemplated by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the ultimate issue being whether or not that will impact whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." The issues identified in footnote 1 of Petitioners' Hunters and Kellgrens' Amended Petition are not at issue. Council meetings have an order of discussion. During "delegations," only City residents, employees, and water customers may speak. The City Council is authorized to set aside up to 30 minutes of each regular Council meeting limited to hearing from only residents and taxpayers of the City. After the delegations portion, the consent agenda is considered, and then the public hearings portion follows. Under the public hearings portion, any person may speak. Speaker cards are filled out, passed on to the Mayor, and the Mayor calls the names from the cards. On August 17, 2004, the City published a Notice of Future Land Use and Zoning Change in the Florida Today Newspaper. The notice stated that a public hearing would be held by the City Council in their chambers at 7:00 p.m. on August 24, 2004, on subjects including the proposed plan amendment and re-zoning of the subject property. The notice also stated that the hearing was a public hearing, that all interested persons may attend and that members of the public are encouraged to comment on the proposed ordinance at the meeting. The parties stipulated that the August 24, 2004, hearing was properly advertised and noticed.10 According to the transcript of the City Council meeting on August 24, 2004, the meeting, including the transmittal hearing portion, began at 7:15 p.m. Several hundred people showed up and were outside of the building at 6:00 p.m. The City's planner testified that he did not have any expectation that there would be that many people there. The turn-out was so large that not everyone could fit in the Council chambers. The capacity of the room is either 91 or 93 based upon fire department regulations. The first issues discussed related to the annexation of the property subject to the proposed plan amendment. There was also discussion regarding the re-zoning and the proposed plan amendment. PE 14 at 3-48. Thereafter, Mayor Parrish stated that "it would be appropriate to have a public hearing regarding these three ordinances." Id. at 48. The Mayor asked everyone to fill out speaker cards.11 The City Attorney stated that there were speaker cards about three to four inches thick; "about two hundred plus cards of people who want to speak." Id. at 49, 51. Mayor Parrish stated: I know. There is no way we can hear them in one night. Also, we have to go by the concerns and the citizens that we hear and I doubt there are this many ideas that is going to be expressed tonight. If we don't duplicate something that we have already heard, we might be able to bring them down a little bit. If we can elect representative to speak on behalf of other names that can be given possibly as a way to cut down on that. We also have heard from planning and zoning and have spoken with the members of planning and zoning. We have minutes from the meetings. We have copies of presentation that were given at that meeting and letters and phone calls and e-mails, and so, we have got a good sense of the concerns that were expressed that night and since that night. We do want to hear from everyone we possibly can. The criteria for a public hearing are basically three minutes for a speaker and representatives of recognized groups shall be limited to ten minutes. So if you have somebody that can speak on behalf of a group of people they can have ten minutes and possibly get everything expressed that maybe a larger group would take longer than the ten minutes. A total debate on a single issue is limited to 30 minutes. Since we have three issues -- Id. at 49-51. See also PE 14 at 53-54. The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing did not get underway until approximately 8:30 p.m. Id. at 51. The City Council typically allows 30 minutes for the public hearings portion, but decided to extend the time to 90 minutes, id. at 53, and later went beyond that limit to accommodate more speakers.12 After several persons began expressing their opposition to the items, including the proposed plan amendment, id. at 58-82, the Mayor stated that the comments were "starting to get a little bit repetitive" on several issues and requested the attendees to try "to narrow it down to some other issues that maybe haven't been brought up so far." Id. at 82. Other speakers followed, id. at 82-128, when the Mayor stated that they were "going to run over with just the cards" that she had and inquired whether they wanted to extend the time. It was decided to "hear the three or ten depending upon how long." Id. at 129. Again, others spoke when a police officer said "[w]e have a few more[,] [a]re you done?" The Mayor responded: "We are past time. I'm trying to finish the ones that I have up here that are saying that they are in line." Id. at 140. Councilman Anderson wished to cut off public comment and Councilwoman Collins provided a second "because of how late it is -- 11 o'clock Mayor." Id. at 141. Without ruling on the request, Stacy Ranger, a representative of the County, spoke and focused on the annexation issue, including neighborhood compatibility. Id. at 141-146. Thereafter, Mr. Titkanich was granted permission to respond to comments. Id. at 147-157. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Id. at 158. After some discussion, a motion to extend the meeting not more than one hour was approved. This motion was made sometime after Councilwoman Collins announced how late it was - 11 p.m. Id. at 176-177.13 Ultimately, the Council voted four to one in favor of Ordinance No. 39-2004. Id. at 181-182. Mr. Kellgren testified that he arrived at the hearing location around 6:00 p.m. There was a large crowd of several hundred people outside. He filled out a speaker's card, but could not get into the building. He waited outside and tried to observe what was going on. He left the hearing around 9:30 p.m. because he did not see the point in staying any longer; he could not get in and could not hear anything. His speaker's card was not marked "NR" or "No Response." PE 36. Although Mr. Kellgren was not able to get into the building to speak, he had retained lawyer Kimberly Rezanka to represent him and his wife at the August 24, 2004, hearing. During the hearing, Ms. Rezanka spoke to the City Council on behalf of the Kellgrens and several other individuals.14 (Mr. Kellgren attended the P&ZB hearing and