The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments CPA 10-4 and CPA 10-5 adopted by Martin County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 on August 10, 2010, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State and has the responsibility of administering its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It adopted the two amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners all reside or operate a business in the County, and they submitted oral or written comments to the County during the adoption process. Intervenors are limited liability corporations owned by King Ranch Florida Operations, LLC, an agricultural operation with offices in Florida and Texas. Intervenors own the subject property, which is more commonly known as Sunrise Groves. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that Intervenors are affected persons. The Plan Amendments The amendments concern a 1,717-acre parcel of land located immediately west of, and adjacent to, Interstate 95 (I-95) in the northern part of the County. Southwest Martin Highway (also known as County Highway 714), which runs in an east-west direction, is situated on the south side of the parcel, while the site is separated by a canal on its northern boundary from the City of Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County. Aerial photographs reflect that undeveloped land lies to the west of the property. See Intervenors' Exhibit 18. At least four large and very urban Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) have been approved in Port St. Lucie, immediately north of the parcel, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the parcel. From the mid-1960's until the mid-2000's, the parcel was an active orange grove. Due to damage from citrus canker and "greening," which is an incurable, aggressive, and deadly virus affecting citrus plants, the parcel has become a literal wasteland of dead orange trees. The property is now desolate and unprofitable and cannot be converted to any other profitable or feasible agriculture use. Around the same time that the citrus grove was being destroyed, the County commissioned Urbanomics, Inc., and Leak- Goforth Company, LLC, to perform an economic study to determine how the County could better compete in the Florida market. In November 2006, the results of that study were released. See Intervenors' Ex. 11. The study indicated that the County should be pursuing various types of industrial development, with a focus on recruiting firms and institutions with 50 to 100 or more employees, or those that have capabilities and are on pace to reach this minimum employment threshold in three to five years. The study also concluded that in order to accommodate the types of industries that the County would need to pursue, it would need more space designated for industrial use. Based upon the study, the County has adopted policies in the Economic Element of the Plan regarding future economic development in the County. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 15. On September 30, 2009, Intervenors applied to the County for a new land use designation to be added to the Plan, allowing industrial uses to be combined with commercial and agricultural uses on their parcel of land. See Intervenors' Ex. 2. Intervenors also applied for a change in the land use category on their property from Agricultural to the new land use category. The re-designated parcel would become a "freestanding urban service district," which requires that the property be served by water and sewer services from a regional supplier rather than individual wells, septic tanks, or on-site package treatment plants. It would be one of two freestanding urban service districts (USDs) in the County.1 When Intervenors initially applied to the County for the amendments, the proposed future land use category was titled "I-95 Agricultural Technology & Employment Center." As the amendment evolved in subsequent months, however, a decision was made to shorten the name to something less cumbersome, which ultimately became "AgTEC," an acronym for Agriculture and Targeted Employment Center. As proposed, the AgTEC designation was significantly different from other land use designations in the Plan in a number of ways. AgTEC is a "site-specific" land use designation, tailored for a specific parcel of property, the 1,717 acres owned by Intervenors. It allows for agricultural uses to continue indefinitely on 817 acres of the parcel, if a viable agricultural use can be found in the future. It also permits new uses on a maximum of 900 acres of the parcel, but limited to certain "Primary Targeted Employment" uses and others which are ancillary to them. Residential is not an allowable use. Finally, it imposes a strict requirement that all future development of the parcel must be subject to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. On April 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved the application and voted to transmit Amendments 10-4 and 10-5 to the Department. On June 25, 2010, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report recommending that the two amendments not be adopted unless additional data were supplied and certain revisions made. See Petitioners' Ex. 4B, pp. 26-47. The Department's objections related to urban sprawl, a failure to demonstrate need, transportation deficiencies, lack of access to public facilities, and a failure to preserve agricultural lands. On July 17, 2010, Intervenors submitted a response to the ORC report, which included an update to the original application addressing the Department's concerns. They also provided additional data and analysis concerning the structure of the County's economy; location quotient data (ratios by type of economic activity in the region), which were consistent with a report submitted by Dr. Nicholson, an economist employed by Intervenors; and environmental information. On August 10, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted the FLUM amendment as Ordinance No. 881 and a revised version of the text amendment as Ordinance No. 882. See Joint Ex. 4 and 5. On October 6, 2010, the Department issued its notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance. See Joint Ex. 6. On October 7, 2010, the Department published notice of its intent to find the amendments in compliance in The Stuart News. Petitioners then timely filed their Petition, as later amended. Ordinance No. 881 refers in its title to a parcel of land known as "Sunrise Groves," which is described in the main body of the ordinance as 1,717 acres of land located west of I-95 and north of Southwest Martin Highway. The site is also defined by legal description attached as Exhibit A to that ordinance. See Joint Ex. 4, pp. 4 and 5. The title indicates that the land designation on the FLUM is being changed from Agricultural to AgTEC. Ordinance No. 882 also refers in its title to a parcel of land as "Sunrise Groves," and that a new site-specific land use category, AgTEC, is being created for that parcel. The text amendments, which are attached as Exhibit A, provide further site-specific indicators of where the new land use designation applies. See Joint Ex. 5, pp. 5-17. They describe an area that is 1,717 acres in size, state that AgTEC uses may be no closer than 300 feet from any existing residential use, and require provision of the right-of-way for a multi-lane arterial north-south roadway "connecting Martin Highway [in Martin County] to Becker Road [in adjoining St. Lucie County], providing the opportunity for a regional parallel reliever road to I-95 . . . ." Id. at pp. 6 and 7. This roadway (an extension of Village Parkway) is specifically depicted on a conceptual map showing the general location where it is to be built. See Joint Ex. 5, AgTEC Long Range Transp. Map. Petitioners contend that the text amendment does not clearly identify the location of the property or Intervenors' parcel as the subject of the amendments, partly because the ordinance title and conceptual map will not become a part of the Plan. However, Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 clearly refer to the same specific parcel of land intended for designation as "AgTEC" and subject to the requirements of the AgTEC future land use category. When reading the two ordinances, a reasonable person would not be confused as to which property designated for the new land use category applies. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that no other parcel of land within the County could be similarly designated as "AgTEC," absent an amendment to the AgTEC future land use category in the Plan. Petitioners' Objections As narrowed by their stipulation and the withdrawal of certain issues at hearing, Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions within the Plan; that the amendments encourage urban sprawl; that the amendments impermissibly convert land designated for agricultural purposes to other uses; that the text amendment is based upon the Plan that was in effect prior to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments that became effective in January 2011, thereby creating internal inconsistencies; that there is no demonstrated need for the amendments; that the amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis; and that the amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for implementation. A contention that the text amendment includes unauthorized self-amending language is not addressed in Petitioners' proposed recommended order and is presumed to be abandoned. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other FLUE provisions in numerous respects. Some of these consistency arguments are based on the fact that the text amendments in Ordinance No. 882 use the numbering system for the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUE that was in effect when Ordinance No. 882 was adopted on August 10, 2010, rather than the new numbering system that became effective on January 3, 2011.2 As described in Endnote 2, infra, the new numbering system was adopted by the County during the months- long process of amending the Plan during the EAR process. The new text added to the Plan during that time-frame will simply be re-numbered by the Municipal Code Corporation, which publishes the codified version of the Plan, to conform to the new numbering system. This is consistent with the publisher's authority under Part 6 of Ordinance No. 882, which states in relevant part: "CODIFICATION. The word 'ordinance' may be changed to 'article[,]' 'section[,]' or other word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered." Joint Ex. 5, p. 3. This codification provision is found in every ordinance adopting a text amendment. By way of example, the content in section 4.4.g.1.n(3) in Ordinance No. 882 (on page 17 of Joint Exhibit 5) will be recodified in new policy 4.7A.14, which replaces the old section. Except for the new number, the content of both provisions is the same. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4, p. 50. There was no evidence that the new EAR- based amendments create an inconsistency with these amendments. Petitioners also contend that an internal inconsistency in the Plan arises due to two references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance No. 882 (on pages 7 and 11), and a single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 (on page 2). They also argue that the "I-95 AgTEC" category lacks "meaningful and predictable standards for implementation" as a land use designation if it is distinct from the "AgTEC" category. However, they failed to present any evidence that Intervenors or the County intended to create two different future land use categories. The evidence supports a finding that both references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance 882 were merely "vestigial" references (i.e., references made during an early stage of the amendment process) to the initial title proposed for the land use category when Intervenors first applied to the County. The evidence shows that the County staff simply missed the two references when it conducted an electronic "find and replace" search intended to convert all references in the ordinance to "AgTEC" before presenting the final draft to the Board for adoption. Except for these two references to "I-95 AgTEC," the ordinance consistently uses the "AgTEC" title for the land use designations. Both references are merely scrivener's errors. The single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is simply a misspelling of the proper title of the new future land use category to be applied to the property. The simultaneous adoption of the two ordinances, the application for both ordinances by the same applicant, and the obvious similarity between the correct spelling and the misspelling support a finding that the use of "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is also a scrivener's error. Historically, after securing Board approval, the staff has been authorized to correct errors in the FLUM without a formal amendment; however, the County Growth Management Director could not recall a situation where a scrivener's error in a text amendment had occurred and was unsure as to how that type of error would be corrected. More than likely, these scrivener's errors will be corrected by another plan amendment. In any event, these non-substantive, minor scrivener's errors do not render the amendments not in compliance. Petitioners further contend that the amendments are inconsistent with the County's stated policy of preserving agricultural lands. See Joint Ex. 1, FLUE policy 4.12A.1. However, the amendments preserve almost one-half of the land (817 acres) for agricultural purposes even though the entire parcel is now unproductive. Petitioners also argue that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 4.13A.1.(2)(a) and (b), which provide that the conversion of agricultural land to another land use may be done only when it does not affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands, and only when it is a "logical and timely extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area." As noted above, there are four approved DRIs immediately north of the parcel in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie, including a large regional mall on the parcel's northern boundary. The new land use is a logical extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area. Also, there is no evidence that the new land use will affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands. To the contrary, the evidence shows that any adjacent agricultural areas to the west are protected by a requirement that 75 percent of the common open space be along the western border. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the cited policies. Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with a series of FLUE policies that, in general terms: (a) require the availability of services and facilities before expanded urban development may be approved (FLUE policies 4.1B.2., 4.1B.3., and 4.13A.1.(b)); (b) prohibit any regional utility from serving customers outside the Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD) (FLUE policies 4.7A.2.-4., 4.7A.10., 4.7B.8.(6)-(7), and 4.7B.9.); and (c) prohibit urban development outside the PUSD (FLUE policy 4.13A.9.). Although couched differently, the essence of the argument is that the amendments allow development in an area that is not presently within any PUSD or SUSD, thereby creating an issue of internal inconsistency with other provisions of the Plan. The existing Plan establishes two main types of "urban service districts" in the County: a PUSD and a SUSD. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4. There is an "eastern" PUSD that includes most of the unincorporated coastal area of the County, surrounding the Cities of Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park. Adjacent to the eastern PUSD is a much smaller eastern SUSD. See Joint Ex. 3. Several miles west of the boundaries of the eastern PUSD and SUSD there is a smaller "Indiantown" PUSD that consists of the unincorporated inland area of the County known by that name, and an adjacent Indiantown SUSD. Id. The County's purpose for having USDs is to "regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in the Plan." Joint Ex. 1, FLUE Goal 4.7. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is generally limited by the Plan to the land inside the County's USDs. The term "public urban facilities and services" is defined as "[r]egional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 2, § 2.2(127). The Plan also contains numerous provisions that establish a broad prohibition against all industrial uses and most commercial uses on land outside the County's USDs. The Plan expressly provides for the creation of so- called "Freestanding Urban Service Districts" within the County. See Joint Ex. 1. Ordinance No. 882 includes an amendment to FLUE section 4.4.M.1.h.(5) to establish that land designated as AgTEC shall be a freestanding USD. See Joint Ex. 5, p. 8. It also amends FLUE section 4.4.g.1.n.(3) to include land designated AgTEC as one of several enumerated "exceptions to the general prohibitions on development outside of the [PUSD]." Id. at p. 17. This means that the amendment creates its own exception from restrictions in the Plan that might otherwise apply to development outside the PUSD. Therefore, the prohibitions against a regional utility serving a customer outside the PUSD and SUSD, or expanding urban development outside a PUSD, do not apply. As noted above, these amended section numbers will be renumbered in the codification process to conform to the numbering in the new EAR-based amendments. However, the content remains the same. See Finding of Fact 18, supra. Petitioners presented no evidence that the freestanding USD for the AgTEC-designated land would lack the urban public facilities and services that would be necessary under the Plan. Utility services do not have to be physically available at the property boundary before a change in land use can be approved; they must only be planned or programmed. To be programmed, the services may be identified in the capital improvement element of the Plan or appear in a DRI approval. According to Mr. Dulin, County Senior Planner, the utility services for the parcel appear in "one or a number of the [DRIs] approved in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie." This type of arrangement for services is not unusual, as the County now provides services to some areas in St. Lucie County, while Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County provide services to certain areas in the County. The evidence shows that Port St. Lucie has the capacity to meet the requirements of the development, and that those services will be paid for by the developer, and not the County. At the amendment stage, the lack of a formal written agreement between the developer and Port St. Lucie is of no concern, as one is not required until the Intervenors seek a development order from the County. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the FLUE. Urban Sprawl Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 "primary indicators" of urban sprawl to be considered in the review of plan amendments to determine whether the presence of multiple indicators "collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(5)(d). Petitioners' expert, Charles G. Pattison, contends that, with the exception of four indicators (1, 4, 11, and 13), all other indicators are triggered by the changes effectuated through the amendments being challenged. However, indicator 3 was not raised in the Amended Petition or stipulation. Therefore, only the remaining eight indicators will be addressed. See Heartland Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Dep't of Community Affairs, Case No. 94-2095GM (Fla. DOAH Oct. 15, 1996), modified in part, Case No. DCA-96-FOI-GM (Fla. DCA Nov. 25, 1996), 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63. Indicator 2 requires a determination as to whether the amendments promote, allow, or designate "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. As noted above, large and very urban DRIs have been approved in neighboring Port St. Lucie just north of Intervenors' property, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the property. Also, some of the infrastructure for these developments has been constructed immediately north of Intervenors' parcel, to which the infrastructure on Intervenors' parcel is required to connect. It is unreasonable to ignore this development simply because it lies within an adjacent local government, rather than viewing the existing and approved development in the area as a whole. A more reasonable approach is to consider the existing urban areas immediately to the north of the parcel. Indicator 5 requires an analysis to determine whether the amendments fail to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)5. Because the parcel is bordered on the east by I-95 and on the north by DRIs in Port St. Lucie, the only areas of concern affected by this indicator would be to the south or west of the parcel. Petitioners failed to prove, however, that the AgTEC requirements for buffers on the east and south boundaries and required open space on the western border of the site constitute inadequate protection for any adjacent agricultural areas or activities within the meaning of the rule. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)6.-8. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve a proposed use. As noted above, the provider of water and sewer services to Intervenors' parcel (Port St. Lucie) has ample capacity to meet its projected needs and the capability of doing so from adequately sized lines located within a quarter of a mile from the parcel. Also, there is no credible evidence that there will be a lack of transportation infrastructure to meet the demand expected to be placed on the parcel. Indicator 9 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments fail "to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Through the use of setbacks, buffers, and other site design criteria, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments create a sufficiently clear separation between the industrial/commercial uses that would be allowed and any rural uses to the south and west of the site. Petitioners did not identify any adjacent rural uses that would require such separation. Indicator 10 requires that the amendments do not discourage or inhibit infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. While Petitioners pointed out that there are other parcels in the County currently designated for industrial use, those parcels are either too small or too scattered to attract the types of industrial development desired by the County, which are described in the Economic Element of the Plan. Further, there was no evidence that the other smaller and scattered parcels would be adversely affected by the large-scale development envisioned on the AgTEC land. Finally, indicator 12 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments result "in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(g)12. The evidence shows that the AgTEC requirements for new transportation infrastructure, coupled with the existing access from two adjacent interchanges on I-95, provide ample accessibility for the parcel and other related land uses. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that none of the primary indicators of urban sprawl at issue are triggered by the amendments. Other Issues Petitioners assert that Intervenors failed to demonstrate a need for commercial or industrial land outside the USDs. They also contend that the economic study performed by Dr. Nicholson failed to consider other vacant parcels of land designated for industrial use, including large amounts of acreage in Palm City and Indiantown. However, Dr. Nicholson established that of the 2,590 acres of available industrial land in the County, the vast majority of these sites are small, less than five acres in size, and are inadequate. He also established that the County lacks any well-planned, amenity- oriented industrial, office, or business parks, which would be the type of development contemplated on Intervenors' parcel. It is fairly debatable that the needs analysis submitted by Intervenors is adequate to support the amendments. Although raised as an issue, there was no evidence that the amendments are internally inconsistent with any provisions within the Economic Element of the Plan. All other contentions not specifically addressed herein have been considered and rejected. Improper Purpose Because they did not substantially change the outcome of the Department's determination that the amendments are in compliance, Petitioners are non-prevailing adverse parties. See § 120.595(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat. Therefore, it is necessary to make a determination as to whether Petitioners participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose," as that term is defined in section 120.595(1)(e)1. Petitioners generally alleged that the amendments were internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in numerous respects, that they encouraged urban sprawl, that they contain substantive errors that cannot be corrected in this proceeding, and that there is no needs analysis to support the amendments. Each of these contentions was ultimately found to be without merit, and contrary evidence on these issues submitted by the County and Intervenors was credited. However, when taken as a whole, the record does not support a finding that Petitioners participated in this proceeding "primarily" to harass the applicants, increase the cost of litigation, or cause them unnecessary delay. The Amended Petition was not frivolous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: 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. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 12th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as "Martin County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "1000 Friends"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of 1000 Friends includes monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the State's growth management laws. Respondent, City of Stuart (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Martin County. Respondent/Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). No evidence concerning Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., was presented. Standing. Martin County owns real property located within the jurisdiction of the City. Although Martin County is also an "adjoining local government," the evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases will produce "substantial impacts" on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within Martin County's jurisdiction. There has been a negative impact on Martin County's ad valorem tax base by the annexation of properties formerly under its jurisdiction. Those impacts, however, were caused by the annexation of the properties and not by the amendments at issue in this case. Additionally, those impacts did not cause any need for "publicly funded infrastructure." There may also be some impact as a result in the change in land use designations for some of the annexed property. Martin County's conclusion about the extent of the increase in commercial uses, however, was not supported by the evidence. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the text amendments at issue in these cases will have a negative impact on Martin County's need to provide publicly funded infrastructure. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduction of land subject to Martin County's municipal service taxing district and any resulting decrease in taxable values with the district will cause Martin County to provide additional publicly funded infrastructure. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Martin County has designated any areas "for protection or special treatment within their jurisdiction" or that there will any "substantial impact" on such areas. Martin County made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendments at issue in these cases. 1000 Friends, since its formation, has had approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Members from Martin County and the City have totaled approximately 835 and 235 persons, respectively. Martin County and City members constitute a substantial percentage of 1000 Friends' total membership. 1000 Friends' corporate purposes include the representation of its members in legal and administrative proceedings involving the Act. 1000 Friends' litigation committee specifically authorized its participation in these proceedings. The type of relief sought by 1000 Friends in these cases is the type of relief 1000 Friends is authorized to seek on behalf of its members. 1000 Friends made written comments to the City during the adoption of certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Martin County and 1000 Friends are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1000 Friends' standing is limited, however, to standing to challenge certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., failed to prove its has standing to participate in this proceeding. General Information About Martin County and the City. Martin County is a relatively small county located in the central southeast portion of Florida. Martin County is abutted on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a small portion of Okeechobee and Glades Counties, on the south by Palm Beach County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Martin County has a population of approximately 118,000 permanent residents. The population increases by 32 to 34 percent during the fall and winter. Martin County has the third highest per capita income in Florida. There are four municipalities in Martin County, including the City. The City is located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the St. Lucie River, which divides the City into two land masses. Most of the City is located south and east of the St. Lucie River. A small part of the City is located just to the north of the St. Lucie River. The north and south portions of the City are connected by the Roosevelt Bridge. The City is connected to Palm City to the west by the Palm City Bridge. The City has a population of approximately 14,000. During the day the population of the City increases significantly to an estimated population of between 25,000 and 30,000. Because of the City's relatively small population and the large influx of persons traveling to the City during the day, the City has a need for a significant amount of ad valorem taxes. More than half of the City's ad valorem property taxes comes from commercial property located in the City. In November 1996 commercial land use in the City accounted for approximately 24 percent of the City's land area. The City is the only full-service incorporated municipality in Martin County. It is the county seat for Martin County and serves as the center of legal, medical, social, commercial, and governmental activities in Martin County. The City has recently characterized itself as follows: For most of its history the character of Stuart was one of low to moderate intensity development in a waterfront community, with a small town feel. A four-story height limit and 10-unit density limit for most residential building were the two main forces that continue this character. In addition, Stuart has long been a hub for Martin County, home to many public and private institutions and businesses. As a result, the percentage of commercial, institutional, and public land in the City was higher than it would be in a city that did not serve as a hub. This role was evident in 1991, and a balance between the residential needs of the citizens of Stuart and the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary needs of those hub-related land uses seemed to drive the 1991 Future Land Use Element. It was recognized at Plan adoption that Stuart was near build-out, and barring further major annexations, would have limited vacant land remaining for new development. City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Martin County Exhibit 11 at page 33. Prior to 1997, approximately 2,800 acres of land were located within the jurisdiction of the City. Compared to the rest of Martin County, the City is relatively modest economically. Per capita income in the City is approximately 80 percent of the Martin County-wide average per capita income. Housing in the City consists of approximately 6,300 units. Two-thirds of the City's housing stock is multi-family. Approximately 92 percent of the multi-family housing stock is valued at less than $70,000.00. Approximately 69 percent of the other third of the City's housing stock, which consists of single-family housing, is valued at less than $70,000.00. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the City has been growing at a much slower rate than Martin County, neighboring counties, and the State as a whole. Between 1980 and 1990, the median value of owner-occupied housing in the City increased 56 percent while in Martin County the median value increased 112 percent, in Indian River County 69 percent, in Palm Beach County 77 percent, in St. Lucie County 66 percent, and in the State of Florida 68 percent. Because of the relatively low value of the City's housing stock, ad valorem taxes generated from housing is relatively low. The U.S. 1 Corridor. One of the main thoroughfares in Martin County is United States Highway 1, "Southeast Federal Highway" (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1"). U.S. 1 runs north-south through the City. It crosses the St. Lucie River via the Roosevelt Bridge. Land located within unincorporated Martin County along U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge almost to the St. Lucie County line is mostly developed or approved for development. Development includes major retail stores such as Target, Sports Authority, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Office Max, Marshall's, Service Merchandise, PetSmart, Home Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, and grocery stores. There are also many smaller retailers located in strip commercial shopping centers. Most of the development has been permitted during the past five to six years by Martin County. The area to the west and northwest of property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge during 1997 and 1998 includes Treasure Coast Mall, strip shopping centers, offices, restaurants, and single-family housing at a density of four to five units per acre. The area to the east and northeast of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes single-family housing at a density of four units per acre, multi- family housing, and commercial and industrial property. The area to the north of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes a development of regional impact known as "West Jensen." West Jensen runs from Jensen Beach Boulevard north to the St. Lucie County line. By 2003, when the project is projected to be fully developed, West Jensen will include 260,000 square feet of limited industrial space, 729,000 square feet of general commercial space, 23,000 square feet of limited commercial space, 235,000 square feet of office space, 200 hotel rooms, 931 residential units, and four golf courses. The area to the immediate south of the City is fully developed. Along U.S. 1 there are large shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, strip shopping centers, single-family housing of four to five units per acre, and condominiums. The Martin County Airport abuts U.S. 1 on the east. The area to the west of the City, Palm City, is fully developed. Growth of the City Through Annexation. To the extent that the City grew during the 1970's, it did so through annexation. Subsequent to the 1970's, however, the City turned from annexation and focused on redevelopment of the City's downtown area and the eastern part of the City. Between 1988 and November 1996, the City only annexed 298 acres in 30 annexations. This amounted to an increase of only 18 percent in the geographic size of the City. Subsequent to late 1995, the City shifted its policy back to annexation as a means of growth. Of the 30 annexations the City was involved in between 1988 and November 1996, 19 took place in October 1995. In approximately 1996, the City performed an analysis of its projected revenues and expenditures through the year 2003. The City projected that its revenues would be less than its expenditures. Based upon more recent projections, which take into account recent City annexations, the City has projected that its revenues and expenditures should be about the same for the next eight to nine years. The City has projected that its revenues will increase as a result of ad valorem and sales taxes and other revenues which should be generated from the newly annexed properties. During the Spring of 1997, the City received a number of requests for voluntary annexation pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. These requests were accepted by the City and the first 16 parcels were annexed in the Spring of 1997. During 1998, another 27 parcels were annexed through voluntary annexation. Between the spring of 1997, and the end of 1998 the City annexed a total of almost 1,200 acres, increasing the geographic area of the city by 48 percent. The City annexed 254.8 acres in 1997 and 934 acres in 1998. The first requests for voluntary annexations began shortly after Martin County determined that certain roads had no more capacity to sustain further growth. As a consequence of this determination, Martin County imposed a moratorium on new development that would impact U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge and the area west of the City on the other side of the Palm City Bridge. Some of the parcels annexed by the City in 1997 and 1998, could not be developed because of the transportation concurrency problem Martin County determined it had. Although there was no direct testimony from owners of parcels annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, as to the reason they sought voluntary annexation of their property by the City, it is clear that at least some of the voluntary annexations were influenced by Martin County's moratorium and the hope of property owners that the City would take sufficient actions to resolve the transportation concurrency problem on U.S. 1 to allow owners to develop their property. More significantly, the annexations were probably influenced by a perception of property owners that obtaining approval for development from Martin County was a more difficult process generally than obtaining approval through the City. During 1997, the level of service (hereinafter referred to as "LOS") standard selected by Martin County for roads under its jurisdiction was a LOS D. While the City ultimately modified its LOS for roads impacted by development of some of the parcels annexed during 1997 and 1998, the evidence failed to prove that the City's modifications were not based upon reasonable planning principles. The 1997 Small Scale Amendments. The City did not determine specifically how the 16 parcels it annexed during 1997 would impact the City of Stuart's Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") before it accepted the voluntary annexations. Pursuant to Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, the 16 parcels the City annexed in 1997 remained subject to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan") and Martin County's land development regulations until the City amended the City's Plan to incorporate the parcels into the City. In particular, the parcels remained subject to the County Plan until the City amended the City's Plan to assign appropriate land uses to the annexed parcels. Therefore, as the parcels were annexed, the City undertook efforts to amend the City's Plan to assign appropriate land use designations to the parcels. The first nine of the 16 parcels annexed by the City during 1997 took place on September 8, 1997. The parcels were annexed pursuant to the voluntary annexation procedure of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Each of the nine parcels consisted of less than ten acres of land. Simultaneously with the annexation of the parcels, the City adopted ten small scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM") of the City's Plan assigning land use designations under the City's Plan to the parcels. The small scale amendments adopted by the City on September 8, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Small Scale Amendments"), were designated Amendments 97S-1 by the Department. The Department did not, however, review the amendments because they constituted small scale amendments exempt from review by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. On October 8, 1997, Martin County filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings contending that nine of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 97-4582GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Small Scale Amendments or intervene in Case No. 97-4582GM. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with Sections 163.3187(c)(1)(c) [sic] and 163.3187(c)(3)(c) [sic], Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. In two instances, the Kornbluh and Luce properties, the City's land use designations were virtually the same as Martin County's. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the parcels by the City: Kornbluh property (Parcel 1) This parcel consists of 1.4 acres. In the County, approximately half of the parcel was designated commercial/residential (COR), and the other half commercial. The parcel is surrounded by commercial land use to the north, south, east and west, and a portion of the western boundary abuts existing developed low density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1482-97. There is no substantive difference between the County's land use designation for the Kornbluh property and the City's land use designation. The same types of uses are permitted in both, such as gas stations, restaurants, bars, professional offices, veterinary offices, and other retail and commercial uses. 1st Christian Church property This parcel consists of approximately 2.8 acres and has an existing church on the property. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential. The property abuts some commercial property, some vacant property that was low density residential in the County but which has been changed to neighborhood special district in the City, a mobile home park, and some vacant land designated a medium density residential. Because the land has an existing church on the property, the City determined that institutional was a more appropriate land use designation. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance giving the property a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1494-97. City Cemetery property (Parcel 7) This parcel consists of 2.06 acres. Part of the property is used as a cemetery and the other part is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial general. The City has given that part of the property that is used as a cemetery a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1501.97 and the vacant part a designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1502.97. The City Cemetery property is at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Monterey Road which is one of the most developed intersections in all of Martin County. The property is surrounded by commercial development and also a mobile home park. Luce property (Parcel 8) This parcel consists of approximately 4 acres. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506-97. There is no difference between the City's and County's land use designation. The City considered a commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Luce property based on the existing use of the property and the surrounding land uses. Specifically, half of the property is currently used as a produce market and the property abuts commercial land use to the north and to the west. To the east, it abuts the old City landfill which is currently closed and to the south it abuts the Martin County jail. Mush property (Parcel 9A) This parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1509-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Mush property because it is fully developed as a contractor's showcase office. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. The City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. The County's industrial designation allows both industrial types of uses and commercial uses, such as a gas stations, professional offices, retail buildings, etc. The City's land use designation of commercial does not allow industrial uses. Treasure Coast Auction House property (Parcel 9B) This parcel consists of approximately 5½ acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1512-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Treasure Coast Auction House property because it is fully developed as a Scotty's store. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. As explained above in the findings of fact regarding the Mush property (9-A), the City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. Hospice property (Parcel 10) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres. In the County, the land use designation was half low density residential and half commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1515-97. The Hospice property is developed as a hospice facility and the owners have plans to expand the facility. The property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane facility which will become a four-lane facility. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Bailey property (Parcel 11) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant. In the County, the land use designations was half low density residential and half commercial limited. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1519-97. The Bailey property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane road which will become a four-lane road. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Since it is a commercial corridor, the City considered the commercial designation on the property to be more appropriate than low density residential. Armellini property (Parcel 12) This parcel consists of approximately 1.2 acres. In the County, the land use designation was industrial and the City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1522-97. The Armellini property is on the corner of U.S. 1 and Indian Street and is in close proximity to other commercial development. The types of uses permitted by the City's commercial category is similar to the types of uses allowed by the County's industrial category, such as gas stations, office buildings, restaurants, and bars. The 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the Future Land Use Element Amendment. On December 7, 1997, the City adopted an amendment to the text of the Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") of the City's Plan. This amendment added a new land use designation to the City's Plan: "Neighborhood/Special District." The amendment also added goals, objectives, and policies concerning the new land use category. The newly created Neighborhood/Special District allows mixed land uses, including neighborhood commercial, office, residential, and recreational. Mixed residential and non- residential uses either in the same building or on the same site are required for a Neighborhood/Special District. A Neighborhood/Special District must have at least 30 percent residential uses and at least ten percent non-residential (excluding recreational) uses. Parking must be clustered in separate pockets rather than located in one expanse, and pedestrian interconnections must be used. On December 8, 1997, the City annexed seven parcels of property by voluntary annexation. On the same date the City adopted nine FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the annexed property consistent with the City's Plan. Each of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments applied consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The nine large scale amendments to the FLUM and the FLUE amendment adopted by the City in December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Large Scale Amendments and the "FLUE Amendment," respectively), were designated Amendment 97-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment. In a Statement of Intent issued February 9, 1998, the Department found the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance." The Department's determination was based upon its conclusion that the new land use category and existing non-residential land use categories applied in the 1997 Large Scale Amendments lacked a density/intensity standard. On February 17, 1998, the Department filed a Petition of the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-0794GM. Martin County was granted leave to intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM by Order Granting Intervention entered March 11, 1998. Martin County challenged the FLUE Amendment and the 1997 Large Scale Amendments. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They can not be reasonably implemented; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They fail to establish intensities of use; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; and They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Large Scale Amendments or the FLUE Amendment. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Hendry property (Parcel 3) This parcel consists of approximately 7½ acres. The property contains an existing fully developed office warehouse, and in the County the land use designation was commercial general. The parcel abuts commercial property to the north, south, and west, and to the east it abuts a mobile home park as well as a conservation easement within a walled, gated residential development. Because the existing use was a warehouse, the City determined that a more appropriate land use designation would be industrial and suggested this land use to the owner. The City adopted the industrial land use designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1488-97. With regard to the Hendry property, there is no difference between the County's land use designation of commercial and the City's land use designation of industrial. The existing office warehouse on the property is permitted both in the County's commercial designation. Millenium property (Parcel 4) This parcel consists of approximately 24½ acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1491-97. There is no difference between the County's commercial land use designation and the City's commercial land use designation. Wacha property (Parcel 6) This parcel consists of approximately 47 acres. In the County, the land use designation was part mobile home, part low density, part medium density, and part industrial. The owner of the property approached the City with the idea of building a mixed use village on the property. The City was supportive of this idea and worked with the Treasure Coast Regional Council to develop a new land use category, neighborhood special district, as well as refine the site plan to create the mixed use village concept. The neighborhood special district land use category was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 1498-97. Part of the property that was originally designated industrial in the County was designated commercial in the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 1497-97. The neighborhood special district land use category will allow the Wacha property to be developed as a traditional neighborhood development project. The proposed development will include a town square area with shops and restaurants on the ground floor, apartments on the second floor, and parking behind the buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. The development also includes a home office district where people can live and work in the same building. The development also proposes a single family residential neighborhood clustered around a common green with garages to the rear, and the building set with front porches on the street. The City and County's land use designation for the Wacha property differ significantly. The City's land use designation requires a mix of uses, with not less than 30% residential and not less than 10% commercial or non-residential development within a given property. The County's land use designations are exclusive, so that each specific property can only be used for mobile home park or light industrial or medium density residential or low density residential. The County would not permit a mixed use development on this property. The Wacha property is part of the City's Community Redevelopment Area. The City determined that the neighborhood special district land use designation would further the intent and purpose behind the Community Redevelopment Area which is to encourage redevelopment of blighted areas. Dubner North property (Parcel 13), Republic Industries property (Parcel 14), Dubner South property (Parcel 15) The Dubner North parcel consists of approximately 48 acres, the Republic Industries property consists of approximately 11½ acres, and the Dubner South property consists of approximately 56 acres. In the County, the land use designation for each of the properties was industrial. The City has given the Dubner North property a land use designation of part commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1525-97 and part industrial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1526-97, the Republic Industries property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1529-97, and the Dubner South property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1532-97. The Dubner North, Republic Industries, and the Dubner South properties are bound by the railroad tracks to the east. To the north, south, and west, the properties are surrounded by either County industrial or commercial future land uses or City commercial land uses. The Remedial Amendments. Subsequent to the opening of Case No. 98-0794GM, the Department and the City entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes. Martin County declined to enter into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City agreed to adopt remedial amendments which included text descriptions of various land use categories, including the Neighborhood/Special Districts category, and a table setting for residential densities and commercial intensities for land use categories created in the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted remedial amendments consistent with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Remedial Amendments"). The Remedial Amendments were adopted by Ordinance No. 1646-98. The Remedial Amendments, designated Amendment 98-R1 by the Department, were determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. Upon the adoption of the Remedial Amendments and the determination that the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance," the parties in Case No. 98-0794GM were realigned as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1, Florida Statutes, to reflect that Martin County was challenging the Department's conclusion that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments, were "in compliance." Martin County also filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the Department's determination that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance." That Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-5501GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the Remedial Amendments. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-5501GM. I. The 1998 Large Scale Amendments. Between April 13, 1998, and June 22, 1998, the City annexed 16 large parcels through voluntary annexation. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted 33 FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the newly annexed parcels consistent with the City's Plan. Eleven of the FLUM amendments were small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Small Scale Amendments). The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were not reviewed by the Department even though they were submitted to the Department with the other 22 FLUM amendments. The parcels to which the other 22 FLUM amendments related consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The 22 large scale amendments adopted on August 24, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Large Scale Amendments), were designated Amendment 98-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found them "in compliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends filed separate Petitions for Formal Hearing with the Department challenging the determination that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were "in compliance." The Petitions filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petitions were designated Case Nos. 98- 5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 1000 Friends alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because they were adopted without intergovernmental coordination. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Pulte Homes property (Parcel F3), Vista A property (Parcel F5), Gibson property (Parcel F6), and Debartolo property (Parcel F24) The Pulte Homes parcel consists of approximately 312 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of conservation, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549- 97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97. The Vista A parcel consists of approximately 9 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial/office/residential (COR) and high density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1546-97. The Vista B parcel consists of approximately 44 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and the City has given it a land use designation of low density residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1553- 97. The Gibson parcel consists of approximately 100 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density and commercial general. That part of the property that was designated commercial in the County was given a commercial land use designation in the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 1557-97. That part of the property that was designated low density residential in the County was given a combination of low density residential and conservation (Ordinance No. 1558-97), and multi-family residential (Ordinance No. 1559-97) pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549-97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97 in the City. The Debartolo parcel originally consisted of 205.90 acres. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed by the City to cure the defects found by the circuit court. The County's land use designation was a mixture of low, medium and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of part neighborhood special district pursuant to Ordinance No. 1618-97, part low density residential and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1620-97, and part multi-family and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1622-97. These five parcels (Pulte, Vista A, Vista B, Gibson, and Debartolo) contain a series of wetlands that form a slough that drains through Arant's swamp, or Haney Creek, and into the St. Lucie River. In terms of long- range planning, the City believed it best to implement a series of greenways and flow-ways to interconnect those wetlands and preserve areas to help clean up a non-point source pollution problem that was occurring in the St. Lucie River. Thus, recommending an appropriate land use designation for these properties, the City considered the pattern of wetlands in the area that form the slough and proposed a conservation land use designation for parts of some of the properties. In addition, the City received a grant from the Florida Communities Trust to purchase 84 acres of Arant's swamp or Haney Creek. This area is south of the five properties described above. The 84 acres form a flow- way for all of the water flow that comes from north to south and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. The City is proposing to construct a greenway which would connect the wetlands in the five properties described above so that water can flow unimpeded into Arant's swamp and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. Those connections would be accomplished at site planning and connected under roadways with staged culverts so animals can travel along the sides and water can flow through the middle. Comparing the City and County's land use designations for these five parcels, the land use designations adopted by the City are more appropriate than the County's land use designations and will result in a better use of the properties. For instance, by changing some of the land uses from low density residential in the County to conservation in the City, the environmentally sensitive areas will be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, by changing the County's high density residential use for the Pulte Homes property to neighborhood special district in the City, the development will require a mix of uses including some commercial which will be interconnected in a pedestrian fashion to the existing single family home development which lies to the east. This will lessen the need for additional vehicular trips and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Stewart property (Parcel F11), Madyda property (Parcel F12), First Eastern Residential property (Parcel F13), First Eastern property (Parcel F14), and SK Partner's I property (Parcel F15) The Stewart parcel (F11) consists of approximately 15 acres of land and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was a mix of low and medium density residential, and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designations of multi-family residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1576-97. The Madyda parcel (F12) consists of approximately 6½ acres. The County's land use designation was a mix of medium density residential and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1579-97. The First Eastern Residential parcel (F13) consists of 50 acres and is a fully developed low income housing project. The County's land use designation was medium density and low density residential. The City has given it a designation of multi-family pursuant to Ordinance No. 1582-97. The First Eastern parcel (F14) consists of 32.20 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designation was a mixture of Commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1585-97. The SK Partners I parcel (F15) consists of 18.94 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designations was commercial general. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1588-97. There is no difference between the City's and the County's land use designations. Sunbelt Partners/Stetson property (Parcel F17), Sunbelt Partners property (Parcel F18), SK Partners II property (Parcel F190) The Sunbelt/Stetson parcel (F17) consists of approximately 25½ acres, the Sunbelt Partners parcel (F18) consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and the SK Partners II parcel (F19) consists of approximately 38 acres. All three parcels are vacant. The City's original annexation of the Sunbelt Partners/Stetson parcels was invalidated by the circuit court. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed. The County's land use designation for the three parcels was primarily commercial, with a small amount of commercial/office/ residential. The City's gave all three parcels a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1615-97, 1612-97, and 1609-97. There is no real difference between the County's and the City's land use designations. Dubner East property (Parcel F22), Sellian property (Parcel F22), Dubner West property (Parcel F23) The Dubner East parcel consists of approximately 11.5 acres, the Sellian parcel (F22) consists of approximately 4 acres, and the Dubner West (F23) consists of approximately 10 acres. Dubner East is vacant, the Sellian property is developed as an office building and indoor assembly, and the Dubner West property is partially developed as an office building. The County's land use designation for each of the parcels was industrial. The City has given each a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1600-97, 1603-97, and 1606-97. The three properties abut County industrial land uses, although for the most part, the properties are developed as commercial uses. The properties also abut City commercial land uses. The City's land use designation is more restrictive than the County's because the County industrial allows both industrial and commercial uses while the City's commercial designation allows only commercial uses. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report Amendments. Consistent with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the City conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, including suggested amendments to the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Small Scale Amendments, the City adopted amendments to all elements of the City's Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "EAR Amendments") based upon the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The EAR Amendments include density and intensity standards adopted as part of the Remedial Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise the schedule for capital improvements and establish new concurrency requirements as part of the Capital Improvements Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments set out the steps the City will take to coordinate the City's Plan and its implementation with other agencies and entities as part of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise LOS standards for transportation in the Transportation Element of the City's Plan The EAR Amendments were reviewed by the Department simultaneously with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found to be "in compliance." The EAR Amendments were designated Amendment 98-ER1 by the Department. The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were also submitted to the Department with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the EAR Amendments but were ultimately withdrawn by the City at the request of the Department. Martin County and 1000 Friends also challenged the EAR Amendments in their Petitions challenging the 1998 Large Scale Amendments filed in Case Nos. 98-5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the EAR Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Martin County did not allege which specific elements of the City's Plan amended by the EAR Amendments were being challenged in its Petition. It merely alleged that "Stuart's comprehensive plan amendments" are not in compliance. In the Joint Proposed Order filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends, specific portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Policies A1.13 through A1.23, Policy A2.4, Policy A7.3, Objective 8, and Policies A8.1 through A8.11), the FLUE (Policies B1.2 through B1.4), and the Capital Improvements Element (the selection of LOS E) are cited. The specific objective and policies cited in the Joint Order are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Additionally, the Future Annexation Map adopted as part of the EAR Amendments by the City is cited in the Joint Proposed Order. The Future Annexation Map includes 8,000 additional acres which are projected to be annexed into the City by the year 2015. 1000 Friends' challenge to the EAR Amendments is limited to a challenge to the City's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Data and Analysis. At the time that all of the amendments at issue in this proceeding were adopted there was more than adequate data and analysis to support all of the amendments. The data and analysis relied upon by the City in adopting the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments was professionally acceptable. The testimony of Martin County's expert planner concerning data and analysis was not persuasive. That testimony was not based upon a complete review of the data and analysis relied upon by the City and the Department. The evidence presented by Martin County concerning data and analysis focused largely on the fact that the property to which the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments related had been annexed before the accumulation of all the data and analysis relied upon in support of the amendments. That evidence was irrelevant because the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder do not govern annexations; they govern plan amendments and require that the data and analysis be available at the time a plan amendment is adopted and not at the time of annexation. Data and analysis were required for the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, not to support the need for the annexed property, but to support the City's choice of land use classifications assigned to the annexed property. There were ample data and analysis to support the City's choices. Once the properties at issue in this proceeding were annexed consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, the City began the process of considering the amendments to the City's Plan necessary to accommodate the annexations and bring them under the City's Plan. While the evidence did prove that the City now has approximately 33 years of commercial property to meet the needs of the City during the 20 years of the City's Plan, there is no requirement in the Act or the implementing rules that a need for annexed property be present before annexation occurs. The commercial property located in the City as a result of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments is not significantly different from the amount of commercial property which existed prior to the amendments. Most of the annexed property was designated commercial or industrial by the County Plan. Industrial uses under the County Plan include many of the same uses of commercial property under the City Plan. Under these circumstances, the City made the most reasonable planning decision by classifying the annexed property consistent with surrounding land uses and Martin County's prior land use designation of land use for the property. The City completed a needs analysis as part of its review and revision of the City's Plan through the EAR Amendments. That analysis was based upon data available at the time of the EAR Amendments. The data was also available at the time the 1997 Small Scale Amendments, the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, and the Remedial Amendments were adopted. The City's needs analysis included an allocation of land uses to the land use categories designated in the City's Plan. Although the allocation of land resulted in an allocation of more commercial land than may be required during the life of the City's Plan, the evidence failed to prove that such a surplus results in any under allocation of land to other classifications. Approximately 150 acres of the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 were re-designated commercial by the City. Eighteen of those acres have already been developed, leaving an additional 132 acres of commercial land in the City. The evidence failed to prove that this increase of acreage is significant. Evidence presented by Martin County as to the increase in commercial property was not persuasive. In actuality, the increase in property designated commercial as a result of City's annexations amounts to approximately 48 acres. There were a total of 35 parcels designated commercial by the City, including the 1998 Small Scale Amendments. Most of those parcels were already developed in whole or in part with commercial, commercial-like, or industrial land uses. The uses of property classified industrial are also substantially similar to the uses allowed for commercial to result in little discernable effect on the supply of commercial property in the City. The only vacant parcels assigned a land use designation of commercial by the City that were not classified commercial or industrial by Martin County were referred to at hearing as parcels 1, 11 F4, F7, F12, and F14. Parcel 1 consisted of 1.4 acres. Approximately half of parcel 1 was designated commercial and the other half was designated commercial/office/residential. At most, this amounts to an increase of .7 acres of commercial. Parcel 11 consists of ten acres, parcel F4 consists of nine acres, parcel F7 consists of 5.06 acres, parcel F12 consists of 6.67 acres, and parcel F14 consists of 32.20 acres. Half of parcel F14 was classified as commercial by Martin County. The evidence also proved that the possible intensity of use for the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, when compared with the possible intensity of use under the County Plan is less under the City's land use classifications. Martin County's expert testimony concerning increases in intensity was not credible. That testimony was based upon small scale parcels 5, 10, and 11, and large scale parcels 6, F6, and F24. Parcel 5 is already developed as 1st Christian. Parcel 10 is partially developed and the testimony concerning Martin County's land use designation for the property was incorrect. For parcel 6, the Wacha property, the testimony by the Martin County expert concerning Martin County's land use designation for part of the property was incorrect. The portion of the property designated commercial by the City was classified as industrial by Martin County. For parcel F6, the Gibson property, only a fourth of the property was designated multi-family. The rest of the property was given a land use designation that is the same or less intense then that allowed by the County. For parcel F24, the Debartolo property, Martin County's land use designation was a combination of low, medium, and high density residential and not just low density residential as testified by Martin County's expert witness. Most of the property was low density residential under the County's Plan and remained low density residential under the City's Plan. The calculations concerning the increase in intensity of use made by Martin County's expert witness were flawed and not credible, as explained in findings of fact 123 through 125. Martin County's assertion that the Remedial Amendments are not supported by data and analysis because of the increase in intensity of commercial property is rejected. In addition to the question of data and analysis to support the land use classifications assigned to the annexed property by the City, Martin County has suggested that there is insufficient data and analysis concerning how public facilities will be provided to the annexed property. The evidence failed to support this assertion. At the time of the 1997 and 1998 Small and Large Scale Amendments the City did not perform a concurrency analysis. Concurrency analyses are required at the time of site plan review or other application for another development permit. Therefore, neither the Act nor the City's Plan required a concurrency analysis. A transportation analysis involves transportation planning for an extended period of time and not planning for individual parcels. Capital facilities and available capacity for a five-year period are looked at in a transportation analysis. Concurrency analyses, on the other hand, are performed on individual parcels of property at the time of proposed development of those parcels. Neither a transportation analysis nor a concurrency analysis is required when a local government designates a general land use classification for a parcel of property. Martin County has asserted that the City's decision to adopt a LOS E and to "maintain" the actual existing LOS for two segments of U.S. 1 and State Roads 707 and 714, both of which are projected to have LOS F within the next five years in light of the moratorium it has imposed on development along U.S. 1 supports its argument that the FLUM amendments are not supported by data and analysis. They assert that evidence presented by the City's expert transportation engineer cannot be considered data and analysis because it was prepared after the FLUM amendments. This assertion is rejected. While the analysis may not have been available, the data was. More importantly, the testimony of the City's expert engineer may be relied upon to refute Martin County's assertion that there existed a transportation concurrency problem at the time the FLUM amendments were adopted. Martin County based its conclusion on an outdated Florida Department of Transportation table adopted as part of the County's Plan. That table lacked a footnote that cautioned against anything other than very general reliance on the table. Martin County's assertions concerning transportation concurrency were also refuted by the more accurate analysis performed by the City's expert engineer. Based upon his analysis, which was unrefuted by credible evidence, there is in fact no LOS deficiency not addressed by the City's Plan. The difference between the LOS adopted by the City and Martin County's LOS is not significant. The reports of the City's expert transportation engineer were sufficient data and analysis to support the EAR Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Transportation Elements. The LOS selected by the City, LOS E, is the most efficient use of the City's arterial roadways under current conditions. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis to support Policy A1.1 of the FLUE. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis concerning the effectiveness of existing intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Intergovernmental Coordination. In May 1997, the City notified Martin County that it was considering a series of voluntary annexation requests it had received. The City and Martin County have entered into formal and informal agreements dealing with the provision of a number of services, including water and sewer, emergency rescue, solid waste, and law enforcement. Impact fees are dealt with by interlocal agreement pursuant to which the City collects impact fees for library services, regional parks, and county roads on behalf of the Martin County. Following the City's notification to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests it had received, City staff and the Director of Public Works for Martin County met to discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the annexed areas. An agreement was reached between the City and Martin County as to which entity would be responsible for water and sewer services to each parcel to be annexed. Discussions between City and Martin County staff concerning responsibility for maintenance of roads were also held, including discussions at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee was established to provide for intergovernmental coordination in Martin County. Issues concerning road maintenance were resolved. Beginning essentially at the time of the notice to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests the City had received, Martin County attempted to prevent the annexations. Although Martin County cooperated to resolve some of the problems that resulted from the annexations, Martin County prepared an emergency agenda item directing staff to evaluate the annexations and seek ways of preventing the annexations. Martin County staff reports concerning the proposed annexations indicated few problems that would result from the annexations. The reports were submitted to the City by Martin County. Martin County indicated, however, that it would be conducting further analysis on potential traffic impacts. Martin subsequently reported to the City that it had further concerns and would be attending a City scheduled workshop to be held in July 1997. No one from Martin County attended the workshop held in July or the workshop held by the City in September 1997. City staff reviewed all of Martin County's comments, notified the City Commission of the comments, and took the comments into consideration in making recommendations concerning the annexations and amendments to the City's Plan to the City. On September 16, 1997, the City notified Martin County of further requests for voluntary annexation. City staff thereafter attempted to schedule meetings with Martin County staff to discuss these annexations. Additional discussions were held with Martin County concerning utilities. These discussions resulted in agreements concerning the provision of utilities to the annexed parcels. Discussions concerning stormwater were also held between the City and Martin County. Transportation issues were discussed at Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Martin County wrote letters to the City and made oral comments concerning the FLUM Amendments. Martin County raised concerns over urban sprawl, concurrency, and intergovernmental coordination. Martin County also filed challenges to the City's annexations resulting in a number of civil actions between the City and Martin County. As a result of these actions and Martin County's attempts to prevent the annexations, relations between City and Martin County staff became strained. It became increasingly difficult for staff to work together to resolve common issues. In November 1997 Martin County sent a letter to the City expressing concerns over the late 1997 annexations involving urban sprawl and transportation concurrency. These comments were considered by the City. Martin County staff attended an August 1998 meeting at which the City adopted the FLUM Amendments relating to the late 1997 annexations. These comments were considered by the City. While the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the FLUM amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the diametrically opposing positions of the two governments concerning the annexations which gave rise to the amendments at issue in these cases, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County could have resolved the issues between the City and Martin County. Prior to adopting the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the City's planning consultant reviewed the FLUM amendments that had already been adopted, the EAR Amendments, and the additional FLUM amendments the City was considering. The consult obtained data from Martin County concerning population and traffic. Efforts to obtain information from Martin County, however, were by this time difficult. The City even had to result to a public records request from Martin County to obtain some information. Again, while the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the state of deterioration of the relationship between the City and Martin County by the time these amendments were considered and adopted by the City, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County would have resulted in any improvement in the EAR Amendments or the 1998 Large Scale Amendments. In addition to the fact that the intergovernmental coordination between the City and Martin County under the circumstances of this matter was adequate, any lack of coordination did not result in any substantial issues concerning the amendments to the City's Plan not being resolved. The evidence in these cases has not supported Martin County's or 1000 Friends' alleged deficiencies with the amendments. Evidence concerning intergovernmental coordination or the lack thereof before and during annexation of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments in these case relate was irrelevant. Nothing in the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder requires intergovernmental coordination on annexations. The City adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element as part of the EAR Amendments. The Element includes policies which relate to procedures for dealing with coordination concerning the development of the annexed areas. Those policies are quoted in the City's Proposed Order at finding of fact 149 and are incorporated herein by reference. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element adopted by the City does not meet the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. It does, however, meet the requirements of Sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (10)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.015, Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, must be met by local governments no later than December 31, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, the Department adopted Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, providing, in part, that the City submit an intergovernmental coordination element in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, no later than June 1, 1997, and that the element be adopted no later than December 31, 1997. In a publication of the Department called the Summer 1998 Community Planning publication, the Department informed the City to ignore Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, and submit its intergovernmental coordination element no later than December 31, 1999. The City complied with this direction from the Department. The Department did not repeal Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code. Although Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to comply with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, earlier than December 31, 1999, the City has not opted to do so. Internal Inconsistency. Goal A of the FLUE provides that the City will "[m]aintain and enhance its small town waterfront character." Although the City has increased its size by 48 percent, it has not increased its "waterfront." None of the amendments to the FLUM at issue in these cases involve property located on the City's waterfront. The evidence also failed to prove that a 48 percent increase in the size of the City in and of itself is contrary to the City's small town character. Finally, the impact on the City's character is a result, not of the designation of land use categories for the annexed property, but from the annexation itself. Although annexation is the catalyst for the amendments being challenged in this proceeding, the fact of the annexation cannot be the issue. Policy A.3.2 of the FLUE provides that the City should "direct development to areas already served by adequate government utilities, services and schools . . . ." While some of the roads serving many of the annexed parcels were determined to be over-utilized, that over-utilization was based upon Martin County's LOS. Based upon the City's newly established LOS E, there are adequate road services for the annexed properties. The delivery of other utilities, services, and schools to the annexed properties has been coordinated between the City and Martin County or those services are already being provided. Objective B.3 of the FLUE provides that the City will discourage urban sprawl and continuous linear development along major roadways in order to achieve a compact urban form. While the annexed parcels are located along U.S. 1, their designated land uses pursuant to the amendments at issue are essentially consistent with their present uses or designated land uses. Little change in the form of development of the annexed parcels will occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the FLUM amendments do not increase linear development. Rather, they recognize it. As discussed, infra, the annexed properties do not constitute urban sprawl. As amended by the EAR Amendments, Objective B.1 of the FLUE provides that the City will "[d]iscourage urban sprawl by planning for urban infill and redevelopment of lands located within Stuart." The FLUM amendments constitute urban infill and are consistent with Objective B.1 as amended by the EAR Amendments. Objective B.3 of the FLUE requires a commitment of the City to the promotion of patterns of land use that are compatible and convenient to residents, businesses, and visitors, and the avoidance of the wasteful use of land. The evidence failed to prove that the FLUM amendments are inconsistent with this objective. Again, there is little difference in the uses of the property which is the subject of the FLUM amendments before and after their annexation. Policy A.8 of the Infrastructure Element of the City's Plan requires that the City will maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl through its annexation policy. Policy A.3.3, Objectives A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.9, and Policy A8.1 also provide similar guidance to the City. As discussed, infra, the FLUM amendments do not fail to discourage urban sprawl. The FLUM amendments also are not inconsistent with these provisions to the extent that they require the City to maximize the use of existing services. Policy A1.1 of the Housing Element of the City's Plan provides that the City must designate adequate residential land to accommodate projected need for housing. The most up to date analysis of existing population data suggests that there is adequate housing to meet the City's need for housing through the year 2015. The evidence failed to prove that anything about the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with this policy. The evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan. The consistency of the foregoing goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan were the only ones specifically addressed in the Joint Proposed Order. The City also addressed the consistency of a number of other goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan. Those findings of fact (182-190, 193-195, 197, and 200-204) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Urban Sprawl. The areas annexed by the City, while including some vacant land, are not located in a rural or predominately rural area. Instead, the annexed parcels are all located in an area designated in the County's Plan as the "Primary Urban Service Area." An independent evaluation of the properties confirms their urban location. The indicators of urban sprawl listed in Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to the annexed parcels when considered "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality." The testimony of Martin County's witnesses concerning the "linear pattern" of development evidenced by the annexed parcels failed to take into account the character of surrounding and abutting, unincorporated properties and the location of all the parcels within the "Primary Urban Service Area" established in the County's Plan. Testimony offered by Martin County concerning urban sprawl was also not credible because Martin County's expert witness did not complete the land use analysis of Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), Florida Administrative Code, because she failed to evaluate local conditions and development controls. Natural Resources. The evidence did not prove that any of the amendments at issue in these case fail to adequately protect natural resources. Availability of Infrastructure. As explained, supra, the City and Martin County coordinated the continued provision of most public utilities and services to the annexed parcels. Continued water, sewer, emergency rescue, law enforcement, and solid waste disposal services for the annexed parcels were all coordinated between the City and Martin County. Water and sewer services and recreational facility needs were analyzed by the City and found to be adequate. The evidence failed to prove that any necessary infrastructure is not available or will not be provided by the City. The Future Annexation Map. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report included a Map of Future Annexation. The Map of Future Annexation identified a small area south of the City for future annexation over the next ten years. The areas actually annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 involve a more extensive area than that identified on the Map of Future Annexation. The areas identified on the Map of Future Annexation were areas which the City believed it would likely desire to annex and did not take into account voluntary annexation. The Map of Future Annexation was not intended to exclude such voluntary annexations. The EAR Amendments also include a Future Annexation Area Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA Map"). The FAA Map identifies approximately 8,000 additional acres of land which the City may consider annexing through the year 2015. The FAA Map is not, however, intended to represent an area which the City intends to pursue for annexation. It simply identifies the maximum area within which the City intends to consider annexation. It is, in effect, intended as a limitation on annexations that the City would pursue. The evidence failed to prove that the FAA Map is not a reasonable boundary for the possible expansion of the City through the year 2015 by annexation. The State and Regional Plans. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast was not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., as a party. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 1st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Paul R. Bradshaw, P.A. 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333 Gary K. Oldehoff, Esquire Martin County Attorney 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Terrell Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Yeline Goin, Esquire 902-A North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Carl Coffin, Esquire City of Stuart 121 South West Flagler Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tim B. Wright, Esquire Louis E. Lozeau, Jr., Esquire Warner, Fox, Seeley, Dungey and Sweet, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 6 Stuart, Florida 34995 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Seminole Raceway, as proposed in Charles and Linda Wimberlys' Site and Development Plan and approved with conditions by the Leon County Development Review Committee (DRC), is consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and is a permissible land use under applicable provisions of Chapter 10, Leon County Code (the Code).
The Issue The issue is whether Citrus County's (County's) small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by Ordinance No. 2009- A07 on May 26, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner resides and owns property at 10662 West Halls River Road, Homasassa, Florida, in the southwestern part of the County. According to a County aerial map, the property appears to be 0.68 acres in size and is rectangular-shaped, with the eastern side fronting on the Homasassa River (River), while the western side adjoins West Halls River Road (also known as County Road 490A), a two-lane designated collector roadway for the County. See Intervenor's Exhibit 8. That road dead-ends a mile or so farther to the southwest in a subdivision known as Riverhaven. Petitioner has owned the property since April 1992. Intervenor, a limited liability corporation, acquired ownership of a 47.5-acre parcel in May 2007, which lies directly west-northwest of Petitioner's property and across West Halls River Road. In early 2009, it filed an application with the County seeking a change in the land use on 9.9 acres of the larger parcel from CL to RVP. The smaller parcel's address is 10565 West Halls River Road and is a short distance north of Petitioner's lot. The change in land use was requested because Intervenor intends to place a recreational vehicle (RV) park on the 9.9-acre parcel. On page 10-103 of the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the CL land use is described in relevant part as follows: This land use category designates those areas having environmental characteristics that are sensitive to development and therefore should be protected. Residential development in this district is limited to a maximum of one dwelling unit per 20 acres and one unit per 40 acres in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's V-zone. On page 10-112 of the FLUE, the RVP land use is described in relevant part as follows: This category is intended to recognize existing Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks and Campgrounds, as well as to provide for the location and development of new parks for recreational vehicles. Such parks are intended specifically to allow for temporary living accommodation for recreation, camping, or travel use. After the application was filed and reviewed by the County staff, a report was prepared by the then County Senior Planner, Dr. Pitts, on April 14, 2009, recommending that the application be approved. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The report noted that "this site is appropriate for some type of RV Park development subject to an appropriately designed master plan." Id. Although forty-nine RV units could potentially be placed on the parcel, the report noted that due to significant "environmental limitations of the area," the site "may not be able to be designed at maximum intensity for this land use district." Id. The "environmental limitations" are approximately 1.64 acres of wetlands that are located on four parts of the property, wetlands on neighboring properties, and "karst sensitivity." The report noted that these environmental issues would have to be addressed in a master plan to be submitted by the applicant before development. The matter was then favorably considered by the County's Planning and Development Review Board by a 4-1 vote on May 7, 2009. On May 26, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on the application. By a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance 2009-A07, which approved the change on the GFLUM. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner and Intervenor appeared at the hearing and submitted comments regarding the amendment. See County Exhibit 3. Accordingly, both are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Because the size of the parcel was less than ten acres, the map change was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. On June 24, 2009, Petitioner filed with DOAH his Petition challenging the small-scale development amendment. As summarized in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioner contends that the map change "is not consistent with [the County's] adopted comprehensive plan because such is incompatible with the character of the properties surrounding the subject property and because such is incompatible with [the] environmentally sensitive nature of the subject property and the properties surrounding the subject property." See Joint Prehearing Stipulation, pages 1-2. More specifically, Petitioner contends the map change is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8. The Subject Property Although its precise dimensions are not of record, from around 1952 until 1985, a golf course was located on a large tract of land west of West Halls River Road, where Intervenor's larger parcel of property is located. Currently, the larger parcel is vacant and undeveloped. The subject property (as well as the entire larger parcel) is classified as CL (Low Intensity Coastal and Lakes), which allows one dwelling unit per twenty acres. Because the property is in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA), the amendment allows five RV units per acre, or a total of forty-nine. In all likelihood, however, the number would be somewhat smaller due to "severe" environmental constraints discussed above. See Finding 5, supra. The new land use also allows a small amount of retail development to serve the RV customers. The 9.9-acre parcel surrounds a one-acre parcel that adjoins West Halls River Road, also owned by Intervenor, and carries a CLC (Coastal and Lakes Commercial) land use designation. A vested eighteen-unit RV park (Sunrise RV Park) has been located on the one-acre parcel since the late 1980s. Except for the small one-acre enclave, the property is bordered on three sides by vacant, unimproved property, all designated as CL. According to Petitioner, Sunrise RV Park has a small number of "dilapidated" trailers and "a bunch of junk stored on the front lawn." This was not disputed. The vacant lot directly south of the larger parcel, comprised mainly of wetlands, is owned by Glen Black, who objects to the map change. Across the roadway, the area north and south of Petitioner's property along the River is classified as CL and is "predominately residential." Besides the residential uses on the River side of the road, Intervenor identified around six non-conforming businesses (mainly former fish camps) that were vested prior to the adoption of the current Plan and that are interspersed with the residential lots. (Under current Plan provisions, they would not be allowed.) Around one-quarter mile or so south of the subject property is the Magic Manatee Marina (Marina) located on a two-acre parcel facing the River.2 A small fish camp with six "rental cottages" lies a few lots north of the Marina. There are also four small condominium buildings with dock facilities (known as Cory's Landing) just north of the fish camp. The aerial map reflects that all other lots south of Petitioner's property are used for residential purposes. Besides the other residential lots north of Petitioner's property, there are nine rental units at a vested "fishing resort" on a parcel slightly less than two acres in size located at 10606 West Halls River Road. Around one-half mile further north at the confluence of the Halls and Homasassa Rivers is a vested restaurant, Margarita Grill. Except for these vested non-conforming uses, all other lots are used for residential purposes, and the entire strip of land adjoining the River is classified as CL. North of Intervenor's 47.5-acre parcel, but not directly adjoining it, and on the western side of West Halls River Road, is a large unevenly-shaped tract of land classified as RVP, on which the Nature's Resort RV Park is located. That facility is authorized to accommodate around three hundred RVs. The entrance to that park from West Halls River Road appears to be at least one-quarter mile or more north of the subject property. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8, which concern environmental and compatibility requirements. These provisions are discussed separately below. Policy 17.2.7 Policy 17.2.7 provides as follows: The County shall guide future development to the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations and the availability of necessary services. Petitioner argues that the subject property is in an extremely sensitive environmental area due to extensive wetlands and a karst sensitive landscape. (Karst is a limestone underground rock structure that is very porous and through which pollutants can easily travel.) He further points out that the property is located within the CHHA. Given these environmental constraints, and the proposed increase in density, Petitioner contends the map change will run counter to the above policy. There are no provisions within the Plan that prohibit the location of an RV park within the CHHA. Policy 17.6.12 imposes numerous requirements for RV parks, including a thirty percent open space requirement, restrictions on densities, wetland protection, upland preservation, clustering, and connection to regional central water and sewer service. These policy restrictions have been implemented by more specific land development regulations (LDRs) that limit the density and intensity of RVs and the types of RVs (e.g., park models) that can be placed in an RV park located within a CHHA. In this case, because the property is in a CHHA, the LDRs impose a five- RV per acre limitation, as opposed to the normal fourteen RVs per acre in non-CHHA areas, and for evacuation purposes, park models are prohibited. Further, the RV park must be served by regional central water and sewer services. All land in the County west of U.S. Highway 19, including the subject property, is karst sensitive. As such, any development west of U.S. Highway 19 must meet certain design standards to ensure that the water supply is not threatened. The County says that these concerns must be addressed during the site approval (development) process. The record shows that there are four jurisdictional wetland sites on the parcel totaling 1.64 acres. There are also wetlands on the surrounding property. Because of these environmental constraints, Dr. Pitts (the former County Senior Planner) stated that it is "highly unlikely" that Intervenor "can develop at 49 units." He further pointed out that while it is "certainly possible to do it at a smaller number," there would be one hundred percent wetland protection through setbacks both to wetlands on the subject parcel, as well as the surrounding area, a thirty percent open space requirement on the site, a ten percent area dedicated to recreational uses, and minimum buffers on the side of the property facing West Halls River Road. For RV parks, pertinent LDRs adopted to implement the Plan require that the developer avoid all wetlands. Policy 17.2.7 expresses a County planning decision that future development be directed to "the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations." (Emphasis added) According to Dr. Pitts, the subject property has "severe" environmental limitations, and that "it will be difficult to design the site [in a way] that meets the standards of the comprehensive plan and the land development code." Notwithstanding the other provisions within the Plan and LDRs that place limitations on RV park development in an effort to satisfy environmental constraints, see Finding 18, supra, the subject property is clearly not "the most appropriate area, as depicted on the GFLUM" for new development, nor is it an area "with minimal environmental limitations." In fact, the amendment does just the opposite -- it directs new commercial development to an area with severe environmental limitations. Therefore, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the map change is internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.7. Policy 17.2.11 Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is contrary to the Plan's basic strategy of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, as set forth in FLUE Policy 17.2.11, which reads as follows: Consistent with the Plan's basic strategy for protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the following guidelines shall apply to all development in the Coastal, Lakes, and Rivers Region: No increase in residential density should be approved except for Planned Development standards already contained in the Plan. No additional high intensity non-residential land uses shall be approved for this region. Specifically new GNC [General Commercial] and IND [Industrial] districts shall be avoided. The subject property is within the Coastal Region and therefore subject to these guidelines. See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-3. On page 10-150 of the FLUE, the narrative text states in part that "with increasing development activity and growth in the coming years, existing restrictions on the density/intensity of land use should be maintained and enhanced to provide additional protection to this sensitive region." According to the Plan, a "GNC district allows potentially high density/intensity development" and "should not be located in areas of the County deemed to be environmentally sensitive areas." See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-110. It further provides that "[n]o new GNC shall be allowed in the coastal, lakes and river region." Id. Therefore, new GNC development should not be allowed in the Coastal Region. Although an RV park is a commercial use, it is not a GNC use. Further, the five-units per acre limitation is not considered a high-intensity non-residential use. Therefore, while the policy serves a laudable purpose, it does not prohibit RVP development within the Coastal Region. Therefore, the map change is not internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.11. Policy 17.2.8 Petitioner's final objection is that an RV park is not compatible with the surrounding area. He goes on to contend that by placing an RVP designation adjacent to a large tract of CL land, the County has contravened FLUE Policy 17.2.8. That policy reads as follows: The County shall utilize land use techniques and development standards to achieve a functional and compatible land use framework which reduces incompatible land uses. Because compatibility is not defined in the Plan, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) is helpful in resolving this issue.3 That rule defines the term "compatibility" as follows: (23) "Compatibility" 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. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Intervenor also suggests that the definition of "suitability" is relevant to this issue. That term is defined in Rule 9J-5.003(128) as follows: (128) "Suitability" means the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development. Petitioner characterized the area around his home as quiet, peaceful, and "all residential." He noted that except for a few vested, non-conforming businesses, such as the Sunrise RV Park, Marina, fish camp, and restaurant, the remainder of the area along the River, as well as Intervenor's larger parcel across the street, is either residential or vacant. Petitioner fears that an RV park will result in increased noise, park lighting during nighttime hours, trash being left by the roadside, more traffic on the two-lane road, and a decrease in the value of his property. He also believes that the developer intends to place the southern entrance to the RV park almost directly across the street from his home. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed new land use designation is not compatible with the surrounding land. Intervenor argues that an RV park and the surrounding residential properties are compatible (and suitable) because there are already non-conforming uses along the River that have not unduly negatively impacted the area. These uses, however, number only six along that stretch of the River, and they have existed for decades due to vested rights. It is fair to infer that the insertion of an RV park in the middle of a large tract of vacant CL land would logically lead to further requests for reclassifying CL land to expand the new RV park or to allow other non-residential uses. The stated purpose of Policy 17.2.8 is to reduce "incompatible land uses." At the same time, Rule 9J-5.003(23) discourages land uses which are in relative proximity to each other and can unduly negatively impact the other uses or conditions. The commercial RV park, with a yet-to-be determined number of spaces for temporary RVs, tenants, and associated commercial development, will be in close proximity to a predominately residential neighborhood. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that these commercial uses will have a direct or indirect negative impact on the nearby residential properties and should not coexist in close proximity to one another. This is contrary to Policy 17.2.8, which encourages a reduction in "incompatible land uses," and the amendment is therefore internally inconsistent with the policy.