opposed the proposed plan amendment and rezoning.) After the transmittal hearing, Mr. Kellgren sent two letters to the DCA's Plan Review Administrator expressing concerns regarding the proposed plan amendment. One letter was signed by Mr. Kellgren and others. No complaint was made regarding the conduct of the transmittal hearing. PE 81-82; T II 358. Ms. Hunter arrived at the City Council's August 24, 2004, meeting around 5:30 p.m. (She attended the P&ZB hearing and spoke.) She testified that she was not allowed to go inside the building because she was not a City resident. She wrote comments opposing the proposed plan amendment on her speaker's card -- "7 houses per acre would be ridiculous Against [two underscored lines] rezoning of property at Friday [&] James in Cocoa - 1 house per acre only!!". She wrote this information on the card so her intentions would be known. The upper-right hand corner of her card is marked "NR," although she did not write these letters on the card. She left the public hearing around 9:30 p.m., because she had to work the next day and take care of her children. She knew that the hearing was still going on and acknowledged that her name could have been called after she left. She did not go to the December 14, 2004, adoption hearing. Brian Seaman lives in Canaveral Groves, which is in the unincorporated area of the County and east of the north parcel. FSNE at "BS." He arrived at 6:00 p.m. He testified that he was not allowed in because he was not a City resident. He filled out a speaker's card, but believes that his name was not called. His card was not marked "No Response" or "NR." He testified he remained at the public hearing until approximately 11:45 p.m., when he was told of the Council's vote. See Endnote (He attended the P&ZB hearing and later attended the December adoption hearing held at the Civic Center. He did not speak at those hearings because the issues that were of concern to him had already been raised by others.) The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing lasted over three hours. There is evidence that names on the speaker cards (CE 10), such as Mr. Seaman, were not called. There is also evidence that there was no response for many of the names as reflected on the cards.15 Nevertheless, citizens spoke during the public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing. Notwithstanding the large turn out, the Mayor and Council took measures to accommodate the larger-than-expected crowd and public comment was received. The City Council learned from the experience and conducted the adoption hearing at the Civic Center. No issues are raised regarding the adequacy of the adoption hearing. There is no persuasive evidence that any person was deprived of the opportunity to submit written objections, comments, or recommendations to the Council prior to, during, or after the Council's consideration of the proposed plan amendment (during the transmittal hearing). The DCA's expert planner, Erin Dorn, testified that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.004 requires local governments to adopt procedures for public participation. Once the DCA receives an amendment package from a local government, it goes to the plan processing team (PPT). The PPT checks the package for "completeness" to make sure that it includes all information required by law. The PPT does not review the plan amendment. Once the package is complete, it is sent to the planning review team for a substantive review. Review of a plan amendment includes public facilities, natural resources, and transportation. Review of a plan amendment does not include a review of whether every person who wanted to attend the hearing was permitted to do so, or a review of the number of people who attended. Such aspects of public participation are not considered by the PPT, and necessarily the DCA when reviewing a plan amendment for a compliance determination. The DCA received letters from citizens, voicing concerns regarding the Plan Amendment.16
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by the City through Ordinance No. 39-2004 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2006, 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 3rd day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Town of Yankeetown (Town) plan amendment 08-01 (adopted by Ordinance 2007-10) and plan amendment 08-CIE1 (adopted by Ordinance 2008-03), as modified by remedial amendment 09-R1 (adopted by Ordinance 2009-02) (together, referred to as the Plan Amendments or the Revised Comprehensive Plan), are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact The Town is located in the southwest corner of Levy County. The Town is bounded on the east by the Town of Inglis, on the north by unincorporated Levy County, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the south by the Withlacoochee River. The Town has significant planning challenges due to its geographic location. The maximum elevation in the Town is 10 feet, and the entire Town is located in the 100-year floodplain and Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The Town is located in a rural area north of the banks of the Withlacoochee River and is surrounded by wetlands and environmentally-sensitive land. The Town is located at the end of County Road 40, and is separated from the nearest intersection of major roads (State/County Road 40 and U.S. 19) by the Town of Inglis. The Plan Amendments are a community-generated plan that incorporates the results of an extensive community visioning survey conducted by the Town and numerous public meetings that exceeded the public participation requirements for plan amendments contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-53 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan Amendments resulted in a Revised Comprehensive Plan for the Town. IWI is a legal entity that owns land within the Town and submitted oral or written comments on the Plan Amendments during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for several reasons. Population Projections and Need In its pleadings, IWI contended that "[t]here is inadequate data regarding projected population growth and the infrastructure needed to support the projected population growth for both the short term (five years) and the long term (horizon of the plan)"; "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(6)(a) Florida Statutes, by failing to provide future land use categories that are based on need"; and "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with the requirements of 9J- 5.006, Florida Administrative Code, demonstrating that future land use is based on need." Prehearing Stipulation § 2.H., U., and GG. However, its expert planning witness, Gail Easely, conceded that the data and analysis submitted by the Town was adequate to demonstrate that the residential land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan are based on need. IWI limited its contention on this point to the alleged inadequacy of the data and analysis to support the Revised Comprehensive Plan's new Light Industrial land use and revised commercial land use designations. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the same areas for commercial as the currently effective Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one parcel that was changed from commercial to Light Industrial. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the commercial parcels near the Withlacoochee River as Commercial Water Dependent and the other commercial parcels as Commercial Neighborhood, totaling approximately 51 acres. Of the 51 acres of commercially-designated land, approximately 26 acres are currently developed and 25 acres are vacant and undeveloped. Of the 26 developed commercial acres, 19 parcels are currently developed and utilized as residential. There is no shortage of land available for commercial development in the Town. Inglis, a town located adjacent and to the east of Yankeetown, and Levy County near Yankeetown provide "more than adequate" existing commercial buildings on the market to serve the residents of Yankeetown and surplus vacant commercially- designated land to serve the future needs of Yankeetown. There is no shortage of commercial potential near the Town. The evidence was that it is acceptable for a local government to plan for the future need for the availability of commercial and industrial lands by maintaining the existing proportionate of availability of land use categories. Alternatively, it is acceptable to plan to mimic the proportions found to exist in other communities. This is essentially how the Town planned its allocation of commercial and industrial lands in its Revised Comprehensive Plan. IWI also contended that the intensity standards for commercial and industrial land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan unduly restrict commercial development. The existing Comprehensive Plan did not have explicit intensity standards and criteria for commercial land uses. After extensive debate at numerous public hearings, the Revised Comprehensive Plan established a floor/area ration (FAR) of 0.07, which limits the size for each single structure to a maximum of 3,000 square feet. It also allows for multiple 3,000 square foot structures on larger parcels in a "campus style" development. These standards and criteria reflect the existing, built environment of the Town and the Town's vision of itself. Existing commercial buildings run from 960 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Although the existing Comprehensive Plan did not have an FAR ratio, other standards--such as setbacks, square footage required for on-site septic tanks, drainfields, and parking, a 50 percent open space ratio, and a building height restriction of 35 feet--restricted commercial development in a manner similar to the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's expert economist, Dr. Fishkind, testified that the restrictions on intensity of commercial land uses are not financially feasible because not enough revenue can be generated to make a profit, given the cost of land in Yankeetown. His testimony was refuted by his University of Florida colleague, Dr. James Nicholas, who was called as an expert economist for the Town. Dr. Nicholas pointed out that there was some commercial use in the Town and that economics would lower the cost of land in the Town if it is too expensive to allow the kind of commerce desired by the Town to make a reasonable profit. Businesses requiring more space to make sufficient revenue could locate outside the Town but close enough in Inglis or Levy County to serve Yankeetown as well. The character of the Town, its limited projected population growth, and the availability of commercial development nearby in Inglis and in Levy County all support the Town's decision to limit the intensity of commercial land use, and to maintain the existing amount of land available for commercial and light industrial uses. 15. Rules 9J-5.006(1)(a)(3) and 9J-5.006 (4)(a)(3) require the designation of some industrial lands, and the Revised Comprehensive Plan changes the designation of six acres of land located to the west of the intersection of County Roads 40 and 40-A from "Commercial" to "Light Industrial." Since industrial uses are generally not compatible with residential uses, the Light Industrial parcel is separated from residential parcels by commercial. The Light Industrial parcel is allocated for more intense commercial uses (such as fishing trap and boat storage) or reserved for economic development of light industrial uses that may wish to locate in Yankeetown, such as aquaculture. The existing ratio of residential to commercial land is adequate to supply the existing need as reflected by the existing surplus, vacant, and unused commercial lands. The Plan Amendments maintain residential lands and commercial lands in their general designations with refinements to the categories. The existing ratio and availability of vacant commercial land indicate that there is no deficit in any category, and maintaining the existing residential/commercial ratio preserves the existing character of the Town. Urban Service Area versus Urban Service Boundary IWI contends that "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to ensure that the urban service boundary was appropriately adopted and based on demonstrated need." This contention has no merit. Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, encourages a local government to adopt an "urban service boundary." If one is adopted, there must be a demonstration "that the amount of land within the urban service boundary does not exceed the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population growth at densities consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan within the 10-year planning timeframe." If a local government chooses to adopt an "urban service boundary" under Section 163.3177(14) and a community vision under Section 163.3177(13), Florida Statutes, it may adopt plan amendments within the urban service boundary without state or regional agency review. See § 163.3184(17), Fla. Stat. The Revised Comprehensive Plan does not use the term "urban service boundary," and the Town did not intend to adopt one under Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, nor did it seek to avoid state and regional agency review of plan amendments under Section 163.3184(17), Florida Statutes. Instead, as explained on page 6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, it uses the term "urban area" to designate an area allowed to receive development rights from the sending area, namely the Residential Environmentally Sensitive (formerly Conservation) land use district. The Revised Comprehensive Plan uses the term urban service "area" (rather than "boundary") as the area located generally between County Roads 40 and 40-A that can receive development rights transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. This area is depicted as "Urban Service Area Overlay Zones" Map 2008-02 of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) series to more clearly designate the area on a larger scale than the FLUM map of the entire Town (Map 2008-05). The existing FLUM series also used the term "urban area" to depict the transfer of development rights receiving area. Financial Feasibility and Capital Improvements IWI’s expert, Dr. Henry Fishkind, testified that he ran his Fiscal Impact Analysis Model for the Town and concluded that the Revised Comprehensive Plan is not financially feasible because the Town cannot generate sufficient operating revenue to cover its operating costs without increasing property tax rates. Dr. Fishkind was not asked to explain how his computer model works, give any specific modeling results, or explain how he reached his conclusion. The Town's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, refuted his University of Florida colleague's testimony on this point as well. Essentially, Dr. Nicholas testified that a small and unique community like Yankeetown can choose to limit its operating costs by relying on volunteers and part-time employees. In this way, it can operate on a bare-bones budget that would starve a more typical and larger community. It also could choose to increase property tax rates, if necessary. Recent amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in Senate Bill 360, the "Community Renewal Act," which became effective June 1, 2009, postponed and extended until December 1, 2011, the statutory requirement to maintain the financial feasibility of the five-year capital improvements schedule (CIS) for potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, solid waste, public schools, and water supply. However, the Town concurred with Petitioner in requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue in case Senate Bill 360 is struck down in a pending constitutional challenge. The Plan Amendments include a CIE (Chapter 8) with a five-year CIS and a table to identify sources of revenue and capital projects sufficient to achieve and maintain the adopted levels of service, supported by data and analysis submitted with the Remedial Amendments. The Town's CIS five-year lists projects to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service (LOS) standards and identifies funding sources to pay for those projects. It describes the projects and conservatively projects costs and revenue sources. The CIS identifies revenue sources and capital projects for which there are committed funds in the first three years and identifies capital projects for which funds have not yet been committed in year four or year five. CIS is adequate to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service and is financially feasible. Stormwater and Drainage A drainage LOS is adopted in Revised Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1.2.1, which states: "All new development and expansion of existing residential development greater than 300 square feet of additional impervious coverage shall meet requirements under Chapter 62-25, F.A.C. for Outstanding Florida Waters." The exemption of minor residential improvements of 300 square feet or less is reasonable and does not violate Rule Chapter 9J-5 or Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department's ability to require retrofitting for existing drainage problems is limited by Rule Chapter 9J- 5.011(2)(c)5.b.i., which states that the Rule "shall not be interpreted or applied to [m]andate that local governments require existing facilities to be retrofitted to meet stormwater discharge water quality standards or stormwater management level of service standards." Nonetheless, the Town agreed in the Compliance Agreement to adopt appropriate policies and provide additional data and analysis on this issue. Policy 4.1.2.13 requires that the "Established Storm Water Drainage Committee shall monitor storm water facilities in [the] town, oversee maintenance functions, and evaluate and recommend capital improvements projects and funding sources." To pay for stormwater capital improvement projects, Policy 4.1.2.14 in the Plan Amendments states: "Yankeetown shall adopt a storm water utility fee ordinance and establish storm water utility fees by December 31, 2009 to provide necessary funding for capital improvements to the Town's storm water drainage facilities and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities." In accordance with the Compliance Agreement, the Town modified CIS Table 1 by adding $120,000 to FY 2011-2012 (Year 5) for the stormwater drainage improvement project and adding Note 5 to Table 1, which states: "Anticipated to be funded by a 75%/25% matching grant from SWFWMD, DEP or DCA. The matching (town) funds will be obtained from the proposed stormwater improvement fund. If no grants can be obtained and the stormwater improvement fund is not approved[,] the project will be funded from the general fund reserves and long term loans." Because the stormwater utility fee ordinance must still be adopted, and these funds are not technically committed at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments, the stormwater capital improvement project was placed in year 5 (2011-1012) of the CIS. As funding becomes available and committed, the project may be moved to an earlier year in required annual updates to the CIS. Drainage also is addressed in new Objective 4.3.2 and in new Policies 4.3.2.1. through 4.3.2.5. The Town has addressed stormwater and drainage appropriately in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Proportionate Share and Concurrency Management Policy 4.1.2.6 in the Public Facilities Element states: "The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares proportionate responsibilities in the provision of facilities and services to meet the needs of that development and maintain adopted level of service standards." Policy 8.1.3.4 in the CIE of the Revised Comprehensive Plan states: The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares a proportionate cost on a pro rata basis in the provision of facilities and services necessitated by that development in order to maintain the Town’s adopted level of service standards. Proportionate costs shall be based upon, but not limited to: Cost for extension of water mains, including connection fees. Costs for all circulation and right-of-way related improvements to accommodate the development for local roads not maintained by Levy County. Costs to maintain County Road 40 and 40[-]A and any other road within the town that are maintained by Levy County shall be governed by the Levy County Proportionate Share Ordinance and Yankeetown will continue to adopt and ensure the level of service is maintained [through] coordination mechanisms between the two planning departments. Costs for drainage improvements. Costs for recreational facilities, open space provision, fire protection, police services, and stormwater management. Although the Town does not have any public facility deficiencies, Rule Chapter 9J-5 requires that the CIE address "[t]he extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards"; and include a policy that addresses programs and activities for "[a]ssessing new developments a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements necessitated by development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.016(3)(b)4. and (c)8. Policy 8.1.3.4 meets this requirement. The statute forming the basis of IWI’s contentions regarding proportionate fair share is Section 163.3180(16)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires local governments "to adopt by ordinance a methodology for assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation options." The evidence was that the requirements of this statute will be met by the Town's Proportionate Fair Share Concurrency Management Ordinance, which had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings at the time of the final hearing, and which will implement Policy 8.1.3.4. IWI did not present any evidence regarding the alleged lack of a concurrency management system in the Revised Comprehensive Plan and did not prove that the Revised Comprehensive Plan fails to meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.055 for concurrency management. The Town is exempt from maintaining school concurrency requirements. Objective 8.1.3 and Policies 8.1.3.1 through 8.1.3.6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.055 for concurrency management. Policy 8.1.3.6 states: "The Town shall evaluate public facility demands by new development or redevelopment on a project by project basis to assure that capital facilities are provided concurrent with development." Policy 8.1.3.3 states: "The Yankeetown Land Development Code shall contain provisions to ensure that development orders are not issued for development activities which degrade the level of service below the adopted standard as identified in each comprehensive plan element. Such provisions may allow for provision of facilities and services in phases, so long as such facilities and services are provided concurrent with the impacts of development." The Town has a checklist system to track the specific impact of each development order on LOS concurrent with development. As indicated, a Proportionate Fair Share and Concurrency Management Ordinance had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings. Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality The Town is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain and coastal high hazard area. See Finding 2, supra. This presents challenges for wastewater treatment. The adoption of the Revised Comprehensive Plan followed public meetings and workshops held with representatives of DCA, including Richard Deadman, and expert Mark Hooks, formerly with the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and now with the State of Florida Department of Health. The Plan Amendments include Policy 8.1.3.1.1, which states in part: Due to the location of the town within the 100 year flood plain and within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), there are no plans to provide central wastewater treatment until a regional system can be developed in conjunction with the neighboring town of Inglis and Levy County, and constructed outside the Coastal High Hazard Area east of U.S. Highway 19. In the interim period before a regional central wastewater system is available, the Town shall require in all land use districts: a. Yankeetown shall develop a strategy to participate in water quality monitoring of the Withlacoochee River; b. develop an educational program to encourage inspection (and pump-out if needed) of existing septic tanks; c. all new and replacement septic tanks shall meet performance based standards (10mg/l nitrogen). The Town's approach to wastewater treatment under the circumstances is sound both economically and from planning perspective and is sufficient to protect natural and coastal resources, including water quality, and meet the minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. There is direction in the State Comprehensive Plan to: "Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas." § 187.201(8)(b)3., Fla. Stat. This direction is also found in Chapter 163.3178(1), Florida Statutes, and in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)5., which require local governments to limit public expenditures that would subsidize development in the CHHA. It also is impractical for the Town, with a population of 760 people, to fund and operate a central wastewater system. It is logical and economical to do this in partnership with the adjoining Town of Inglis and Levy County, which could share in the costs and provide a site for a regional wastewater facility located nearby but outside of the CHHA. In contrast, this approach was not a viable option for the entirety of the Florida Keys. The Town already has begun water quality testing under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.a. The Town will be required to prepare educational programs to encourage inspection of existing septic tanks (and pump-out, if needed) under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.b. and under new Policy 