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 small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 2009-A07 on May 26, 2009, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Land Use Plan (LUP) map of Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The County is a charter government that administers the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Plan), a broad-based countywide policy-planning document to guide future growth and development. See County Exhibit 1. The LUP is a component of the Plan and contains the various land use designations. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the LUP that is being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. Blue Lake is a small, family-owned corporation that has owned the subject property since 1966. It submitted oral and written comments to the County during the adoption process. Flagler Retail Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, Park Hill Plaza, located at 9501 West Flagler Street, around one-half mile from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. Flagler, S.C., LLC, owns and operates a retail shopping center, Flagler Park Plaza, at 8221 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the subject property. It also submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. SC Mota Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, the Mall of Americas, located at 7757 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 25 blocks from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment A mobile home park with around 275 units occupied the property from 1957 until June 2007, when Blue Lake closed the park. At the time of the hearing, the mobile home park was around 80 percent demolished and cleared out. The property is currently listed for sale by its owners. The property is located within the County's Urban Development Boundary at the northeast corner of West Flagler Street, a six-lane divided arterial roadway running in an east- west direction and designated as a major roadway, and Northwest 102nd Avenue (also known as West Park Drive). The southwest corner of the property borders the City of Sweetwater and a small shopping center. Directly to the west of the property and across West Park Drive is a part of the Florida International University campus. To the east are the campuses of a public middle school and elementary school, while a large, single- family residential area lies to the south. Directly north of the property (and just south of State Road 836, also known as the Dolphin Expressway) is the western portion of a large multi- family residential complex (formerly a golf course) identified in the record as the Fountainbleau Park area, which stretches across Northwest 97th Avenue to the east. The County has two cycles per year for applicants to file amendments to the Plan, which may be text amendments having countywide application, or site-specific LUP map amendments having localized impact. In the April 2008 cycle, nineteen applications were filed with the County, including Blue Lake's Application No. 9. The application was filed by Gold River Corporation, which had a contract to purchase the property from Blue Lake contingent on a land use change. Gold River Corporation later assigned the contract to Blue Lake Partners, LLC, an entity unrelated to Blue Lake. The contract to purchase later "fell through" for unknown reasons. Blue Lake is now pursuing the land use change on its own behalf. Application No. 9 requested that the County amend the LUP map by changing the land use designation on a 41-acre parcel from Low-Medium Density Residential Communities to Business and Office. The former land use allows between six and thirteen dwelling units per gross acre and could be fully developed with as few as 244 residential units or as many as 533. The new land use allows both residential and commercial development, including a wide range of commercial uses such as retail, professional services, and offices. If developed to its maximum residential potential, the new category could accommodate more than 2,200 units. If developed to its maximum commercial potential, the new use would allow more than 679,000 square feet of commercial floor space. A Declaration of Restrictions is a tool permitted by the Plan to craft "a more refined amendment" that can take into consideration more than just a change in the land use of a parcel of property. See County Exhibit 1 at I-74.1. Restrictions are considered an adopted part of the Plan. Id. They can provide greater restrictions on a parcel, delineate the property's uses, and make the amendment more consistent with the Plan than it might otherwise be. In July 2008, Blue Lake offered a first Declaration of Restrictions that would prohibit residential development on the property on the premise that the change would satisfy a deficiency in land designated for commercial development. See County Exhibit 60. Land Use Element Policy LU-8E provides that applications requesting amendments to the LUP map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Plan 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; [and] Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; [and] Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; and 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. County Exhibit 1 at I-17-18. The various factors in the Policy are weighed and balanced when considering a map change. However, paragraph (i) is considered by the County to be the "primary," or at the very least an "important," factor when reviewing map changes since the County must ensure that there is enough land for different types of uses to accommodate the projected growth within the County. In fact, a County witness could recall no more than one or two instances over the last thirty years where the County had approved a LUP map change when the staff had determined that there was a lack of need under this provision. Under the County's plan amendment review process, an application for a change in the LUP map is first reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, then the applicable community council, next by the Planning Advisory Board, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners. Community councils are elected bodies from thirteen different geographic areas of the County that act as a planning board for making recommendations on amendments that affect their jurisdiction. A needs analysis determines the availability of commercial land in a given area relative to the availability of residential land. Consistent with its past practice of performing a supply and demand analysis under paragraph (i) of Policy LU-8E, the Department of Planning and Zoning staff looked at need within two minor statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is one of 32 geographical subareas into which the County has been subdivided for the purpose of collecting and inventorying data on the supply and demand for different land uses and for disaggregating the County's population into subareas. On very infrequent occasions, the staff has used a "tier," which is an aggregation or collection of several MSAs, rather than a single MSA. Another geographic area known as a census tract, which is much smaller than an MSA, is also allowed by the Plan. See Land Use Element Policy LU-8F ("the adequacy of land supplies . . . for business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, [MSAs] and combinations thereof"). As noted below, however, the County has never used a census tract and considers them to be "inappropriate" for a needs analysis in a case such as this. Because the Blue Lake property is located within MSA 3.2 and borders on MSA 5.4, the staff conducted a supply and demand analysis in those two MSAs. After completing its review, on August 25, 2008, the staff recommended that the application be denied, mainly on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i). See County Exhibit 60 and Blue Lake Exhibit 24. Specifically, based on its review of MSAs 3.2 and 5.4, the staff found that there was already an ample supply of vacant and available commercial land within the study area. In fact, out of 32 MSAs within the County, MSA 3.2 had the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population. Characterizing this supply of commercial land as "significant," the staff noted that there were more than 2,500 acres of commercial land in MSAs 3.2 and 5.4 either in use or vacant, and this category would not be depleted until after the year 2025. As to residential land, the supply of that category within the MSAs would be depleted by the year 2015, and staff noted that the property was currently designated residential and could serve to satisfy the future demand for residentially designated land within the MSAs. Despite a lack of need, the staff recommended that the amendment be transmitted for further local and state review on the belief that during the subsequent review process the application could possibly be modified into a more mixed-use project and thus be compatible with the Plan. In making this recommendation, the staff did not examine other needs or deficiencies, such as the need for elderly housing or for mixed-use properties. On September 23, 2008, the amendment was reviewed by the Westchester Community Council, which recommended that the amendment be approved but only with a change to allow residential development on the property to encourage a mixed-use project. Just before the amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory Board, Blue Lake offered a second Declaration of Restrictions, which reduced the amount of proposed commercial development from 620,000 to 400,000 square feet. See Blue Lake Exhibit 35. On October 6, 2008, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and transmittal of the amendment with a change to allow a potential mixed-use project. Although the County staff continued to recommend that the application be denied, on November 6, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and voted to transmit the amendment and second Declaration of Restrictions to the Department for its review. On March 13, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the County. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. In its ORC, the Department noted, among other things, that the County had not demonstrated a need for additional commercial uses on the property since the County's need analysis demonstrated that the commercial land in the area would not be depleted until after the year 2025. The ORC went on to recommend that the County either retain the current land use or provide data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment and its consistency with Policy LU-8E. On March 27, 2009, the County staff issued its response to the ORC in which it agreed that there was a lack of need for the amendment and that no new data and analysis had been submitted by the applicant. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Advisory Board again considered the application and recommended approval with the acceptance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictions. On April 13, 2009, Blue Lake's consultant submitted a revised commercial needs analysis to the County which concluded that there was in fact a need for more Business and Office designated land within his defined study area. See Blue Lake Exhibit 66. As a study area, the consultant used four census tracts (rather than MSAs) comprising around two square miles. The study area, in which Blue Lake's property was located, was bounded by major roadways on three sides and a man-made canal on the fourth. The consultant noted that the three roads and canal created an insular area that discouraged residents from leaving the area and thus justified in part further commercial development in the study area. Within his study area, the consultant found the ratio of commercial to population to be 3.3 acres per 1,000 people, which is significantly below the county-wide average of 6.0 acres per 1,000 people. He also found that the study area contained 1.4 vacant acres split up in five different locations, which because of the size and distribution made the study area essentially depleted. Although the County generally uses the same type of analysis as the consultant, it disagreed with the consultant's use of a smaller selected study area as well as many of his assumptions. Further, the County has never used a census tract in performing a needs analysis. It rejected Blue Lake's alternative needs analysis on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed and it appeared to be using an inappropriate primary trade area. The Department agreed with the County's assessment of the study. Given the deficiencies cited by the County, the report submitted by Blue Lake's consultant has not been credited. On May 1, 2009, Blue Lake offered a third Declaration of Restrictions which continued to include a restriction on commercial development of 400,000 square feet, but added certain requirements addressing compatibility of the proposed development of the property with existing residential development to the north and west by prohibiting construction of buildings on the northerly two acres of the property, requiring a landscape buffer, prohibiting certain types of commercial uses on the property, and including various other requirements not relevant here. See Blue Lake Exhibit 78. On May 5, 2009, the day before the Board of County Commissioners' adoption hearing, Blue Lake submitted a fourth Declaration of Restrictions which provided that commercial development would not exceed 375,000 square feet; "up to 150 dwelling units [would be] designated for elderly housing"; "ancillary and accessory uses" for the elderly could be constructed but would not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of the elderly housing facility (or just over 25,000 square feet); the northerly two acres would be reserved without buildings or used for elderly housing; a buffer would be installed; and certain commercial uses would be prohibited. See Blue Lake Exhibit 79. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the staff was still not satisfied that a need existed for further commercial development or that the owner had a commitment to build a specific minimum number of elderly housing units. On the evening of May 5, 2009, in response to a continued concern by the County staff, Blue Lake submitted a fifth (and final) Declaration of Restrictions, which provided in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding the re-designation of the Property to "Business and Office" on the County's LUP map, the maximum development of the Property shall not exceed the following: (a) 375,000 square feet of retail, commercial, personal services and offices; and (b) no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing, as such term is defined under Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701) and Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code (the "Code"), along with such ancillary and accessory uses as may be desirable, necessary or complementary to satisfy the service needs of the residents, such as, but not limited to, counseling, medical, nutritional, and physical therapy, provided that such ancillary and accessory uses shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of the elderly housing facility. County Exhibit 18. The final version of the restrictions differed from the fourth version by changing the words "up to 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing" to "no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing," a change suggested by the County staff. As finally revised, the last set of restrictions allows a mixed-use development and limits the owner to less than sixty percent of the non-residential uses that could have been available under the Business and Office land use designation. It also requires the allocation of two acres of land for the development of the elderly housing units as a precondition to any commercial development of the property. This means that the only permissible use on those two acres is the construction of no less than 150 dwelling units for "elderly housing," or more than sixty percent of the minimum residential units (233) that could have been previously constructed at full development under its current land use. If an elderly component is constructed, depending on the size of the structure, it allows the owner to provide "ancillary and accessory uses" for that component that could increase the total amount of commercial use to more than 400,000 square feet. As a prerequisite to approval of its application, Blue Lake executed and recorded the fifth Declaration of Restrictions. Although the staff still "[had] concerns regarding the demand for additional commercial land in this area," and agreed that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) had not been met, given the foregoing restrictions, the inclusion of a mixed-use component, and the need for elderly housing in the County, it recommended adoption of the amendment. Just prior to the vote by the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2009, a Blue Lake attorney sent the following email to a County staffer for the purpose of clarifying the commitment that Blue Lake was making in the Declaration of Restrictions: Yesterday's revision to the Declaration [which requires no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing] simply expands the universe of uses that would be permitted on the property. By reducing the overall square footage of commercial development, the owner would set up the conditions to allow the future development of 150 senior housing units. However, because the development of this type of project depends on so many factors, including zoning approvals, government incentives, etc., the owner's ability to build 375,000 square feet of commercial space is not in any way dependent on whether any senior housing units are actually built on the Property or the timing of such construction. (Emphasis added) Blue Lake Exhibit 86. There is no record of any response by the staff to the email or any indication that this "clarification" was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to its vote. A copy of the email was not provided to the Department. After learning of its contents at the final hearing, a Department planner stated that he considers the Declarations of Restrictions to be controlling, and not the email. On May 19, 2009, the County staff prepared a final response to the ORC stating that while it rejected the alternate needs analysis submitted by Blue Lake's consultant, and it "partially concur[red] with the Department's view that there was a lack of need, the applicant had adequately responded to its needs objection by "commit[ting] to building a mixed-use project and to reducing the commercial floor area." County Exhibit 10 at p. 2. On June 11, 2009, the County transmitted the amendment to the Department for its compliance review. On July 29, 2009, the Department found the amendment to be in compliance and noted in a staff report that "[t]he adopted amendment provides additional information for application #9 related to need (objection #1) and road capacity (objection #2)." Petitioners' Exhibit 54. It went on to say that "the County adequately responded to the Objection [regarding need] by reducing the commercial uses and introducing a mixed use component by adding residential units." Id. The Department's report added that Blue Lake had "committed to building a mixed use project which reduces commercial area from 679,535 square feet . . . to 375,000 square feet . . . [,] the mixed use development is supported by FLUE Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept #8, [and] the mixed use development reduces the potential loss of housing units on the site, which is supported by Goal 1 of the Housing Element." Id. On August 3, 2009, the Department published in the Miami Herald its Notice of Intent to find the map change in compliance. On August 26, 2009, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition with the Department generally contending that the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis for new commercial development in the area and that the change in land use would have an adverse impact on traffic. The latter objection was later withdrawn. As clarified in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and the Stipulation, they contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8E(i), LU-8F, and LU-10A, Land Use Concept No. 8, and Housing Element Goal 1, as well as the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J- 5.006(2)(c).2 Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first object to the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not consistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no demonstrated need for more commercial land in the study area. That Plan provision requires that map amendments "shall" be evaluated against all goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan, "and in particular" whether the amendment satisfies "a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County." Similarly, while Petitioners agree that the data and analysis used to support the amendment are relevant and appropriate, and were applied in a professional manner, they contend the data support a continuation of the current residential land use. Despite efforts by the County at hearing to downplay the importance of Policy LU-8E(i) in its review process, it can be inferred that a needs analysis under that provision is one of the most important, if not primary, consideration when reviewing LUP map changes. This is borne out by the fact that except for one or two occasions, the County has never approved a map change over the last thirty years without a needs analysis supporting that change. The evidence supports a finding that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no need for 375,000 square feet of new commercial development within the study area (MSAs 3.2 and 5.4). More specifically, the relevant data and analysis used by the County reveal that the MSA in which the property is located (MSA 3.2) has the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population of the 32 MSAs in the County; that the supply of existing or available commercial land use will not be depleted for at least another fifteen years; and that there is no "deficiency" of commercial land in the study area to accommodate projected population or growth, as required by the Policy. Although the amendment will authorize at least 375,000 square feet of new commercial development, both the County and Department concede that a need for more commercial land does not exist. It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-8E(i). Likewise, because the data and analysis do not support the amendment, but rather support a contrary result, the County reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2). The County and Blue Lake argue, however, that even though no need for commercial land exists, the final version of the