4.3.1.2. In the short-term, while the Town pursues a regional treatment facility located outside the CHHA, Policy 8.1.3.1.c. in the Revised Comprehensive Plan will be implemented by new Policy 4.1.2.1.IV.B., which states: Yankeetown shall require that all new or replacement sanitary sewage systems in all land use districts meet the following requirements: All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the system into floodwaters. Joints between sewer drain components shall be sealed with caulking, plastic or rubber gaskets. Backflow preventers are required. All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate damage to them and contamination from them during flooding. The DCA has objected and recommended, and Yankeetown has concurred that all new and replacement septic systems are to be performance-based certified to provide secondary treatment equivalent to 10 milligrams per liter maximum Nitrogen. Performance-based treatment systems that are accepted as achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have already been tested by the National Sanitation Foundation and approved by the State of Florida Department of Health. Performance-based systems achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have been certified and approved for use in Florida and are now available on the market "in the $7,200 range" for a typical two- or three-bedroom home, and there are systems that would meet the 10mg/l nitrogen standard for commercial and multi-family buildings. Compliance with the performance-based 10 mg/l nitrogen standard is measured at the treatment system, not in the receiving water, and additional nutrient removal and treatment occurs in the drainfield soils. Performance-based treatment systems also require an operating permit and routine inspection and maintenance, unlike conventional septic tanks. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated in its 1997 report to Congress: "Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long- term option for meeting public health and water quality goals." The existing Comprehensive Plan addresses wastewater in Chapter 4, Policy 13-2, which states: "Prohibit the construction of new publicly funded facilities or facilities offered for maintenance in the coastal high hazard area (including roads, water, sewer, or other infrastructure)." It also is addressed in the existing Comprehensive Plan in: Chapter 1, Policies 3-1 and 3-2 (Vol. II p. 11); and Chapter 4, Policies 1-2-1 and 1-2-7 (Vol. II, pp. 32, 34). A more in-depth analysis of the Town's previous approach to wastewater treatment is found in Volume III, Infrastructure Element, pp. 107-109 ("Facility Capacity Analysis, Sanitary Sewer"), which expresses similar long-term and interim approaches to wastewater treatment. The Revised Comprehensive Plan removes confusing and out-of-date references to "class I or other DOH-approved aerobic systems" used in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Amendments contemplate that the Town will pursue a long-term solution of a regional wastewater facility with the Town of Inglis and Levy County to be located outside the CHHA. The Revised Comprehensive Plan is adequate to protect the natural resources in Yankeetown and includes a short-term requirement that all new and replacement septic tanks meet the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard measured at the performance-based treatment system, together with a long-term requirement that the Town pursue a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located outside the CHHA. The Plan Amendments include: Objective 4.1.3; Policies 4.1.3.1 through 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.2.8 through 4.1.2.11; Policy 5.1.4.4; Policy 7.1.22.6; Policy 8.1.3.1; Policy 10.1.2.1; and Policy 10.1.2.3. These provisions move the Town in the direction of a regional central wastewater treatment located outside the CHHA and establish appropriate interim standards. Petitioner contended that the Town has allocated money for a new park when it needed a new central wastewater treatment facility. But the evidence was that the money for the new park came from a grant and could not be used for a new central wastewater treatment facility. Protection of Natural Resources and Internal Consistency The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the FLUM in the Revised Comprehensive Plan contain "Resource Protection" and "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use designations. In the existing Comprehensive Plan, these lands are designated Public Use Resource Protection and Conservation, respectively. The Plan Amendments reduce density in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district, which contains a number of islands, to a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres and maximum net density of one dwelling unit per five acres of uplands. Policy 1.1.2.1 in the Plan Amendments would allow development rights to be transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land to the development rights area receiving zone located between County Roads 40 and 40-A, as shown in Map 2008-02. The current Conservation designation for those lands sets a "maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres"; and Policy 1-2 in the existing Comprehensive Plan allows the transfer of development rights within the Conservation district "as long as gross density does not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres." Under Policy 1-2 of the existing Comprehensive Plan, a minimum of "two (2) acres of uplands" is required for a development in the Conservation land use district. Likewise, under Policy 1.1.2.1.2 of the Plan Amendments, a minimum of "two (2) contiguous natural pre-development upland acres" is required in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. Although allowed, few if any transfers of development rights actually occurred under the existing Comprehensive Plan. To provide additional incentive to transfer development out of the "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use district and into the urban receiving area, Policy 1.1.2.7.F. of the Plan Amendments would allow the land owner to retain private ownership and passive recreational use on the "sending" parcel, including one boat dock. All other development rights on the sending parcel would be extinguished. Besides facilitating the transfer of development rights, it is expected that use of boat docks on the islands will decrease environmental damage from boats now grounding to obtain access to the islands. Although the policies for Environmentally Sensitive Residential and Conservation Lands are slightly different, the minor differences do not fail to protect natural or coastal resources or fail to meet the minimum criteria set forth in Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Numerous policies in the Plan Amendments establish standards and criteria to protect natural and coastal resources, including: Policy 1.1.2.1.7(i), restricting dredging; Policies 1.1.1.2.10, 5.1.5.7, and 5.1.6.10, restricting the filling of wetlands; Policy 5.1.6.7, establishing wetlands setback buffers; Policy 5.1.6.4, establishing nutrient buffers; Policy 5.1.5.1, limiting dredge and fill; Policies 1.1.3.4 and 5.1.5.5, establishing standards and criteria for docks and walkways; Policy 5.1.16.1, protecting certain native habitats as open space; Policy 1.1.1.3, establishing low-impact development practices for enhanced water quality protection; and Policy 5.1.5.1, protecting listed species, including manatees. These provisions are more protective than the provisions of the existing Comprehensive and are supported by data and analysis. The Plan Amendments acknowledge and protect private property rights and include Objective 1.1.11 (Determination and Protection of Property Rights), providing for vested rights and beneficial use determinations to address unintended or unforeseen consequences of the application of the Plan Amendments in cases where setbacks cannot be achieved for specific development proposals due to lot size or configuration. FLUE Policy 1.1.1.2.8 and Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 5.1.6.4 in the Plan Amendments sets out procedures, standards, and criteria (including mitigation) for variances from the 150- foot Nutrient Buffer Setback. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendments protect natural and coastal resources within the Town. Internal Consistency Docks, Open Space, and Dredge and Fill IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because policies addressing docks, open space, and dredging requirements use different language and with different meanings in different contexts. Policies in the Revised Comprehensive Plan establish 100 percent open space requirements for certain natural habitats, namely: (a) submerged aquatic vegetation; (b) undisturbed salt marsh wetlands; (c) salt flats and salt ponds; (d) fresh water wetlands; (e) fresh water ponds; and (f) maritime coastal hammock. Pile-supported, non-habitable structures such as boat docks and walkways are allowed if sited on other portions of a site. (Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policies 5.1.5.7, 5.1.6.7, 5.1.6.10, and 5.1.16.1). Other policies limit dredging to maintenance dredging. Policy 5.1.5.1 states that the Town will: Prohibit all new dredge and fill activities, including construction of new canals, along the river and coastal areas. Maintenance dredging of existing canals, previously dredged channels, existing previously dredged marinas, and commercial and public boat launch ramps shall be allowed to depths previously dredged only when the applicant demonstrates that dredging activity will not contribute to water pollution or saltwater intrusion of the potable water supply. Applicant must also demonstrate that development activities shall not negatively impact water quality or manatee habitat. Maintenance dredging is prohibited within areas vegetated with established submerged grass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. This prohibition does not preclude the minor dredging necessary to construct "pile supported structures such as docks and walkways that do not exceed 4’ in width and constructed in accordance with OFW and Aquatic Preserve regulations," which are specifically exempted and allowed by Policy 5.1.5.7 of the Plan Amendments. Additional dredging and filling activities (beyond installation of pile supports) would not be required for docks sited where adequate water depth exists. Docks and walkways allowed under Policy 5.1.5.7 are not counted as open space. The policies concerning docks and walkways can be reconciled and do not render the Plan Amendments internally inconsistent. Low-Impact Development Policies IWI also contends that policies in the Plan Amendments requiring and encouraging low-impact development (LID) practices (which are not required or mandated under minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, but adopted for additional water quality protection) are internally inconsistent. The Plan Amendments require LID practices for some new uses (new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development) and encourage them for existing uses. The Plan Amendments require or encourage these practices in different land use districts, which address different commercial or residential uses, and also discuss these practices in different elements of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, which addresses different purposes and concerns, including the FLUE (Chapter 1), the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4), and the Coastal Management Element (Chapter 5). FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3 states that: In addition to complying with Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) standards, all new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development in all land use districts shall utilize "low impact" development practices appropriate for such use including: Landscaped biofiltration swales; Use native plants adapted to soil, water and rainfall conditions; Minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides; Grease traps for restaurants; Recycle storm water by using pond water for irrigation of landscaping; Dry wells to capture runoff from roofs; Porous pavements; Maintain ponds to avoid exotic species invasions; Aerate tree root systems (for example, WANE systems); Vegetate onsite floodplain areas with native and/or Florida-friendly plants to provide habitat and wildlife corridors; Rain barrels and green roofs where feasible; and Use connected Best Management Practices (BMPs) (treatment trains flowing from one BMP into the next BMP) to increase nutrient removal. Existing development shall be encouraged, but not required to use the above recommendations and shall not be considered nonconforming if they do not. In the Residential Low Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.2.5 states: "All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' development practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Residential