Declaration of Restrictions incorporates a provision requiring an elderly housing component, which when combined with the commercial component, changes the character of the land to a mixed use. By Blue Lake offering this restriction, they argue that the application, as amended, furthers other Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing for the elderly (e.g., Housing Element Goal 1, Objective HO-9, and Policy HO-9A) and furthers provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed areas (in this case a 50-year-old mobile home park) with a mixture of land uses (e.g., Land Use Element Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept 8). Thus, they contend that the "need" requirement in Policy LU-8E(i) is now met because Blue Lake is satisfying a deficiency in both the supply of elderly housing as well as mixed uses. To support the contention that a need for elderly housing exists, the County posited that there is a need, "in general," for elderly housing in the County. It also pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2008 there was a small percentage increase in the number of persons over 65 years of age residing in the County. See County Exhibit 64. But the County agrees that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) does not distinguish between different types of residential use, such as whether properties are available for elderly residents. Neither does the test assess the need for mixed uses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a need for elderly housing or mixed-use projects, any such need does not address the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i). Even assuming arguendo that it does, the County made no study of the need for "elderly housing" or "mixed use projects" within MSAs 3.2 and 5.4. The County and Blue Lake also contend that the proposed mixed use furthers other laudable provisions within the Plan, which more than offset any lack of commercial need. While development of the property under the current or not yet effective new land use would certainly "rejuvenate" an area now occupied by a closed, 50-year-old mobile home park, and result in the redevelopment of what is now probably a substandard urban area, see Land Use Concept 8 and Land Use Policy LU-10A, furtherance of those provisions by creating a new commercial land use category does not trump the lack of need for more commercial land. Similarly, the Department found the amendment, as adopted, was in compliance because the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions introduced an elderly housing mixed-use component, which essentially negated the lack of need for commercial development. It is fair to infer from the evidence that, like the County, the Department made this determination in the belief that the elderly housing component was intended to address a need for affordable or subsidized housing for senior citizens. Petitioners contend, however, that the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions does not truly provide for an elderly housing/mixed use in this context. The fifth version of the Declaration of Restrictions references the term "elderly housing" as that term is defined in "Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701)" and "Chapter 11A of the County Code." Because the federal law, related regulations, and the entire Chapter 11A were not made a part of the record by any party, it is appropriate to take official recognition of those matters. The federal regulation (section 1701) referred to in the amendment relates to "supportive housing for the elderly" and the federal assistance programs administered by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Its provisions are lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated, and they have been amended numerous times since their adoption. While the terms "elderly person" and "frail elderly" are defined in sections 1701q(k)(1) and (2) of the regulations, the undersigned was unable to find a specific definition of "elderly housing," and counsel have provided no citation. Chapter 11A of the County Code is a civil and human rights ordinance that is enforced by a County Commission on Human Rights. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has cited Section 11A-13(5) as the provision that defines the term. See County Exhibit 157. That provision enumerates "[e]xceptions to unlawful practices" and defines "housing for older persons" in the context of unlawful housing practices, but not in the context of a land use change. Therefore, it has little, if any, value in deciphering the meaning of the term "elderly housing" in the Declaration of Restrictions. When asked to define the term "elderly housing" as used in the Declaration of Restrictions, no witness could give a precise answer or refer to any provision in the federal law or County Code where a definition of that term is found. Therefore, if an elderly component is ever built on the property, it is fair to infer that the developer has wide discretion in choosing the type of units built and their price, and there is no guarantee or requirement that they be targeted for anyone except "elderly" persons, whatever age and associated income status that may encompass. Because of these ambiguities and uncertainties, the inclusion of an elderly housing component does not further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan encouraging affordable housing for all citizens, including the elderly, that the County relies upon to support the amendment. Finally, the fifth Declaration of Restrictions permits a developer to either construct elderly housing or merely reserve for an indefinite period of time the northerly two acres of the 41-acre tract free from construction of buildings. If construction ever occurs on those two acres, the only permissible use is "no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing." Petitioners contend that the commitment is illusory since there is no requirement that a residential component ever be built. The County and Blue Lake point out, however, that when a map amendment is approved, there are no timetables for when development must actually occur. Similarly, the Department does not look at the timing of development when an amendment is reviewed, and the fact that there is no time limitation in the amendment does not render it out of compliance. While it is reasonable in this case to question whether an elderly housing component will ever be built, the plan amendment simply approves a map change, and Petitioners have not cited any Plan requirement, Department rule, or statute that mandates development within a certain period of time in order for a map change to be in compliance. Petitioners' argument is rejected. In summary, it is beyond fair debate that (a) the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Land Use Policy LU- 8E(i); (b) the change in land use is not supported by the most relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (c) by adopting the amendment, the County reacted to the data and analysis in an inappropriate manner; (d) the reference to "elderly housing" is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain and does not further Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing within the County; and (e) even if the plan amendment furthers other Plan provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas with mixed uses, on balance this consideration does not outweigh the foregoing deficiencies. All other contentions by Petitioners not specifically discussed herein have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment (Application No. 9) adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, be found not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2010.
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 in these cases is whether the Collier County (County) Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Collier County Ordinance Number 02-32 ("the Rural Fringe Amendments" or "the Amendments") on June 19, 2002, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background The Amendments at issue in these cases arose from a specific historical background which is relevant to help put them in context. In 1997, the County adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based plan amendments ("EAR-based amendments"). DCA found the EAR-based amendments not to be "in compliance." Following an administrative hearing in which FWF and Audubon intervened, the Administration Commission entered a final order agreeing with DCA's determination. Joint Exhibit J.3. The Administration Commission’s final order, entered on June 22, 1999, directed the County to take the following steps in order to bring its comprehensive plan amendments into compliance: (1) rescind those EAR-based amendments found not in compliance; (2) adopt certain specific "remedial" amendments; (3) initiate an assessment of the area of the County designated on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as Agricultural/Rural; (4) adopt interim amendments to remain in force during the course of the assessment; and (5) no later than June 22, 2002, adopt those plan amendments needed to implement the findings and results of the assessment. Summary of Rural Fringe Amendments In response to the Administration Commission's final order on the EAR-based amendments, the County elected to divide its Agricultural/Rural-designated area into two subdistricts-- Rural Fringe and Eastern Lands--for purposes of the assessment and implementing plan amendments. The Rural Fringe subdistrict was designated as "the Rural Fringe Mixed Used District" (or "the Rural Fringe"). The Rural Fringe is described in the amendments as follows: The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 7% of Collier County's total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. * * * The Rural Fringe Mixed Used District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public rights-of-way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District. J.4 at 50. Under the Amendments, the Rural Fringe was divided into areas designated as Sending, Receiving, or Neutral on the FLUM.18 J.5. Some Sending Areas are also designated Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). Receiving Lands "are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as most appropriate for development . . . ." J.4. at 51. These lands have been chosen because they "have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations." Id. Approximately 25,000 acres are designated Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands "are also located to allow for the provision of central water and sewer and have excellent access to the County's arterial road network." J.11. at 2. The base density within Receiving Lands is one dwelling unit per five acres. However, through the purchase of development rights from Sending Lands through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program established by the Amendments (discussed in Findings 72-91, infra), Receiving Lands may increase density up to one dwelling unit per acre. Additional density may be obtained if a development preserves more than the minimum required amount of native vegetation. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands may also be developed as "Rural Villages." The Amendments provide for the possibility of one rural village within each of the four distinct Receiving Areas in the Rural Fringe. The purpose of rural villages is described as follows: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. J.4 at 62. The rural villages permitted in the Rural Fringe must consist of compact neighborhoods with nearby neighborhood or village centers. The neighborhood or village centers are to include retail and office uses; public parks, squares, or greens; civic and government uses; and service facilities. J.4 at 63. Specific provision also is made for open space in and surrounding the rural village. J.4 at 63-64. In addition to the one-village-per-district limitation, the amendments impose the following additional locational criteria on a rural village: (1) it must be at least three miles from any other rural village; (2) it must have direct access to an arterial or collector road, or the developer must bear the cost of a new collector road directly accessing the village; and (3) it must be near already- existing or planned public infrastructure, such as water and sewer facilities. J.4 at 63. In addition, a rural village may only be approved if shown to be fiscally neutral to taxpayers outside the village. J.4 at 65. Neutral Lands "have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development" at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. J.4. at 55. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Neutral Lands. Approximately 7,000 acres have been designated as Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are those lands "that have the highest degree of environmental value" and "are the principal target for preservation and conservation." J.4. at 58. The residential use of this land is restricted to one dwelling unit per parcel which existed before June 22, 1999, or one unit per 40 acres, whichever yields the greatest density. Nonresidential uses of Sending Land, other than agriculture, are quite limited. There also are specific criteria for the protection of site-specific native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands. J.4 at 58-62; J.6 at 24, 27, and 29-30. Some of the land designated Sending is also subject to regulation as NRPA. The purpose of a NRPA designation "is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large connected intact and relatively unfragmented habitat, which may be important for these listed species." J.4 at 79. Designation as a NRPA also limits the intensity and density of development in an area (J.4 at 58-61) and imposes specific restrictions for the preservation of native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands (J.6 at 24, 27, and 29). The principal additional effect of NRPA designation is to increase the requirement for the retention of native vegetation. In addition to the changes to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the Amendments also affected the Coastal and Conservation Element (CCE), Potable Water Sub-Element, and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element. Standing of Petitioners and Intervenors The evidence was that the Husseys and Brown own property in Collier County and submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. The parties stipulated to the standing of FWF, Audubon, Vision & Faith, and Section 20 Investments. There also was evidence that FWF and Audubon submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments at both the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing and that, at least as of June 14, 2000, they owned property or operated a business in Collier County and had members who reside in Collier County. Century is a for-profit corporation that has its principal place of business in Collier County. Century owns 12.5 acres of land in Collier County. According to the testimony of Donald Lester, President of both Century and Waterford Management, Inc., Century is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Century Holdings, a limited partnership. Waterford is Century Holdings' general partner. Waterford, Century, and approximately 300 other entities are limited partners of Century Holdings. All of these entities and the land they own are managed by Waterford. According to Lester, the various Waterford-managed entities are involved in real estate development and have spent $42 million (over $30 million in "land basis" and $7-8 million on professional fees and expenses) acquiring land for development in Collier County, including approximately $36 million for approximately 3,500 acres in North Belle Meade (NBM) in the Rural Fringe and approximately $6 million for another approximately 2,000 acres farther east in Collier County. There was no evidence that these lands have obtained any master development approval or are otherwise vested for development. Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation having its principal place of business in Collier County. Lester is its Executive Director. There was no evidence that Coalition itself owns property or conducts any type of business activity in Collier County, other than commenting on the Rural Fringe Amendments and participating in these administrative proceedings. Coalition is comprised of approximately 2,000 members. Of these members, approximately 300 are the various entities making up the Century Holdings partnership and managed by Waterford. A total of approximately 320-350 Coalition members own property approximately 3,500 acres in NBM; there was no evidence that the other approximately 1,650 members own property or conduct business in Collier County. An unspecified number of members own approximately 2,000 acres to the east of NBM in Collier County. According to Lester, some members voluntarily donate money to the Coalition; others have "been supporting the proceedings" in some unspecified manner. Lester testified at final hearing that he commented on the Rural Fringe Amendments on behalf of both Century and Coalition during the adoption hearing. He indicated that he filled out and submitted a "speaker card" in order to give his comments and that the card indicated that he was speaking on behalf of both Coalition and Century; but the card was not placed in evidence. The only other evidence on the subject consisted of the transcript of that hearing, which records Lester's introductory statement as follows: "I represent a director of 15,000 coalition. I represent landowners that own property within the TDR area." The transcript also reflects that Robert Diffenderfer commented and stated: "I represent the 15,000 coalition and literally thousands of individuals. . . . On behalf of coalition and the individuals, I have the list here. There are 4,000 plus of them." While the list was not placed in evidence, it can be inferred from Lester's testimony that it would have included Century and the other Coalition members owning land in Collier County. Petitioners' Challenges Petitioners' challenges to the Rural Fringe Amendments were narrowed during the course of this proceeding and now are essentially: (1) whether the County's delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands, especially within the NBM portion of the Rural Fringe, is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data19; and (2) whether the TDR Program is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data, in particular as to the feasibility of its operation.20 Delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands A. Data and Analysis The process of delineating Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe was involved and complex. The County accumulated and considered a wide range of data in the process. Among the data sources used were: (1) the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD's) 1994/1995 Land Use/Land Cover map; (2) Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") soils survey data; (3) soils tables prepared by Florida soils scientist, Howard Yamataki; (4) the National Wetlands Inventory; (5) true-color aerial photographs provided by the County property appraiser's office; (6) the updated FWCC's "Closing the Gaps" Report; (7) FWCC's updated wildlife and wildlife habitat data, including its Florida panther and Florida black bear telemetry data and red-cockaded woodpecker colony data, as well as its updated strategic habitat data and Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA) maps; and (8) the 1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Multi- Species/Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team (MERIT) data for South Florida, in particular pertaining to the Florida panther. The County also actively solicited updated data from property owners and other members of the public. These opportunities for public input included numerous publicly- noticed meetings and hearings before the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee (52 to 53 meetings), the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. At all of these meetings, the public was invited to submit information to the County. On two occasions, notification was mailed to each property owner in the Rural Fringe, alerting them of the County's consideration of the amendments and inviting their input. The County posted signs on the two main roads entering the Rural Fringe, notifying the public of the on-going evaluation of the Rural Fringe and providing a contact name and telephone number for those wanting further information. The County also solicited information from the public via the County web page. Members of the public did submit information, some of which resulted in adjustments to the designations ultimately adopted. For example, the County received data from both Audubon and the Collier County School Board regarding red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat in the northeast corner of NBM. Similarly, Brown submitted information regarding some of his land holdings in NBM that was used in the ultimate delineation of boundaries between Receiving and Sending. The Husseys also submitted data that was considered. While all information submitted by the public was considered, not all resulted in a change in designation. For example, the County received information regarding jurisdictional wetland determinations on four separate properties and reviewed that information in order to determine whether there was a consistent correlation between jurisdictional determinations and the wetlands land cover information obtained from SFWMD. No consistent correlation was found. In two instances, the jurisdictional wetlands were larger than the area shown as wetlands land cover; in the other two, they were smaller. Despite ample opportunity, the only information submitted to the County by the Husseys was a limerock mining exploration contract on some of their property; Coalition and Century did not make any information available to the County between the transmittal and adoption hearings.21 In its analysis of the data, the County recognized that they were collected during different time periods, ranging from the 1980s through 2001. The soils data from NRCS, for example, was developed in the early 1990's from Landsat satellite imagery from 1985-1989, while the panther telemetry data reflected field data through the end of 2001. SFWMD's data was generated based upon false color infrared aerial photography and reflected changes in land cover through 1995.22 At the time of adoption of the Amendments on June 19, 2002, SFWMD's land use/land cover data was the most recent publicly-available depiction of land uses and land cover in the Rural Fringe.23 Petitioners take the position that the NRCS Soils Survey data was the most accurate data available because it was "ground-truthed." But the NRCS data did not depict land use cover; and it was not proven that the NRCS data accurately and reliably depicted vegetative cover.24 Petitioners also criticized the County for not "ground-truthing" the SFWMD data despite having knowledge of inaccuracies in its depiction of jurisdictional wetlands. But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, "ground-truthing" would have required the collection of additional data, as Petitioners' own expert conceded. See Conclusion 105, infra. The Husseys also argued in their PRO that the NRCS soils survey data should have been used instead of the SFWMD land use and cover data to delineate wetlands because it was "ground-truthed." But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, the NRCS data does not purport to identify jurisdictional wetlands and should not be used as a proxy for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands due to drainage activities, particularly in NBM. The Husseys had a Lower Tamiami (Aquifer) Recharge/ Discharge map and a map of the County's Wellfield Protection Zones admitted in evidence and argued in their PRO that the County failed to consider these data in delineating Sending Lands and Receiving Lands. To the contrary, the only evidence was that these maps were considered by the County's environmental specialists. Moreover, there was no evidence that these data were in any way inconsistent with the delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe. Having accepted the SFWMD land cover data as the most accurate indicator of land cover and land uses, the County "updated" Gaps Report maps of biodiversity hotspot areas (which were based upon 1980 satellite imaging) by removing areas shown on the more current SFWMD maps to have been cleared for agriculture by 1995 or 1996. Petitioners contended that "updating" the data in this manner made resulting data and analysis inaccurate and misleading by "masking" natural resource information. But those maps were intended to depict features on parts of the Rural Fringe not mapped as agricultural land use cover on SFWMD's land use cover maps. As such, these "updates" reflected the County’s reasonable determination that, while lands cleared for agricultural use can retain natural resource value, they generally have lower environmental and habitat value than uncleared wetland and forest. No evidence suggested that this judgment was unreasonable. The County's analysis resulted in sensible planning decisions that generally afforded undeveloped wetland or forested areas a higher level of protection than land that has been disturbed through agricultural clearing. Petitioners initially seemed to contend that the County failed to take into account changes in hydrology and wetland vegetative cover in NBM as a result of drainage canals and similar alterations. As the hearing progressed, however, it became clear that from the evidence that the County was aware of the changes in hydrology and vegetative cover in NBM and took those changes into account in its planning decisions. The best data and analysis available as of June 19, 2002, showed that NBM is utilized by both the Florida black bear and the Florida panther. The data and analysis indicate that both of these species make more use of areas to the east (the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gates Estates) and south (the (South) Belle Meade NRPA and largely undeveloped portions of Southern Golden Gates Estates). However, both panther and black bear access NBM from those areas by crossing Everglades Boulevard to the east and Interstate 75 to the south. A significant population of black bear uses NBM. FWCC lists the Florida black bear as a threatened species. Areas mapped by FWCC as strategic habitat statewide would support approximately five populations of approximately 200 individual black bears. (By comparison, FWCC ideally would like to maintain enough strategic habitat to support ten populations of 200 individuals, in part to reduce