Highest Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.3.3 states: "Existing platted parcels are encouraged to utilize site suitable storm water management such as connecting to swales where available. All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Resource Protection and Public Use land use districts, FLUE Policies 1.1.2.5 and 1.1.2.6. require LID practices for all development. In the Neighborhood Commercial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.7.6 requires LID practices for "all development." In the Commercial Water-Dependent land use districts, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.8.9 requires LID practices for "all new commercial development." In the Light Industrial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.9.2 requires LID practices for "all development." These policies can be reconciled. The use of slightly different language in a particular district, or creation of an exemption for existing uses, does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Policy 4.2.2.2 of the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4) of the Plan Amendments requires the adoption of land development regulations (LDRs) establishing minimum design and construction standards for new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development that will ensure that post development runoff rates do not exceed predevelopment runoff rates and encourage the same LID practices set out in FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3. IWI also contends that the inclusion of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the LID policies is internally inconsistent. To the contrary, it acknowledges that some of the listed practices may not be appropriate for a proposed specific use. For example, subsection (d) on "grease traps for restaurants" would not be appropriate if no restaurant is proposed. Under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, the Town has a year to adopt implementing LDRs providing further details, standards, and criteria for low-impact development BMPs for specific uses and within specific districts. The use of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the low-impact development policies allows for the exercise of engineering discretion in formulating LDRs. It does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Setbacks and Variances IWI also contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because buffers contain different setback distances and allow for a variance to the setback buffers. The policies addressing setbacks can be read together and reconciled. The Plan Amendments include two types of setback buffers adopted for different purposes: (1) for structures, a 50-foot setback from the river and wetlands in Policies 1.1.1.2.7 and 5.1.6.7; (2) for sources of nutrient pollution other than septic systems (such as fertilized and landscaped areas and livestock sources), a 150-foot nutrient buffer setback from the river in Policies 1.1.1.2.8 and 5.1.6.4; and (3) for septic systems, special setbacks in Policy 1.1.1.2.11 (which is referred to in the nutrient buffer setback policies). These different setback policies were adopted for different purposes and are not internally inconsistent. Data and analysis supporting the establishment of these different setbacks further explains the different purposes of the different types of setbacks adopted in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. The availability of variances to the 150-foot nutrient buffer setback allows some use on a parcel to ensure protection of private property rights in the event of an unforeseen taking of all use on a specific parcel where an applicant cannot meet the setback but can meet the listed criteria for a variance and provide the mitigation required for impacts. Protection of private property rights is a competing concern that must be addressed under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. The Plan Amendments need not address every possible or potential set of facts and circumstances. Additional detail can be provided in implementing LDRs adopted under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. Specific implementation and interpretation of policies and LDRs applicable to any particular development proposal will be made by the Town during application review process. Seemingly inconsistent policies can be reconciled by applying the most stringent policy. Seemingly inconsistent policies also could be reconciled by application of a specific exemption, variance, or beneficial use determination. Site-specific application and interpretation of policies and LDRs in development orders, and issues as to their consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, can be addressed under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. Small Local Governments IWI contends that the Town was not held to the same data and analysis standards under Section 163.3177(10)(i), Florida Statutes, as larger local governments. Under that statute and Rule 9J-5.002(2), the Department can consider the small size of the Town, as well as other factors, in determining the "detail of data, analyses, and the content of the goals, objectives, policies, and other graphic or textual standards required " Prior to adoption of the remedial amendments, the Town was unable to utilize GIS mapping. However, for the remedial amendments, GIS mapping was provided with the assistance of the Regional Planning Council. IWI did not prove beyond fair debate that the Town's data and analyses were insufficient under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. State and Regional Plans IWI also contends, for essentially the same reasons addressed previously, that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan provisions on water resources, natural systems, and public facilities and Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan provisions on natural resources, fisheries, and water quality. A plan is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and regional policy plan if, considered as a whole, it is "compatible with" and "furthers" those plans. "Compatible with" means "not in conflict with" and "furthers" means "to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan." § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Using those definitions, IWI failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Revised Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
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 the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2009.