adverse impacts from natural disasters and genetic problems from inbreeding.) FWCC lists the Florida panther as an endangered species. It is one of the most endangered large mammals in the United States. Only approximately 80 to perhaps 100 panthers are thought to exist in the wild, all in south Florida. The Florida panther faces extinction unless "aggressive action" is taken for its protection. Panthers require large areas of habitat to survive in the wild. Depending on habitat quality, individual males require a home range of 100-150, 200-250, or even as much as 400 square miles; females have a smaller home range of approximately 50-70 square miles. Notwithstanding its general goal of maintaining ten populations of 200 individuals, FWCC's realistic goal for the Florida panther is to maintain current panther habitat and population. The (South) Belle Meade NRPA is considered Priority 1 Panther Habitat by FWCC. Other Priority 1 and Priority 2 Panther Habitat exists farther to the southeast and east. While NBM is not as good for panther habitat, radio telemetry data show that panthers also use NBM. Telemetry data show that panther use of NBM has increased in the last ten years. This could be due in part to the introduction of a female Texas cougar as part of FWCC's breeding program. NBM is currently within the home range of at least one male Florida panther and the introduced female Texas cougar. (Other use is possible, as only about a third of the animals in the population are collared for telemetry.) The female denned and gave birth to three kittens in NBM in 1998. It is possible that panthers frequented NBM in the late 1990's in part because a ranch lessee on Brown property in Section 21 was operating a deer-feeding station there. Panther telemetry data seem to have decreased after Brown required his lessee to cease those operations. However, while panther may have returned to those feeding stations because of the deer being attracted, they first had to have been in the area to become aware of the deer being attracted. This indicates some panther use of NBM prior to establishment of the feeding station. FWCC and United States Fish and Wildlife Service data also indicated to the County that red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) colonies existed in the old-growth forest areas that remain in the western part of NBM, nesting in cavities in these trees. There also were data that FWCC considered these lands to be RCW strategic habitat. To nest, RCWs need old-growth cavity trees in an area not overgrown with new growth. While there were data that drainage of land in NBM in the RCW strategic habitat area has resulted in invasion of melaleuca (a nuisance exotic species), RCW can continue to use the habitat and forage in and around the melaleuca unless the melaleuca blocks off the cavity tree. There were no data that RCW no longer use NBM due to melaleuca infestation. Much of the now-urbanized areas of Collier County once provided RCW habitat, but development has impaired the value of that land for RCW nesting and foraging. As with panther habitat, traditional RCW habitat has diminished under the current regulatory scheme, and additional protection is needed. The non-NRPA Sending Land in the western part of NBM is the last remaining viable RCW habitat that is not already in conservation status. In gathering and using data in the development of the Rural Fringe Amendments, the County was supported by various state agencies that informally reviewed and commented on the amendments. These agencies supported Collier's approach to the designation of Sending and Receiving Lands. It is found that the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data. Sending and Receiving Delineations in General Petitioners were most critical of the County's alleged exclusive use of the SFWMD vegetative and land use cover maps to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. But the evidence was clear that the County had no intention of designating Sending Lands solely on the basis of the presence of wetlands. See J.15 at 4 (identifying percentages of wetlands in each category, and showing that the County recognized there were wetlands in Receiving Lands and non-wetlands in Sending Lands). Petitioners' characterization of the County's effort was a gross oversimplification. It also was clear from the evidence that the County did not restrict its data and analysis to the SFWMD maps. Petitioners contended that the County ignored the actual boundary of natural features, such as wetlands, in delineating the boundaries of Sending and Receiving Lands. Instead, for planning purposes, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas as Sending and Receiving Lands, rather than creating a "Swiss cheese pattern" of intermixed Sending and Receiving Lands, designating isolated pockets of Sending within a large Receiving Area, and vice versa. This made sense from a planning perspective, for a number of reasons, including: (1) it permitted concentration of infrastructure, reducing infrastructure costs; (2) it allowed greater opportunity for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; (3) large, contiguous areas of habitat are necessary to support a viable population for some of the endangered species present in Collier County-- Florida panther, in particular; and (4) it prevented urban sprawl (in part because sufficient acreage must be available in order for higher density development feasible.) In some instances, the County chose to delineate the boundary between Sending and Receiving Lands with a straight, easily-defined line, rather than using the edge of some feature such as vegetative cover. This also made sense from a planning perspective. A straight boundary, such as a section line, is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature like vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that, as a result of the combined effect of its planning approach, Sending Lands would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive nor--apart from the land surrounding it--valuable habitat. Conversely, some relatively environmentally- sensitive lands would fall within a Receiving Land designation; however, it also recognized that these lands would remain subject to site-specific criteria imposed both by the County's Comprehensive Plan (e.g., amended CCE Policy 6.1.2 criteria for preservation of native vegetation and amended CCE Policy 6.2.3 criteria for protection of wetlands25) and by state and federal regulatory programs. It was not shown that these planning decisions lacked merit; at the very least, their merit is fairly debatable. NBM Delineations Distilled to its essence, the testimony of the natural resource experts called by Petitioners argued that the natural resource data and analysis available at the time of adoption did not justify distinguishing Sending, Receiving, and Neutral Lands in NBM. In other words, their position was that measures for protection of practically the entire NBM would be an appropriate response to the data and analysis on wetland and forest cover and habitat value for Florida panther, Florida black bear habitat, and RCW. But it also is at least fairly debatable that the County's inclusion of Receiving and Neutral Lands in NBM was an appropriate response to the totality of the data and analysis. The Rural Fringe Amendments themselves include the County's rationale for the North Belle Meade (NBM) Receiving designations. The Receiving Areas are generally located in the northern portion of NBM [North Belle Meade] Overlay and are generally contiguous to Golden Gate Estates. Two sections are directly to the south of the APAC Earth Mining Operation. The Receiving Area exhibits areas of less environmental sensitivity than other portions of the NBM Overlay, because of their proximity to Golden Gate Estates and prior clearing and disturbance to the land. Within the Receiving Area of the NBM Overlay, are located Sections 21, 28 and the west 1/4 of Sections 22 and 27, which have been largely assembled under one property ownership. These lands are located south of the existing APAC earth mining operation and have been largely impacted by agricultural operations. The location of Sections 21 and 28 is just to the south and west of Wilson Boulevard located in the southern portion of north Golden Gate Estates. Because an earth mining operation and asphalt plant uses have existed for many years in the area, and the surrounding lands in Sections 21, 28 and the western halves of Sections 22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of Transportation grade rock for road construction, these uses are encouraged to remain and expand. J.4 at 76-77. Section 20 (just west of Section 21) also was designated as Receiving. The southwestern corner of NBM, consisting of Sections 26 (Range 2626), 29, 30, 31, and 32, and the eastern half of Section 36 (Range 26) was designated as non-NRPA Sending, along with the southern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The southeastern corner (consisting of the eastern 3/4 of Sections 22 and 27, along with Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, and 36) was designated as NRPA Sending. The northwest corner (Section 24, Range 26) was designated Neutral, as was the northern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The 15,552 acres in NBM are surrounded on the south by the South Belle Meade (SBM) NRPA across Interstate 75; on the east by largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gate Estates (NGGE); on the north by a more developed portion of NGGE; and on the west by Urban Fringe future land use, which is sandwiched between NBM and more densely developed urban land use to the west. NGGE is the fastest-growing area of the County. It is part of a proposed sprawling, essentially single-use residential development. To date most actual development in NGGE has occurred in the western part of it, closer to more urban uses, and along Golden Gate Boulevard, which is the main east-west road in NGGE. Because the western part of NBM does not extend as far north as the eastern part, it is farther away from Golden Gate Boulevard and its development than the eastern part of NBM. In NBM, the SFWMD data showed practically all wetland cover with some upland forest interspersed in the six sections making up the southeast corner of NBM, as well as the next section to the southwest (Section 34). The section of land immediately to the north of Section 34 (Section 27) showed up as wetland cover over approximately the eastern half and agricultural use over approximately the western half of the section. The section north of 27 (Section 22) showed up as mostly wetland cover with some agricultural use in the northwest corner and some forested upland in the northeast corner. To the north of Section 22 was a section (number 15) with a mix of urban use, agriculture, wetland, and forested upland cover. Proceeding to the east, Section 14 showed up as mostly forested upland, and Section 13 in the northeast corner with mostly wetland cover with some agriculture. The opposite (far western) side of NBM was shown to have approximately eight sections of land with predominately forest land use cover, interspersed with some wetland and agricultural use. Down the center of NBM are four sections shown by the SFWMD data to have, from north to south: (1) predominately, earth mines and mine pit lakes (Section 16); (2) predominately agriculture (Section 21); (3) a mix of agricultural, forested upland, and wetland cover (Section 28); and (4) approximately half forested (the southwest half) and half wetland cover (the northeast half) (Section 33). Of importance for planning purpose, Wilson Boulevard intersects Golden Gate Boulevard and extends south to the edge of NBM at a point approximately 500 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 16. There are plans to extend Wilson Boulevard south into NBM 500 feet west of the eastern boundaries of Sections 16, 21, 28, and 33. Co-location of infrastructure within the right-of-way of the Wilson Boulevard extension would make sense from a planning standpoint. Allowing development to proceed elsewhere in NBM would exacerbate urban sprawl. It also would be possible to locate rural village North Belle Meade near the proposed Wilson Boulevard extension so that public infrastructure could be provided to both the rural village and the existing residents of NGGE. While Section 20 includes both cleared and uncleared areas, it abuts NGGE on the north and west and other Receiving Land on the east. For that reason, the County considered it to be appropriate for future development. Section 28 also includes a "mixed bag" of habitat features and agriculture. However, the remaining forested areas are less valuable as habitat because they are surrounded by agriculture. In addition, prior to the date of adoption, an application had been filed to allow mining in Sections 20 and 28, as well as in Sections 21 and 27. The permit authorizing this mining was issued in December 2002. Once land is disturbed by mining, it loses its value as panther habitat. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the County judged Section 28 to be more appropriately designated as Receiving. The designation of the western quarters of Sections 22 and 27 as Receiving resulted both from the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed property in those areas and from their location in relation to the planned extension of Wilson Boulevard. This proximity to a planned, future transportation corridor was an important factor in identifying areas appropriate for development. Initially, all of the western part of NBM was to be designated as non-NRPA Sending Lands because of the RCW data. But the County School Board and Audubon furnished additional data pertaining to the extreme northwest section (Section 24, Range 26), which resulted in the ultimate designation of the land as Neutral. Even apart from any environmental or habitat distinctions, there are other valid land use planning reasons for the County's Receiving designations. The proximity of the NBM Receiving Lands to the most populous portion of NGGE makes them appropriate for future, mixed-use development. (In contrast, the part of NGGE near the NBM NRPA is not as densely developed and is not growing as fast as the part immediately north of the NBM Receiving Area.) Since NGGE is a large, single-use residential development, residents are currently required to travel great distances for commercial and other services. By encouraging more compact, mixed-use development in the part of NBM immediately adjacent to the most populous part of NGGE, the County hopes to address this dearth of ancillary, commercial, and institutional uses for the present residents of NGGE, as well as the future residents of NBM. In addition, the NBM Receiving Area is located so as to facilitate an extension of sewer and water service along Golden Gate Boulevard and, from there, into NBM. Recognizing that, with updated data, some of these delineations may need adjustment, the County made specific provision in the amendments for owners of Sending and Neutral Lands to submit additional data in support of a change in designation. J.4 at 61. In summary, it is found that the County's delineations of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe, and in NBM in particular, were based on data and analysis--i.e., they reacted appropriately to the extensive data available to the County on the date of adoption--and accomplish the County's objectives, including protection of environmentally sensitive land and habitat, control of urban sprawl, and successful implementation of the TDR program, which required maintenance of an adequate ratio between Sending and Receiving Lands. See Findings 72-91, infra. At the very least, the delineations are fairly debatable; and the contentions of Coalition, Century, and the Husseys to the contrary are rejected. TDR Program The County recognized that the additional restrictions on much of the property within areas designated as Sending may have an effect on property values. As a consequence, the County included a transfer of development rights ("TDR") program in the Rural Fringe Amendments. The Amendments describe the purpose of the TDR program as follows: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetlands systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and within designated areas of the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving on the Future Land Use Map, subject to [certain expressly delineated criteria] . . . . J.4 at 50-51. The County's TDR program is an innovative land planning technique that is intended to enhance the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, provide for cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services, and prevent urban sprawl. J.4 at 50. It is designed to give property owners an incentive to protect their property from development while receiving a return in value through the sale of development rights. In so doing, it also serves as a land management technique to direct development from areas where it is not desired, while preserving the value of that area. TDR programs balance the protection of areas incompatible with development with the preservation of private property rights. They are also recognized as a development tool for overcoming urban sprawl. Through the TDR Program, the owners of Receiving- designated property may increase the allowable residential density on their property by purchasing or otherwise obtaining development credits transferred from property designated as Sending. Forty acres of property in Sending--while assigned an allowable density of only one residential unit--is worth eight development credits (one credit for each five acres). J.4 at 58. The specifics of the TDR program, including the process for the "sale" of development rights and the tracking of these transactions, are to be established by the County in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs) within one year. The specific dollar value of a TDR credit will ultimately be decided by the marketplace. Based on a study of land sales in Collier County, the County's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, concluded that a single credit would probably be worth approximately $18,500. Dr. Henry Fishkind, the expert called by Coalition and Century, agreed that this figure is supported by sales data in the area. For example, a property owner with 40 acres in a Sending area could build one residence on that property, or he could sell eight TDR credits to someone who plans to develop a more compact development in a Receiving Area. J.4 at 58-59. If the Sending Land owner elects the latter, he retains ownership of his property and may still utilize it for certain specifically identified purposes, including agriculture, passive parks, passive recreational uses, certain essential services, and oil extraction. J.4 at 60-61. A property owner with 40 acres in a Receiving area could build eight residences on that property without purchasing any development credits, or he could purchase 32 TDR credits and build 40 residences. Once he has obtained enough TDR credits to achieve this one-to-one density, he could further increase his residential density slightly by preserving more than the minimum required native vegetation on site. J.4 at 51. Dr. Nicholas warned that an excess supply of TDR credits, relative to the amount of Receiving Land available to receive those credits, would undermine the success of the TDR program. The ratio of Receiving Land to Sending Land is critical. Dr. Nicholas prefers a ratio of at least two acres of Receiving Land to each acre of Sending. This ratio is not achieved within the Rural Fringe. Rather, the ratio is approximately 1:1 (25,729 acres of Receiving to 23,720 acres of Sending). See J.15 at 4 (which lists the acreages within each category). Taking into consideration Sending Lands that are already developed, Dr. Nicholas testified that approximately 4,100 TDR credits would be generated from the Sending Lands. Approximately 6,100 credits could be absorbed in the Receiving areas, where densities of up to one unit per acre--an increase of four additional units--can be achieved through a purchase of TDR credits. J.4 at 51. In order to bolster the demand for TDR credits, the Rural Fringe Amendments include a number of other additional markets for credits. First, the amendments provide for a limited transfer of TDR credits outside of the Rural Fringe for two purposes: (1) in-fill in the Urban Area on parcels of 20 acres or less; and (2) transfer from areas within one mile of the Urban boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe. J.4 at 34-35. These two options will create a market for approximately 1,000 additional TDR credits (250 as urban in-fill and 750 in the urban fringe.) In addition, the Amendments provide a market for TDR credits for the development of rural villages. See Findings 11-13, supra, for description of rural villages. Rural villages must be at least 300 acres in size, up to a maximum of 1,500 acres, with the exception that a rural village located south of the (South) Belle Meade NRPA, which is south of Interstate 75, may be as large as 2,500 acres. The minimum and maximum gross densities for a rural village outside NBM are two units per acre and three units per acre, respectively. J.4 at 63. Thus, a rural village outside NBM must include at least 600 residential units, but could have as many as 4,500 or 7,500, depending upon its location. For each TDR credit purchased for the development of a rural village, the purchaser receives one bonus, up to the minimum required density, and the minimum density can only be achieved through the combination of base density, TDR credits, and TDR bonuses. J.4 at 64. Additional density--up to the maximum of three units per acre--can be achieved through the purchase of more TDR credits, through the preservation of more native vegetation on site than the minimum required, and/or through the inclusion of affordable housing. J.4 at 64. Consequently, for a rural village of 1,500 acres outside NBM, the developer would need to build at least 3,000 dwellings (2 units per acre). Assuming that the rural village is surrounded by a 800-acre greenbelt,27 it would start with a base density of 460 units28 and would need to purchase 1,270 TDR credits in order to achieve his minimum density of two units per acre. The provisions applicable to the one rural village permitted in NBM differ slightly. There, the minimum gross density is 1.5 units per acre, of which at least 0.5 units per acre must be obtained through the purchase of TDRs. J.4 at Assuming the same 1,500-acre development with an 800-acre greenbelt as described above, the developer would need to acquire 1,790 units more than would be available through the combined base densities of the village itself and the greenbelt in order to achieve minimum density.29 Of these additional units, 750 would have to be obtained through the purchase of TDR credits. Recognizing that there will probably be no more than two or three rural villages developed, Dr. Nicholas estimated that rural villages will absorb between 4,000 and 7,500 TDR credits, with the greater probability that the absorption rate will be closer to the lower number. Thus, in combination with the other markets for TDR credits created by the amendments, Dr. Nicholas estimated that there will be a demand for approximately 11,100 credits, resulting in a more acceptable ratio of just under three units of demand to one unit of supply. In their PRO, the Husseys attempted to raise the specter that the Amendments create too large a market for TDR credits so as to trigger Dr. Nicholas' concerns that, in that situation, potential transfers would be frustrated because TDR prices would rise to levels making their use infeasible for potential users, including developers of rural villages. But the Husseys based their concerns on maximum potential absorption of TDR credits, raising the supposed ratio of TDR buyers to sellers to 7-to-1 (or even 8-to-1 by disregarding the Urban Fringe one-mile limitation described in Finding 82, supra). The greater weight of the evidence was that the realistic market for TDR credits will be much smaller than the maximum potential absorption rates. Taking the realistic market into account, the probable actual absorption ratio is not much more than 2-to-1, which is ideal according to Dr. Nicholas. It also should be noted that the Husseys' arguments run counter to the testimony of their own expert on the subject. Dr. Fishkind agreed with Dr. Nicholas that there will be a functioning market for TDR credits generated from the Sending Areas, that the County’s TDR program is economically feasible, and that the County has the capacity to administer it. In addition, the Amendments include specific provisions requiring the County to establish a process for evaluating the TDR program. J.4 at 62. The purpose of such monitoring will be to assess whether revisions, such as the addition of either more Sending or Receiving Land or a change in the value of TDR credits, are necessary to ensure the success of the program. In concept, the success of the TDR program in achieving the objectives of directing development away from some areas and toward others, while preserving value in the former, is at least fairly debatable. The program's actual success in achieving these objectives initially hinges upon whether the County has appropriately designated Receiving and Sending Lands. If necessary, changes can be made to improve the program and increase its chances of success.
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 Collier County's Rural Fringe Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments 00-1, 97-4, and 01-7 adopted by Ordinance No. 598 on September 25, 2001, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Sally O'Connell (O'Connell), Donna Melzer (Melzer), and Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. (MCCA), contend that three amendments (Amendments 00-01, 01-7, and 97-4) to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent, Martin County (County), are not in compliance. Amendment 00-01 makes certain textual changes to the Economic Element and Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. Amendments 01-7 (also known as the Blydenstein amendment) and 97-4 (also known as the Seven J amendment) amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by changing the land use designation on property owned by Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein (Blydenstein), and Seven J's Investments, Inc., from Mobile Home Residential and Medium Density Residential, respectively, to General Commercial. The parties agree that the validity of Amendments 01-7 and 97-4 is contingent on whether Amendment 00-01 is in compliance. On September 25, 2001, the County approved Ordinance No. 598, which adopted the foregoing amendments and three other FLUM amendments not relevant to this dispute. On November 16, 2001, Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments, issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. In addition, an external review of the amendments was conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of State, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Except for minor objections by DOT, which were satisfactorily resolved, no objections were filed by any reviewing agency. On December 7, 2001, as later amended on December 20, 2001, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the plan amendments. As reflected in their unilateral Pre-Hearing Statement, Petitioners contend that: The data and analysis for the amendments was not available to the public throughout the review and adoption process. The conclusions about supply and demand for commercial land uses that underlie the adoption of the amendments to the Economic and Future Land Use Elements, and the "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis. Instead of a deficit of, and need for, land available for commercial uses, there is a surplus of land available for such uses. The "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by data and analysis concerning the availability of infrastructure, the character of the land and the need for redevelopment. The approval of these FLUM amendments is inconsistent with several provisions of Ch. 163, Fla. Stat., Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Martin County Comprehensive Plan. These allegations may be grouped into three broad categories: that the data and analysis was not available for public inspection throughout the adoption process; (2) that the plan amendments are not based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis; and (3) that the Blydenstein and Seven J amendments are not supported by data and analysis as they relate to infrastructure, character of land, and need for redevelopment and thus are inconsistent with relevant statutes, Department rules, and Comprehensive Plan provisions. Although Petitioners have not addressed the first allegation in their Proposed Recommended Order, and have apparently abandoned that issue, in an abundance of caution, a brief discussion of that matter is presented below. The parties The Department is the state land planning agency responsible for reviewing and approving comprehensive plan amendments by local governments. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the local government which enacted the three plan amendments under review. The overall size of the County is approximately 538 square miles, with agricultural uses on 72 percent of the land, residential uses on 16 percent of the land, public conservation uses on 6.5 percent of the land, and other uses (such as commercial, industrial, and institutional) on the remaining 5.5 percent of the land. The current population is around 125,300 residents. Blydenstein is the owner of the property that is the subject of Amendment 01-7. He submitted oral and written comments concerning Amendment 01-7 to the County during its adoption. Melzer is a former County Commissioner who resides and owns property within the County. She is also the chairperson and member of the board of directors for MCCA. Melzer presented comments in opposition to all three amendments during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. O'Connell has resided and owned property in the County since 1984. She presented comments to the County in opposition to Amendments 00-01 and 97-4 (but not to Amendment 01-07) during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit corporation first organized in 1965 and later incorporated in 1997 to advocate and promote the protection of the natural environment and quality of life in the County. The specific purpose of the corporation is to "conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County, and to work to these ends." The corporation holds monthly meetings and annual forums to educate its members and others about issues related to the County's growth management. In prior years, it has actively participated in the development of the County's Comprehensive Plan and actively advocated for a public land acquisition program in the County. Presently, there are 104 individual members (of whom 99 reside in the County), 9 delegates at large, and 20 corporate and non-profit corporate members. The latter group includes such organizations as 1000 Friends of Florida, the Marine Resources Council, and the Citizens Stormwater Protection Group, who also have individual members residing within the County. The parties have stipulated that MCCA made comments to the County in opposition to the three amendments and that a substantial number of MCCA members own businesses within the County. The record also shows that MCCA's Board of Directors passed an appropriate resolution authorizing MCCA to file this action. Intervenor, the Economic Council of Martin County (ECMC), is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to dedicated to building a quality community which provides a healthy economy and protects the quality of life and to encourage the planned growth of the County. Like the MCCA, the ECMA has actively participated in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Its members are individuals and businesses who reside, own property, and operate businesses within the County. The ECMC made comments to the County in support of the three amendments during the adoption of those amendments. The Amendments Amendment 00-01 represents a policy change by the County and amends the text of the Economic Element and FLUE to change the methodology for determining the need for commercial land within the County. Prior to the amendment, the County used a supply-demand equation based upon an "acreage per population" methodology to determine the amount of commercial land use necessary to serve the County. Under the old methodology, relevant portions of the FLUE, in conjunction with various provisions in the Economic Element, were used to establish a supply-demand equation that would determine whether the projected need for commercial lands by a future population of the County could be met by the current amount of designated lands. If the result of the equation was a surplus of commercial lands, that factor alone would require the denial of any request to redesignate land for commercial use, regardless of any other factor or circumstance. According to the repealed text of the Plan, this methodology produced a 1,131-acre surplus of commercial lands for the year 2010. The County proposes to use a more flexible policy and guideline type of review to make this need determination. Rather than projecting future demand for commercial land based solely on a numerical calculation, the County will make that determination based on a number of factors which must be weighed together, such as suitability, location, compatibility, community desire, and numerical need. It also proposes to change the manner in which numerical need is determined. Under the new methodology, the County will now use jobs and the amount of land needed to support those jobs. Put another way, commercial demand will be based on the projected number of jobs in the future. Using the new methodology, and after adding a 25 percent market factor, the County projects that in the year 2015 there will be a commercial land deficit of 112 acres. To accomplish this change in policy, the amendment alters the text of the Economic Element and FLUE by moving some language from the goals, objectives, or policies sections of the elements to preliminary sections that contained summaries of the data and analysis relied upon for each element. It also eliminates certain language from the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements, or from the preceding sections containing summaries of data and analysis, where such language was redundant and already appeared elsewhere in the Plan. In contrast to the former provision, the new amendment makes a finding that "the raw data appears to show that there is a significant deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs if Martin County's ten year trend toward retail/service jobs continues." Amendment 01-07 pertains to a 27.8-acre triangular- shaped tract of land located less than a mile south of the center of the urban area of Indiantown, a small community in the southwestern part of the County. The property, which lies within the County's Primary Urban Service District, is bounded on the north by State Road 76, a major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Stuart, on the west by State Road 710, another major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties, and on the east by Southwest Indiantown Avenue, which connects State Roads 76 and 710. The site is surrounded by vacant property, including Agriculture-designated land on three sides, and Estate Density Residential on the other. Immediately north of State Road 76 lies the C-44 Canal, a major waterway that connects Lake Okechobeee with the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. A two-lane bridge (with no pedestrian walkway) provides automobile access from Indiantown to the Blydenstein property. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Mobile Home Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Even though the property is designated for use as a mobile home park, the property has been vacant and undeveloped for more than 20 years and is used principally for cattle grazing. The Seven J property consists of 2.99 acres located just west of Jensen Beach in the northern part of the County at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard, both major arterial roadways. The property is adjacent to a partially built Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as the West Jensen DRI and is virtually surrounded by other commercial uses. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Medium Density Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Presently, a nursery, older residential homes, rental property, and wetlands are found on the property; the nearby property is primarily made up of both developed and undeveloped commercial land. Availability of Data and Analysis Rule 9J-5.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires in part that "[a]ll background data, studies, surveys, analyses, and inventory maps not adopted as part of the comprehensive plan shall be available for public inspection while the comprehensive plan is being considered for adoption and while it is in effect." Relying upon this provision, Petitioners have contended in their Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation that the County failed to make such data and analysis "available to the public throughout the review and adoption process." At least one general source of data that was used by County experts was not physically present in the County offices for inspection by the public during the adoption process. That derivative data source was entitled "CEDDS 2000: the Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source" and was prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, a Washington, D.C. consulting firm. The data source was used by one of the County's experts (Dr. Nelson) "to generate [the] demand numbers" in his technical report. In order to inspect and review this data, Petitioners, like the County or any other interested person, would have had to purchase a copy from the authors. However, all of the data and analyses accumulated or generated by the County staff were available for public inspection during the time between the transmittal and adoption of the amendments under review. Further, Petitioners did not show how they were prejudiced by the failure of the County to maintain the Woods and Poole data in their offices. The Department does not construe the foregoing rule as narrowly as Petitioners, that is, that every piece of data relied upon by a local government must be physically present in the jurisdiction of the local government. Indeed, the Department has never found a plan amendment out of compliance solely on the basis that data was not physically located at a local government's offices. Rather, it construes the rule more broadly and considers the rule to have been satisfied so long as data and analyses are "available for public inspection," even if this means that derivative source data such as the Woods and Poole report must be purchased from out- of-state sources. Were the plan amendments based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis? Petitioners contend that the plan amendments "are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis." As to this contention, Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth a general directive that all plan provisions "be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element." In addition, the same rule requires that the data must be "collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." Petitioners contend that the County's collection of data to support the amendments, and its analysis of that data, was not professionally acceptable, as required by the rule. More specifically, Petitioners contend that the County undercounted the commercial land inventory used in projecting future need by omitting between 80 and 100 acres of undeveloped commercial land from the West Jensen DRI, by failing to count commercial development allowed in industrial- designated lands, and by failing to include 30 acres of land at the Witham Field airport which remains available for commercial development. They also contend that the County inadvertently failed to include more than 60 acres that were placed in the Commercial category by amendments to the FLUM in 1995 and 1996 and which remain undeveloped and available for new commercial development. In support of the amendments, the County submitted to the Department more than 1,000 pages of supporting materials and maps, including 384 pages related to the FLUM amendments, 642 pages of revised supporting data for the text amendments, and 89 pages of public comments. In choosing the sources of data to support the plan, the County used generally accepted, nationally available data as the basis for its review and revision of the Plan. After reviewing the foregoing material, the Department found such data and analysis to be relevant and appropriate. The County also generated extensive data from locally available information that is unique to the County, such as an inventory of the lands within the County that are designated for Commercial uses on the FLUM, but do not yet have any developed commercial uses on them. As to one of Petitioners' contentions, the County agrees that its staff inadvertently omitted 60.4 acres of commercial property which was changed to that designation by certain 1995-96 FLUM amendments. However, the greater weight of evidence shows that this omission was not significant in terms of the overall collection of data, and it did not render the gathering of the other data as professionally unacceptable. Petitioners go on to contend that the analysis of the data (in determining the supply inventory) was flawed for a number of reasons. First, they argue that the undeveloped portions (around 70 acres or so) of the West Jensen DRI that are commercially-designated land should have been included in the commercial land inventory. The West Jensen DRI is an approximately 180-acre residential/commercial development with a large commercial component. Even though specific site plans have not been issued for some of the undeveloped property, the County excluded all of the undeveloped acreage because the property is dedicated under a master plan of development, and therefore it would be inappropriate to include it as vacant inventory. On this issue, the more persuasive evidence shows that the treatment of undeveloped land in a DRI (subject to a master plan of development) is a "close call" in the words of witness van Vonno, and that it is just as professionally acceptable to exclude this type of undeveloped land from vacant commercial inventory as it is to include it. Therefore, by excluding the West Jensen DRI land from its inventory count, the County's analysis of the data was not flawed, as alleged by Petitioners. The Plan itself does not allow commercial uses within the Industrial land category. However, the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permit certain commercial uses on Industrial lands when done pursuant to specific overlay zoning. While the County (at the urging of the Department) intends to review (and perhaps repeal) these regulations in 2003, and possibly create a new mixed-use category, there are now instances where commercial uses are located on Industrial lands by virtue of the LDRs. Because of this anomaly, Petitioners contend that the County's analysis of the data was flawed because it failed to count vacant, surplus lands in the Industrial land use category that are available for commercial development. Except for arbitrarily allocating all undeveloped industrial land to the commercial category, as Petitioners have proposed here, the evidence does not establish any reasonable basis for making an industrial/commercial division of industrial-designated lands for inventory purposes. Indeed, no witness cited to a similar allocation being made in any other local government's comprehensive plan as precedent for doing so here. In those rare instances where the Plan itself permits multiple uses in a single land category, such as Commercial Office/Residential (an office and multi-family land use designation), the County used a supply figure that was derived from estimating how much land in this category was developed commercially as opposed to residential and allocating acreage from the category based on that percentage. No party has suggested that such a methodology be used here, particularly since the mixed use categories are distinguishable from single land use categories, such as Industrial and Commercial. Moreover, the County has demonstrated a conscious effort to separate these two types of land uses (industrial and commercial) into separate and distinct categories, they are depicted separately on the County's FLUM, and the Plan has separate locational criteria for the siting of these lands. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the County's analysis of the data was not flawed (or professionally unacceptable) because it failed to include undeveloped industrial lands in the commercial inventory. Petitioners next contend that the County erred in its commercial inventory count by failing to include around 30 acres of vacant land located at Witham Field, a local airport. Under the present zoning scheme at the airport, only aviation- related commercial uses are allowed, and thus the vacant land cannot be used for any other commercial purpose. Further, the airport is designated Institutional on the land use map, rather than Industrial, and it would be inappropriate to count vacant institutional lands in the commercial land inventory. Therefore, the exclusion of the Witham Field land from the commercial inventory did not render the County's analysis of the data professionally unacceptable. Finally, the remaining contentions by Petitioners that the County understated its supply inventory for both commercial and industrial property have been considered and rejected. In summary, it is found that the amendments are based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses, and that the data was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. The Blydenstein FLUM Amendment Petitioners generally contend that there is no demonstrated need for the Blydenstein parcel to be redesignated as General Commercial, that the amendment is not based upon data and analysis, that the County failed to coordinate the land use with the availability of facilities and services, that the amendment is inconsistent with redevelopment and infill policies, and that the amendment encourages urban sprawl. The Blydenstein amendment reclassifies 28 acres to commercial use and will amount to 36 percent of the existing commercial development in downtown Indiantown. In terms of need, the County projects that only 17 acres of commercial development will be needed in Indiantown through the year 2015, and there presently exist around 186 acres of undeveloped commercial acreage in that community. At the same time, Amendment 00-01 reflects a deficit of 112 acres of commercial land in the County during the same time period. Although the local and countywide demand calculations are seemingly at odds, at least in the Indiantown area, there will be a surplus of unused commercial lands through the end of the current planning horizon, and thus there from that perspective there is no need for an additional 28 acres of commercial property in that locale. Notwithstanding a lack of numerical need, that consideration is not the sole factor in determining whether the amendment should be approved. As noted earlier, in addition to need, the County considers such factors as the suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community desires in making this determination. Here, the subject property is suitable for commercial development because of its location on two major arterial roadways and its ready access to a railroad and major waterway. Further, the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, which is an area specifically designated for more intense, urban development. In addition, the current land use designation allows 8 residential units per acre, which is an "urban" type of designation. Finally, because there is vacant, undeveloped property surrounding the subject property, the redesignation of the property to General Commercial will not pose a compatibility problem with any residential areas. When these considerations are weighed with the need factor, it is found that the proposed land use change is appropriate. The existing land use designation of Mobile Home Residential is a carryover land use designation which recognized the mobile home use that occurred on the property when the future land use maps were originally created. At the present time, all mobile home use has ceased and the property is vacant. The nearest residential neighborhood is located to the north across State Road 76 beyond the Canal and is at least 600 feet away. Because of the property's configuration and immediate proximity to major arterial roads, railroad tracks, and a canal, the greater weight of evidence shows that it is not suitable for residential development. These considerations support the County's determination that the property has been inappropriately designated as residential for more than a decade. Although the County did not conduct formal studies to determine whether the public facilities and services will be capable of serving the proposed change in land use, a general analysis of the availability and adequacy of public facilities was performed by its staff. That analysis reflects that the property lies within the service area of a local water and sewer utility and has access to two major roadways. Based on its proximity to major roadways and local public utilities, the County does not anticipate that the change in land use will adversely impact public facilities and services. To ensure that this does not occur, the County will require a traffic impact analysis at the time the parcel is submitted for development review. Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., Florida Administrative Code, requires that a plan "[d]iscourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Leapfrog development is a form of urban sprawl and typically means leaping over a lower density development and placing higher density development just beyond the lower density development. Given the location of the Blydenstein property within the Primary Urban Services District, and the adjacent major arterial roads, railroad, and canal, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed land use change will not constitute leapfrog development. The change in land use will not promote, allow, or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns; it will not result in the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land; it will not discourage or inhibit infill or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods; it will not result in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses; and it will not result in a loss of significant amounts of functional open space. In the absence of these indicators, it is found that the amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. The Seven J FLUM Amendment Like the Blydenstein amendment, Petitioners likewise contend that there is a lack of demonstrated need for the Seven J amendment; that the amendment lacks data and analysis; that the County failed to coordinate with the availability of services; that the amendment will promote urban sprawl; and that the amendment is internally inconsistent. The Seven J property is surrounded by the partially built-out West Jensen DRI, is located within the County's Primary Urban Services District, and is considered to be in a "regional hub" of activity, that is, within the core of major commercial development in the northern part of the County. Further, it is located on an eight-lane road at a major intersection (U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard). Therefore, the change is compatible with surrounding existing and planned commercial uses, and the County's redesignation of the property from Medium Density Residential (8 units per acre) to General Commercial is appropriate. Further, the greater weight of evidence shows that because the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, is near existing commercial and residential development, and urban services are already provided, the Amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. Finally, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the amendment is internally consistent and based on adequate data and analysis, contrary to Petitioners' assertions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Martin County Plan Amendments 00-01, 01-07, and 97-4 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Environmental and Land Use Center, Inc. 3305 College Avenue Shepard Broad Law Center Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7721 Joan P. Wilcox, Esquire 2336 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, PMP 110 Stuart, Florida 34986 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David A. Acton, Esquire Office of County Attorney 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3322 Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Shuster & Russell, P.A. 145 Northwest Central Park Plaza, Suite 200 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986-2482 Linda R. McCann, Esquire Royal Palm Financial Center 789 South Federal Highway, Suite 310 Stuart, Florida 34994-2962
